B.C. Hydro predicts 'bottleneck' as electric-vehicle demand ramps-up

Clean Electricity Standard drives Biden's infrastructure, grid decarbonization, and utility mandates, leveraging EPA regulation, renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture via reconciliation to reach 80% clean power by 2030 amid partisan Congress.

Key Points

A federal mandate to reach 80% clean U.S. power by 2030 using incentives and EPA rules to speed grid decarbonization.

✅ Targets 80% clean electricity by 2030 via Congress or reconciliation

✅ Mix of renewables, nuclear, gas with carbon capture allowed

✅ Backup levers: EPA rules, incentives, utility planning shifts

The true measure of President Biden’s climate ambition may be the clean electricity standard he tucked into his massive $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending plan.

Its goal is striking: 80% clean power in the United States by 2030.

The details, however, are vague. And so is Biden’s plan B if it fails—an uncertainty that’s worrisome to both activists and academics. The lack of a clear backup plan underscores the importance of passing a clean electricity standard, they say.

If the clean electricity standard doesn’t survive Congress, it will put pressure on the need to drive climate policy through targeted spending, said John Larsen, a power system analyst with the Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm.

“I don’t think the game is lost at all if a clean electricity standard doesn’t get through in this round,” Larsen said. “But there’s a difference between not passing a clean electricity standard and passing the right spending package.”

In his few months in office, Biden has outlined plans to bring the United States back into the international Paris climate accord, pause oil and gas leasing on public lands, boost the electric vehicle market, and target clean energy investments in vulnerable communities, including plans to revitalize coal communities across the country, most affected by climate change.

But those are largely executive orders and spending proposals—even as early assessments show mixed results from climate law—and unlikely to last beyond his administration if the next president favors fossil fuel usage over climate policy. The clean electricity standard, which would decarbonize 80% of the electrical grid by 2030, is different.

It transforms Biden’s climate vision from a goal into a mandate. Passing it through Congress makes it that much harder for a future administration to undo. If Biden is in office for two terms, the United States would see a rate of decarbonization unparalleled in its history that would set a new bar for most of the world’s biggest economies.

But for now, the clean electricity standard faces an uncertain path through Congress and steep odds to getting enacted. That means there’s a good chance the administration will need a plan B, observers said.

Exactly what kind of climate spending can pass Congress is the very question the White House and congressional Democrats will be working on in the next few months, including upgrades to an aging power grid that affect renewables and EVs, as the infrastructure bill proceeds through Congress.

Negotiations are fraught already. Congress is almost evenly split between a party that wants to curtail the use of fossil fuels and another that wants to grow them, and even high energy prices have not necessarily triggered a green transition in the marketplace.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that “100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration.” He made similar comments at the start of the Obama administration and blocked climate policy from getting through Congress. He also said last week that no Republican senators would vote for Biden’s infrastructure spending plan.

A clean electricity standard has been referred to as the “backbone” of Biden’s climate policy—a way to ensure his policies to decarbonize the economy outlast a future president who would seek to roll back his climate work. Advocates say hitting that benchmark is an essential milestone in getting to a carbon-free grid by 2035. Much of President Obama’s climate policy, crafted largely through regulations and executive orders, proved vulnerable to President Trump’s rollbacks.

Biden appears to have learned from those lessons and wants to chart a new course to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. He’s using his majority in the House and Senate to lock in whatever he can before the 2022 midterms, when Democrats are expected to lose the House.

To pass a clean electricity standard, virtually every Democrat must be on board, and even then, the only chance of success is to pass a bill through the budget reconciliation process that can carry a clean electricity standard. Some Senate Democrats have recently hinted that they were willing to split the bill into pieces to get it through, while others are concerned that although this approach might win some GOP support on traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, it would isolate the climate provisions that make up more than half of the bill.

The most durable scenario for rapid electricity-sector decarbonization is to lock in a bipartisan clean electricity standard into legislation with 60 votes in the Senate, said Mike O’Boyle, the director of electricity policy for Energy Innovation. Because that’s highly unlikely—if not impossible—there are other paths that could get the United States to the 80% goal within the next decade.

“The next best approach is to either, or in combination, pursue EPA regulation of power plant pollution from existing and new power plants as well as to take a reconciliation-based approach to a clean electricity standard where you’re basically spending federal dollars to provide incentives to drive clean electricity deployment as opposed to a mandate per se,” he said.

Either way, O’Boyle said the introduction of the clean electricity standard sets a new bar for the federal government that likely would drive industry response even if it doesn’t get enacted. He compared it to the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s initiative to limit power plant emissions. Even though the plan never came to fruition, because of a Clean Power Plan rollback, it left a legacy that continues years later and wasn’t negated by a president who prioritized fossil fuels over the climate, he said.

“It never got enacted, but it still created a titanic shift in the way utilities plan their systems and proactively reposition themselves for future carbon regulation of their electricity systems,” O’Boyle said. “I think any action by the Biden administration or by Congress through reconciliation would have a similar catalytic function over the next couple years.”

Some don’t think a clean electricity standard has a doomed future. Right now, its provisions are vague. But they can be filled in in a way that doesn’t alienate Republicans or states more hesitant toward climate policy, said Sally Benson, an engineering professor at Stanford University and an expert on low-carbon energy systems. The United States is overdue for a federal mandate that lasts through multiple administrations. The only way to ensure that happens is to get Republican support.

She said that might be possible by making the clean electricity standard more flexible. Mandate the goals, she said, not how states get there. Going 100% renewable is not going to sell in some states or with some lawmakers, she added. For some regions, flexibility will mean keeping nuclear plants open. For others, it would mean using natural gas with carbon capture, Benson said.

While it might not meet the standards some progressives seek to end all fossil fuel usage, it would have a better chance of getting enacted and remaining in place through multiple presidents, she said. In fact, a clean electricity standard would provide a chance for carbon capture, which has been at the center of Republican climate policy proposals. Benson said carbon capture is not economical now, but the mandate of a standard could encourage investments that would drive the sector forward more rapidly.

“If it’s a plan that people see as shutting the door to nuclear or to natural gas plus carbon capture, I think we will face a lot of pushback,” she said. “Make it an inclusive plan with a specific goal of getting to zero emissions and there’s not one way to do it, meaning all renewables—I think that’s the thing that could garner a lot of industrial support to make progress.”

In addition to industry, Biden’s proposed clean electricity standard would drive states to do more, said Larsen of the Rhodium Group. Several states already have their own version of a clean energy standard and have driven much of the national progress on carbon emissions reduction in the last four years, he said. Biden has set a new benchmark that some states, including those with some of the biggest economies in the United States, would now likely exceed, he said.

“It is rare for the federal government to get out in front of leading states in clean energy policy,” he said. “This is not usually how climate policy diffusion works from the state level to the federal level; usually it’s states go ahead and the federal government adopts something that’s less ambitious.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Offshore Wind Amendments streamline offshore energy regulators in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, enabling green hydrogen, submerged land licences, regional assessments, MPAs standards, while raising fisheries compensation, navigation, and Indigenous consultation considerations.

Key Points

Reforms assign offshore wind to joint regulators, enable seabed licensing, and address fisheries and Indigenous issues.

✅ Assigns wind oversight to Canada-NS and Canada-NL offshore regulators

✅ Introduces single submerged land licence and regional assessments

✅ Addresses fisheries, navigation, MPAs, and Indigenous consultation

Canada's offshore accords with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are being updated to promote development of offshore wind farms, but it's not clear yet whether any compensation will be paid to fishermen displaced by wind farms.

Amendments introduced Tuesday in Ottawa by the federal government assign regulatory authority for wind power to jointly managed offshore boards — now renamed the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator.

Previously the boards regulated only offshore oil and gas projects.

The industry association promoting offshore wind development, Marine Renewables Canada, called the changes a crucial step.

"The tabling of the accord act amendments marks the beginning of, really, a new industry, one that can play a significant role in our clean energy future," said  Lisen Bassett, a spokesperson for Marine Renewables Canada. 

Nova Scotia's lone member of the federal cabinet, Immigration Minister Sean Fraser, also talked up prospects at a news conference in Ottawa.

'We have lots of water'

"The potential that we have, particularly when it comes to offshore wind and hydrogen is extraordinary," said Fraser.

"There are real projects, like Vineyard Wind, with real investors talking about real jobs."

Sharing the stage with assembled Liberal MPs from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador was Nova Scotia Environment Minister Tim Halman, representing a Progressive Conservative government in Halifax.

"If you've ever visited us or Newfoundland, you know we have lots of water, you know we have lots of wind, and we're gearing up to take advantage of those natural resources in a clean, sustainable way. We're paving the way for projects such as offshore wind, tidal energy in Nova Scotia, and green hydrogen production," said Halman.

Before a call for bids is issued, authorities will identify areas suitable for development, conservation or fishing.

The legislation does not outline compensation to fishermen excluded from offshore areas because of wind farm approvals.

Regional assessments

Federal officials said potential conflicts can be addressed in regional assessments underway in both provinces.

Minister of Natural Resources of Canada Jonathan Wilkinson said fisheries and navigation issues will have to be dealt with.

"Those are things that will have to be addressed in the context of each potential project. But the idea is obviously to ensure that those impacts are not significant," Wilkinson said.

Speaking after the event, Christine Bonnell-Eisnor, chair of what is still called the Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, said what compensation — if any — will be paid to fishermen has yet to be determined.

"It is a question that we're asking as well. Governments are setting the policy and what terms and conditions would be associated with a sea bed licence. That is a question governments are working on and what compensation would look like for fishers."

Scott Tessier, who chairs  the Newfoundland Board, added "the experience has been the same next door in Nova Scotia, the petroleum sector and the fishing sector have an excellent history of cooperation and communication and I don't expect it look any different for offshore renewable energy projects."

Nova Scotia in a hurry to get going

The legislation says the offshore regulator would promote compensation schemes developed by industry and fishing groups linked to fishing gear.

Nova Scotia is in a hurry to get going.

The Houston government has set a target of issuing five gigawatts of licences for offshore wind by 2030, with leasing starting in 2025, reflecting momentum in the U.S. offshore wind market as well. It is intended largely for green hydrogen production. That's almost twice the province's peak electricity demand in winter, which is 2.2 gigawatts.

The amendments will streamline seabed approvals by creating a single "submerged land" licence, echoing B.C.'s streamlined process for clean energy projects, instead of the exploration, significant discovery and production licences used for petroleum development.

Federal and provincial ministers will issue calls for bids and approve licences, akin to BOEM lease requests seen in the U.S. market.

The amendments will ensure Marine Protected Area's  (MPAs) standards apply in all offshore areas governed by the regulations.

Marine protected areas

Wilkinson suggested, but declined, three times to explicitly state that offshore wind farms would be excluded from within Marine Protected Areas.

After this story was initially published on Tuesday, Natural Resources Canada sent CBC a statement indicating offshore wind farms may be permitted inside MPAs.

Spokesperson Barre Campbell noted that all MPAs established in Canada after April 25, 2019, will be subject to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans new standards that prohibit key industrial activities, including oil and gas exploration, development and production.

"Offshore renewable energy activities and infrastructure are not key industrial activities," Campbell said in a statement.

"Other activities may be prohibited, however, if they are not consistent with the conservation objectives that are established by the relevant department that has or that will establish a marine protected area."

Federal impact assessment process

The new federal impact assessment process will apply in offshore energy development, and recent legal rulings such as the Cornwall wind farm decision highlight how courts can influence project timelines.

For petroleum projects, future significant discovery licences will be limited to 25 years replacing the current indefinite term.

Existing significant discovery licences have been an ongoing exception and are not subject to the 25-year limit. Both offshore energy regulators will be given the authority to fulfil the Crown's duty to consult with Indigenous peoples

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Cascadia electrification accelerates renewable energy with wind and solar, EVs, heat pumps, and grid upgrades across British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon to decarbonize power, buildings, and transport at lower cost while creating jobs.

Key Points

Cascadia electrification is the shift to renewable grids, EVs, and heat pumps replacing fossil fuels.

✅ Wind and solar scale fast; gas and coal phase down

✅ EVs and heat pumps cut fuel costs and emissions

✅ Requires grid upgrades, policy, and social acceptance

Fifty years ago, a gasoline company’s TV ads showed an aging wooden windmill. As the wind died, it slowed to stillness. The ad asked: “But what do you do when the wind stops?” For the next several decades, fossil fuel providers and big utilities continued to denigrate renewable energy. Even the U.S. Energy Department deemed renewables “too rare, too diffuse, too distant, too uncertain and too ill-timed” to meaningfully contribute, as a top agency analyst put it in 2005.

Today we know that’s not true, especially in British Columbia, Washington and Oregon.

New research shows we could be collectively poised to pioneer a climate-friendly energy future for the globe — that renewable electricity can not only move Cascadia off of fossil fuels, but do so at an affordable price while creating some jobs along the way.

After decades of disinformation, this may sound like a wishful vision. But building a cleaner and more equitable economy — and doing so in just a few decades to head off the worst effects of climate change — is backed by a growing body of regional and international research.

Getting off fossil fuels is “feasible, necessary… and not very expensive” when compared to the earnings of the overall economy, said Jeffrey Sachs, an economist and global development expert at Columbia University.

Much of the confidence about the price tag comes down to this: Innovation and mass production have made wind and solar power installations cheaper than most fossil-fuelled power plants and today’s fastest-growing source of energy worldwide. The key to moving Cascadia’s economies away from fossil fuels, according to the latest research, is building more, prompting power companies to invest in carbon-free electricity as our go-to “fuel.”

However, doing that in time to help head off a cascading climatic crisis by mid-century means the region must take major steps in the next decade to speed the transition, researchers say. And that will require social buy-in.

The new research highlights three mutually supporting strategies that squeeze out fossil fuels:

Chefs and foodies are well-known fans of natural gas. Why, “Cooking with gas” is an expression for a reason. But one trendy Seattle restaurant-bar is getting by just fine with a climate-friendly alternative: electric induction cooktops.

Induction “burners” are just as controllable as gas burners and even faster to heat and cool, but produce less excess heat and zero air pollution. That made a huge difference to chef Stuart Lane’s predecessors when they launched Seattle cocktail bar Artusi 10 years ago.

Using induction meant they could squeeze more tables into the tight space available next door to Cascina Spinasse — their popular Italian restaurant in Seattle’s vibrant Capitol Hill neighborhood — and lowered the cost of expanding.

Rather than igniting a fossil fuel to roast the surface of pots and pans, induction burners generate a magnetic field that heats metal cookware from inside. For people at home, forgoing gas eliminates combustion by-products, which means fewer asthma attacks and other health impacts.

For Artusi, it eliminated the need for a pricey hood and fans to continuously pump fumes and heat out and pull fresh air in. That made induction the cheaper way to go, even though induction cooktops cost more than conventional gas ranges.

Over the years, they’ve expanded the menu because even guests who come for the signature Amari cocktails often stay for the handmade pasta, meatballs and seasonal sauces. So the initial pair of induction burners has multiplied to nine. Yet Artusi retains a cleaner, quieter and more intimate atmosphere. Yet thanks largely to the smaller fans, “it’s not as chaotic,” said Lane.

And Lane adds, it feels good to be cooking on electricity — which in Seattle proper is about 90 per cent renewable — rather than on a fossil fuel that produces climate-warming greenhouse gases. “You feel like you’re doing something right,” he said.

Lane says he wouldn’t be surprised if induction is the new normal for chefs entering the trade 10 years from now. “They probably would cook with gas and say, ‘Damn it’s hot in here!’” — Peter Fairley

This story is supported in part by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

increasing energy efficiency to trim the amount of power we need,

boosting renewable energy to make it possible to turn off climate-wrecking fossil-fuel plants, and

plugging as much stuff as possible into the electrical grid.
Recent studies in B.C. and Washington state, and underway for Oregon, point to efficiency and electrification as the most cost-effective route to slashing emissions while maintaining lifestyles and maximizing jobs. A recent National Academies of Science study reached the same conclusion, calling electrification the core strategy for an equitable and economically advantageous energy transition, while abroad New Zealand's electrification push is asking whether electricity can replace fossil fuels in time.

However, technologies don’t emerge in a vacuum. The social and economic adjustments required by the wholesale shift from fossil fuels that belch climate-warming carbon emissions to renewable power can still make or break decarbonization, according to Jim Williams, a University of San Francisco energy expert whose simulation software tools have guided many national and regional energy plans, including two new U.S.-wide studies, a December 2020 analysis for Washington state and another in process for Oregon.

Williams points to vital actions that are liable to rile up those who lose money in the deal. Steps like letting trees grow many decades older before they are cut down, so they can suck up more carbon dioxide — which means forgoing quicker profits from selling timber. Or convincing rural communities and conservationists that they should accept power-transmission lines crossing farms and forests.

“It’s those kinds of policy questions and social acceptance questions that are the big challenges,” said Williams.

Washington, Oregon and B.C. already mandate growing supplies of renewable power and help cover the added cost of some electric equipment, and across the border efforts at cleaning up Canada's electricity are critical to meeting climate pledges. These include battery-powered cars, SUVs and pickups on the road. Heat pumps — air conditioners that run in reverse to push heat into a building — can replace furnaces. And, at industrial sites, electric machines can take the place of older mechanical systems, cutting costs and boosting reliability.

As these options drop in price they are weakening reliance on fossil fuels — even among professional chefs who’ve long sworn by cooking with gas (see sidebar: Cooking quick, clean and carbon-free).

“For each of the things that we enjoy and we need, there’s a pathway to do that without producing any greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jotham Peters, managing partner for Vancouver-based energy analysis firm Navius Research, whose clients include the B.C. government.

What the modelling tells us

Key to decarbonization planning for Cascadia are computer simulations of future conditions known as models. These projections take electrification and other options and run with them. Researchers run dozens of simulated potential future energy scenarios for a given region, tinkering with different variables: How much will energy demand grow? What happens if we can get 80 per cent of people into electric cars? What if it’s only 50 per cent? And so on.

Accelerating the transition requires large investments, this modelling shows. Plugging in millions of vehicles and heat pumps demands both brawnier and more flexible power systems, including more power lines and other infrastructure such as bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap that communities often oppose. That demands both stronger policies and public acceptance. It means training and apprenticeships for the trades that must retrofit homes, and ensuring that all communities benefit — especially those disproportionately suffering from energy-related pollution in the fossil fuel era.

Consensus is imperative, but the new studies are bound to spark controversy. Because, while affordable, decarbonization is not free.

The Meikle Wind Project in BC’s Peace River region, the province’s largest, with 61 turbines producing 184.6 MW of electricity, went online in 2017. Photo: Pattern Development.
Projections for British Columbia and Washington suggest that decarbonizing Cascadia will spur extra job-stimulating growth. But the benefits and relatively low net cost mask a large swing in spending that will create winners and losers, and without policies to protect disadvantaged communities from potential energy cost increases, could leave some behind.

By 2030, the path to decarbonization shows Washingtonians buying about $5 billion less worth of natural gas, coal and petroleum products, while putting even more dollars toward cleaner vehicles and homes. No surprise then that oil and gas interests are attacking the new research.

And the research shows a likely economic speed bump around 2030. Economic growth would slow due to increased energy costs as economies race to make a sharp turn toward pollution reductions after nearly a decade of rising greenhouse gas emissions.

“Meeting that 2030 target is tough and I think it took everybody a little bit by surprise,” said Nancy Hirsh, executive director of the Seattle-based NW Energy Coalition, and co-chair of a state panel that shaped Washington’s recent energy supply planning.

But that’s not cause to ease up. Wait longer, says Hirsh, and the price will only rise.

Charging up

What most drives Cascadia’s energy models toward electrification is the dropping cost of renewable electricity.

Take solar energy. In 2010, no large power system in the world got more than three per cent of its electricity from solar. But over the past decade, solar energy’s cost fell more than 80 per cent, and by last year it was delivering over nine per cent of Germany’s electricity and over 19 per cent of California’s.

Government mandates and incentives helped get the trend started, and Canada's electricity progress underscores how costs continue to fall. Once prohibitively expensive, solar’s price now beats nuclear, coal and gas-fired power, and it’s expected to keep getting cheaper. The same goes for wind power, whose jumbo jet-sized composite blades bear no resemblance to the rickety machines once mocked by Big Oil.

In contrast, cleaning up gas- or coal-fired power plants by equipping them to capture their carbon pollution remains expensive even after decades of research and development and government incentives. Cost overruns and mechanical failures recently shuttered the world’s largest “low-carbon” coal-fired power plant in Texas after less than four years of operation.

Retrofits enabled this coal-fired plant in Texas to capture some of its carbon dioxide pollution, which was then injected into aging oil wells to revive production. But problems made the plant’s coal-fired power — which is being priced out by renewable energy — even less competitive and it was shut down after three years in 2020. Photo by NRG Energy.
Innovation and incentives are also making equipment that plugs into the grid cheaper. Electric options are good and getting better with a push from governments and a self-reinforcing cycle of performance improvement, mass production and increased demand.

Battery advances and cost cuts over the past decade have made owning an electric car cheaper, fuel included, than conventional cars. Electric heat pumps may be the next electric wave. They’re three to four times more efficient than electric baseboard heaters, save money over natural gas in most new homes, and work in Cascadia’s coldest zones.

Merran Smith, executive director of the Vancouver-based non-profit Clean Energy Canada, says that — as with electric cars five years ago — people don’t realize how much heat pumps have improved. “Heat pumps used to be big huge noisy things,” said Smith. “Now they’re a fraction of the size, they’re quiet and efficient.”

Electrifying certain industrial processes can also cut greenhouse gases at low cost. Surprisingly, even oil and gas drilling rigs and pipeline compressors can be converted to electric. Provincial utility BC Hydro is building new transmission lines to meet anticipated power demand from electrification of the fracking fields in northeastern British Columbia that supply much of Cascadia’s natural gas.

Simulating low-carbon living

The computer simulation tools guiding energy and climate strategies, unlike previous models that looked at individual sectors, take an economy-wide view. Planners can repeatedly run scenarios through sophisticated software, tinkering with their assumptions each time to answer cross-cutting questions such as: Should the limited supply of waste wood from forestry that can be sustainably removed from forests be burned in power plants? Or is it more valuable converted to biofuel for airplanes that can’t plug into the grid?

Evolved Energy Research, a San Francisco-based firm, analyzed the situation in Washington. Its algorithms are tuned using data about energy production and use today — down to the number and types of furnaces, stovetops or vehicles. It has expert assessments of future costs for equipment and fuels. And it knows the state’s mandated emissions targets.

Researchers run the model myriad times, simulating decisions about equipment and fuel purchases — such as whether restaurants stick with gas or switch to electric induction “burners” as their gas stoves wear out. The model finds the most cost-effective choices by homes and businesses that meet the state’s climate goals.

For Seattle wine bar Artusi, going with electric induction cooktops meant they could squeeze more tables into a tight, comfortable space. Standard burners cost less but would have required noisy, pricey fume hoods and fans to suck out the pollutants. For more, see sidebar. Photo: InvestigateWest.
Rather than accepting that optimal scenario and calling it a day, modellers account for uncertainty in their estimates of future costs by throwing in various additional constraints and rerunning the model.

That probing shows that longer reliance on climate-warming natural gas and petroleum fuels increases costs. In fact, all of the climate-protecting scenarios achieve Washington’s goals at relatively low cost, compared to the state’s historic spending on energy.

The end result of these scenarios are net-zero carbon emissions in 2050, echoing Canada's race to net-zero and the growing role of renewable energy, in which a small amount of emissions remaining are offset by rebounding forests or equipment that scrubs CO2 from the air.

But the seeds of that transformation must be sown by 2030. The scenarios identify common strategies that the state can pursue with low risk of future regrets.

One no brainer is to rapidly add wind and solar power to wring out CO2 emissions from Washington’s power sector. The projections end coal-fired power by 2025, as required by law, but also show that, with grid upgrades, gas-fired power plants that produce greenhouse gas emissions can stay turned off most of the time. That delivers about 16.2 million of the 44.8 million metric tons of CO2 emissions cut required by 2030 under state law.

All of the Washington scenarios also jack up electricity consumption to power cars and heating. By 2050, Washington homes and businesses would draw more than twice as much power from the grid as they did last year, meaning climate-friendly electricity is displacing climate-unfriendly gasoline, diesel fuel and natural gas. In the optimal case, electricity meets 98 per cent of transport energy in 2050, and over 80 per cent of building energy use.

By 2050, the high-electrification scenarios would create over 60,000 extra jobs across the state, as replacing old and inefficient equipment and construction of renewable power plants stimulates economic growth, according to projections from Washington, D.C.-based FTI Consulting. Scenarios with less electrification require more low-carbon fuels that cut emissions at higher cost, and thus create 15,000 to 35,000 fewer jobs.

Much of the new employment comes in middle-class positions — including about half of the total in construction — leading to big boosts in employment income. Washingtonians earn over $7 billion more in 2050 under the high-electrification scenarios, compared to a little over $5 billion if buildings stick with gas heating through 2050 and less than $2 billion with extra transportation fuels.

Rocketing to 2030

Evolved Energy’s electrification-heavy decarbonization pathways for Washington dovetail with a growing body of international research, such as that National Academy of Sciences report and a major U.S. decarbonization study led by Princeton University, and in Canada debates like Elizabeth May's 2030 renewable grid goal are testing feasibility. (See Grist’s 100 per cent Clean Energy video for a popularized view of similar pathways to slash U.S. carbon emissions, informed by Princeton modeller Jesse Jenkins.)

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Kootenay Lake Electric-Ready Ferry advances clean technology in BC, debuting as a hybrid diesel-electric vessel with shore power conversion planned, capacity and terminal upgrades to cut emissions, reduce wait times, and modernize inland ferry service.

Key Points

Hybrid diesel-electric ferry replacing MV Balfour, boosting capacity, and aiming for full electric conversion by 2030.

✅ Doubles vehicle capacity; runs with MV Osprey 2000 in summer

✅ Hybrid-ready systems installed; shore power to enable full electric

✅ Terminal upgrades at Balfour and Kootenay Bay improve reliability

An electric-ready ferry for Kootenay Lake is scheduled to begin operations in 2023, aligning with first electric passenger flights planned by Harbour Air, the province announced in a Sept. 3 press release.

Construction of the $62.9-million project will begin later this year, which will be carried out by Western Pacific Marine Ltd., reflecting broader CIB-supported ferry investments in B.C. underway.

“With construction beginning here in Canada on the new electric-ready ferry for Kootenay Lake, we are building toward a greener future with made-in-Canada clean technology,” said Catherine McKenna, the federal minister of infrastructure and communities.

The new ferry — which is designed to provide passengers with a cleaner vessel informed by advances in electric ships and more accessibility — will replace and more than double the capacity of the MV Balfour, which will be retired from service.

“This is an exciting milestone for a project that will significantly benefit the Kootenay region as a whole,” said Michelle Mungall, MLA for Nelson-Creston. “The new, cleaner ferry will move more people more efficiently, improving community connections and local economies.”

Up to 55 vehicles can be accommodated on the new ship, and will run in tandem with the larger MV Osprey 2000 to help reduce wait times, a strategy also seen with Washington State Ferries hybrid-electric upgrades, during the summer months.

“The vessel will be fully converted to electric propulsion by 2030, once shore power is installed and reliability of the technology advances for use on a daily basis, as demonstrated by Harbour Air's electric aircraft testing on B.C.'s coast,” said the province.

They noted that they are working to electrify their inland ferry fleet by 2040, as part of their CleanBC initiative.

“The new vessel will be configured as a hybrid diesel-electric with all the systems, equipment and components for electric propulsion,” they said.

Other planned projects include upgrades to the Balfour and Kootenay Bay terminals, and minor dredging has been completed in the West Arm.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Chinese EV Makers in Europe target the EU market with electric SUVs, battery swapping, competitive pricing, and subsidies, led by NIO, Xpeng, MG, and BYD, starting in Norway amid Europe's zero-emissions push.

Key Points

Chinese EV makers expanding into EU markets with tech, pricing, and lean retail to gain share.

✅ Early launches in Norway leverage EV incentives

✅ Compete via battery swapping, OTA tech, and price

✅ Mix of importers, online sales, and lean dealerships

China's electric carmakers are darting into Europe, hoping to catch traditional auto giants cold and seize a slice of a market supercharged by the continent's EV transition towards zero emissions.

Nio Inc (NIO.N), among a small group of challengers, launches its ES8 electric SUV in Oslo on Thursday - the first foray outside China for a company that is virtually unheard of in Europe even though it's valued at about $57 billion.

Other brands unfamiliar to many Europeans that have started selling or plan to sell cars on the continent include Aiways, BYD's (002594.SZ) Tang, SAIC's (600104.SS) MG, Dongfeng's VOYAH, and Great Wall's (601633.SS) ORA.

Yet Europe, a crowded, competitive car market dominated by famous brands, has proved elusive for Chinese carmakers in the past. They made strategic slips and also contended with a perception that China, long associated with cheap mass-production, could not compete on quality.

Indeed, Nio Chief Executive William Li told Reuters he foresees a long road to success in a mature market where it is "very difficult to be successful".

Chinese carmakers may need up to a decade to "gain a firm foothold" in Europe, the billionaire entrepreneur said - a forecast echoed by He Xiaopeng, CEO of electric vehicle (EV) maker Xpeng (9868.HK) who told Reuters his company needs 10 years "to lay a good foundation" on the continent.

These new players, many of which have only ever made electric vehicles, believe they have a window of opportunity to finally crack the lucrative market.

While electric car sales in the European Union more than doubled last year and jumped 130% in the first half of this year, even as threats to the EV boom persist, traditional manufacturers are still gradually shifting their large vehicle ranges over to electric and have yet to flood the thirsty market with models.

"The market is not that busy yet, if you compare it with combustion-engine models where each of the major carmakers has a whole range of vehicles," said Alexander Klose, who heads the foreign operations of Chinese electric vehicle maker Aiways.

"That is where we think we have an opportunity," he added on a drive around Munich in a U5, a crossover SUV on sale in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, where new EV rules are aimed at discouraging purchases of Chinese models.

The U5 starts at 30,000 euros ($35,000) in Germany - below the average new car price and most local EV prices - before factoring in 9,000 euros in EV subsidies, though France's EV incentives have tightened for Chinese models - and comes in just four colours and two trim levels to minimize costs.

'GERMAN PEOPLE BUY GERMAN CARS'
As Chinese carmakers gear up to enter Europe, they are trying out different business models, from relying on importers, low-cost retail options or building up more traditional dealerships.

The new reality that top Western carmakers like BMW (BMWG.DE) and Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) now produce cars in technological powerhouse China, where the EV market is intensely competitive, has likely undermined past perceptions of low quality workmanship - though they can be hard to shake.

Antje Levers, a teacher who lives in western Germany near the Dutch border, and her husband owned a diesel Chevrolet Orlando but wanted a greener option. They bought an Aiways U5 last year after plenty of research to fend off criticism for not buying local, and loves its handling and low running costs.

She said people had told her: "You can't buy a Chinese car, they're plastic and cheap and do not support German jobs." But she feels that is no longer true in a global car industry where you find German auto parts in Chinese cars and vice versa.

"German people buy German cars, so to buy a Chinese car you need to have a little courage," the 47-year-old added. "Sometimes you just have to be open for new things."

NIO LANDS IN NORWAY WITH NOMI
Nio launches its ES8 electric SUV alongside a NIO House - part-showroom, part-cafe and workspace for customers in the capital of Norway, a country that's also the initial base for Xpeng.

Norwegian state support for EVs has put the country at the forefront of the shift to electric. It makes sense as a European entry point because customers are used to electric vehicles so only have to be sold on an unknown Chinese brand, said Christina Bu, secretary general of the Norwegian EV Association.

"If you go to another European country you may struggle to sell both," said Bu, adding that her organisation has talked extensively with a number of Chinese EV makers keen to learn market specifics and consumer culture before launching there.

She is uncertain, though, how consumers will react to Nio's approach of swapping out batteries for customers rather than stopping to charge them, a contrast to other EV battery strategies in the industry, or the carmaker's strategy of leasing rather than selling batteries to customers.

"But where the Chinese are really at the forefront is the technology," she added, referring in particular to Nomi, the digital assistant in the dashboard of Nio's cars.

NEWCOMERS' STRATEGIES DIVERGE
One size does not fit all. While Nio and Xpeng have been hiring staff building up their organizations in Norway, SAIC's MG works through a car importer to sell cars in a handful of European markets.

Aiways is trying an lower-cost approach to selling cars in Europe, though Klose says it varies by market.

In Germany, for instance, the company sells its cars through Euronics, an association of independent electronics retailers, rather than building traditional dealerships.

It aims to sell across the EU by next year and to enter the U.S. market by 2023, said Klose, a former Volvo and Ford executive.

Past failed attempts by Chinese carmakers to conquer Europe are unlikely to hurt Chinese EV makers today, as consumers have grown accustomed to electronics coming from China, he added.

Such failures included Brilliance in 2007, whose vehicle received one out of five stars in a German car crash test, damaging the brand.

"The fact there are more Chinese carmakers entering the market will also help us, as it will make Chinese brands more accepted by consumers," Klose said.

Selling cars to Europeans is a "tough business, especially if your product isn't well known," said Arnie Richters, chairman of Brussels-based industry group Platform for Electromobility.

"But if they bring a lot of innovation they have a lot of opportunity."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Battery CO2 depends on electricity mix and factory efficiency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We rate this claim Mostly False.    

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News