These comparisons are complicated by the widely varying prices of electricity and gasoline across Canada, as well as differences in how utilities charge for electricity.  When forecasting over 10 years, it’s best not to take anything for granted so we didn’t factor in the current Federal government’s carbon tax scheduled increases, which reach $50/tonne by 2022. If we had included this, it would have added $917 to the cost of the internal combustion engine option over a decade. (See Face-off rules at bottom to see the rest of assumptions we made).

We picked the Honda Fit with the second-highest trim, the EX, to compete with the Bolt LT. The two vehicles offer similar features, but no navigation. That’s because the Bolt offers navigation only as an extra-cost option on its $49,800 Premier trim, while you can get it on a Fit for $24,390. With that price difference the Bolt wouldn’t stand a chance in the race.

The electric contender

CHEVY BOLT

Photo: Chevrolet

Natural Resources Canada classification: Small wagon

The story: When Chevrolet launched the Bolt late in 2016, the company proclaimed it the first affordable EV with a range of 383 kilometres.  That number meant drivers could do more than commute in the car without worrying about running out of juice. The only car that could run farther between charges was the Tesla Model S, which, for most drivers, was anything but affordable.

The Bolt is still pricey for a small car: Its rock-bottom Canadian list price is $44,880, although the new federal incentive, as well as those in Quebec and B.C., bring that cost down.

Other carmakers are catching up to the Bolt in range, value and price. For now, though, it sits at No. 3 in EV sales behind the Model S and the revamped Nissan Leaf in Canada (which we reviewed last month) and No. 2 in the United States.

The gas-powered competitor

HONDA FIT

Photo: Honda

Natural Resources Canada classification: Small wagon

The story: The Fit, introduced here in 2006 and now in its third generation, has been popular. Although, like most small vehicles, sales have been dropping.

Honda introduced a Fit EV back in 2010 that had a 20 kWh battery and a range of 130 kilometres. But the company committed to producing only 1,000 vehicles, offered only on lease in a handful of U.S. states and stopped production when it reached the quota.

A new Fit EV, with a 300-kilometre range, is promised for next year. The U.S. price is supposed to be under the equivalent of $26,000 (Cdn), which, if true, would change the price equation.

The face-off

Number crunching: So what are the real-world costs of ownership over 10 years? Here’s a bill for both cars.

Bottom line: The Bolt will be a slight jolt to the budget costing an extra $4,391 compared to the Fit, but you can take some solace in knowing that your personal carbon footprint would be 37.4 tonnes tonnes lighter than if you had burned ten years of gasoline in the Fit.

Face-off rules

1. EV and ICE vehicles are compared according to Natural Resources Canada’s classifications.
2. Initial cost is the vehicle’s suggested retail price, for the base model EV and the ICE’s trim that most compares in features. Canada’s national average sales tax is used (11.075%). Delivery charges and dealer fees are not included. Each vehicle is kept for 10 years, so depreciation is 100%.
3. Fuel/power calculations are based on Natural Resources Canada (kWh/100km, L/100km combined HW/city).
4. Each vehicle is driven 20,000 kilometres per year — the “rule of thumb” cited by Statistics Canada.
5. The gasoline price is $1.28 per litre (latest CAA national average gas prices. The electricity cost is 10 cents per kilowatt/hour (population-weighted average electricity bill per province per 1000 kWh including taxes assuming majority of charging occurs during off-peak hours in NFLD, AB and ON).
6. The lifetime maintenance and repair cost for an EV is about 50% that of an internal-combustion vehicle: $100 per month as an average for the ICE, based on data from Canada Drives Ltd.
7. The $5,000 federal subsidy is deducted from the EV price. Provincial incentives — up to $8,000 in Quebec and $5,000 in B.C. — are not included, but EVs clearly fare much better in those provinces.
8. The ICE buyer pays cash. The EV buyer pays the same amount in cash and borrows the cost difference at 5% interest, with a 72-month term.
9. The cost of a Level 2 charging station, estimated at $1,745 ($995 plus $750 to install) is included as an additional cost (based on FLO Home™ system which retails for $995 with an average installation cost of $750). It is technically not needed, but since EVs take up to 60 hours to charge at Level I, it’s virtually a necessity.
10. Tailpipe CO2 emissions based on NRCAN stats of grams/kilometre converted to tonnes (with assumption of 200,000 kilometres driven). We also counted the upstream emissions of producing, transporting, and refining crude oil into gasoline. EV emissions based on Canada’s electricity generation intensity with a national average of 140 g CO2/kWh (NRCAN). Note this is not a full lifecycle emissions calculation due to lack of readily available data by vehicle for emissions related to raw material production, manufacturing, transportation and decommissioning. Analyses that include these factors find that EVs have higher emissions footprints associated with sourcing some of the raw materials required for the battery, but on an overall lifecycle basis in low GHG intensity grid regions, an EV’s carbon footprint is about one-quarter that of its internal combustion engine counterparts.

The post Car face-off: How the Honda Fit and Chevy Bolt compete on price appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The first concern is easing as batteries gain capacity and efficiency. For the latest generation, range exceeds 200 kilometres and some claim more than 400.

Determining range is tricky enough, since it’s heavily impacted by driving style, load, terrain and temperature.

Cost calculations are even more complex. Common wisdom is that electric vehicles (EVs) are more expensive to buy than alternatives powered by internal combustion engines (ICEs), but cheaper to fuel and maintain. As a result, EV advocates argue, it’s only fair to calculate total costs over a vehicle’s lifetime.

But, as we shall see, that’s easier said than done.

Our aim here is to compare the total cost of ownership, or TCO, of Canada’s top-selling ICE vehicles with battery-powered alternatives of similar size, features and quality.

The category leaders are the Honda Civic sedan, Toyota RAV4 compact SUV, and, this country’s sales champion, Ford’s F-150 pickup truck.

To challenge the Civic, we chose the revamped Nissan Leaf S. Hyundai’s new Kona Electric takes on the RAV4. And, up against the F-150 is … well, nothing. At least, not yet. A few manufacturers are developing battery-powered pickups, but none will go on sale before the end of 2020 and their performance specifications remain sketchy.
TCO comparisons assume EVs have higher purchase or lease costs, including price, taxes and interest. Their fuel should be cheaper, in part because battery power is more efficient than internal combustion. With fewer lubricants and moving parts, and less wear on brakes, they ought to cost less to maintain – although experts disagree on how much less.

“Maintenance costs are largely unknown,” says Steve McCauley, senior director, policy, at environmental research and advocacy group Pollution Probe. “We’re still dealing with the first generation of EVs on the road.”

“It’s difficult to assign maintenance values because every person’s maintenance cycle is different based on frequency of use, road conditions in their area, weather conditions in their area, and so on,” says Brian Miller, communications co-ordinator at Plug’n Drive, a Toronto-based non-profit committed to accelerating the adoption of EVs.

But the deeper we dig, the more complex comparisons become.

Purchase price seems simple, except that while comparisons are usually based on suggested retail price, most manufacturers offer a wide range of discounts, which can even be influenced by a buyer’s bargaining skills. Interest rates vary from bank to bank and dealer to dealer, and with a buyer’s credit rating. Financing costs depend on those rates, as well as on how much the buyer borrows rather than pays in cash.

The cost of batteries – the main reason for EVs’ higher price – keeps falling. When the first Leaf hit the streets, it was about $1,000 per kilowatt-hour of capacity. It’s now around $200, and further drops will change the cost equation.

Fuel costs are, literally, all over the map. Gasoline prices vary from province to province, and can rise and fall dramatically. Electricity rates tend to be more stable but differ widely from place to place. In addition, most jurisdictions offer time-of-use rates, which generally mean you pay less if you consume electricity during off-peak times. One result is that per kilometre driven, electricity is occasionally more expensive than gasoline.

With all this in mind, we’ll plug some numbers into a TCO analysis worksheet – the most useful we found – developed by Tom Lombardo, a retired professor of engineering technology and now president of Tohoca, a communications company in Rockford, Illinois.

Here are our assumptions:

• We use each vehicle’s suggested retail price, for models that are usually a step up from basic. HST or its equivalent is set at 12%. We did not include delivery charges or other dealer fees or, for EVs, the cost of a battery charger.
• Calculations are based on manufacturers’ claims for range and Natural Resources Canada’s Fuel Consumption Guide.
• Each vehicle is driven 20,000 kilometres per year, the “rule of thumb” cited by Statistics Canada.
• The gasoline price is $1.20 per litre, roughly the current average in Canada’s largest markets. The electricity cost is 8.7 cents per kWh, the off-peak price in Ontario, based on the assumption that EV owners recharge their vehicles at home overnight.
• Based on data from Pollution Probe and Edmunds.com, a leading industry analyst, the lifetime maintenance and repair cost for an EV is about 75% that of an internal-combustion vehicle. We used $100 per month as an average for the ICE, based on data from Canada Drives.
• Repair and insurance costs are about equal.
• The ICE buyer pays all cash. The EV buyer pays the same amount in cash and borrows the cost difference at 4.5% interest, with a 72-month term – the length most Canadian buyers now use, according to various sources.
• Each vehicle is kept for 10 years, so depreciation is 100%.
• We do not include EV subsidies, now available only in Quebec, up to $8,000, and British Columbia, up to $5,000.

Given our inputs, we found the $23,770 Civic LX with automatic transmission would cost $66,020 over 10 years. The Leaf S sticker price $36,798, would cost $63,816 over that same period.

The 10-year TCO for the $33,690 RAV4 XLE with front-wheel drive would be $78,373. The $45,599 Kona Electric “Preferred” would cost $73,388.

So, the EVs win in these categories. But TCO comparisons are meaningful only with specific local numbers.

For example, electricity costs nearly 17 cents per kWh in Halifax, where the Leaf’s ownership cost rises to $65,555 and the Kona’s price climbs to $75,004. Since Halifax’s gasoline price is close to our assumption, the Civic and RAV4 retain almost the same costs.

In New York City, where electricity runs 31 cents (Canadian) per kWh while gasoline is just 84 cents per litre, EVs lose in the comparison. But in Norway, where electricity rates are in the same ballpark as Canada’s but gasoline costs twice as much, EVs win hands down.

No battery-powered pickup trucks are ready for comparison, and it’s uncertain which will make it to market. The list includes the Havelaar Bison, planned for Ontario, and two U.S. models, the Bollinger B2 and Rivian R1T. Tesla promises one, but with no firm timetable.

All claim impressive range, payload and towing capacity, but none has performed in the real world nor revealed how large loads and rugged conditions would impact their range – a crucial consideration for working trucks.

The Rivian R1T, backed by a recent US$700 million investment by Amazon.com, seems furthest ahead. With the biggest battery available, Rivian says its range will top 600 kilometres. But the price in the U.S. will start at about C$94,000, and that’s for a base version with only 370 kilometres of range, making it more than double the price of a similar F-150.

Our conclusion: It’s clear that EVs are more expensive to buy or lease, and whether they overcome that handicap with lower operating costs depends heavily on fuel and power prices where you live.

As battery costs fall, the price gap will shrink, making it more likely that EVs will win any cost comparison, just as they already beat ICEs on environmental impacts.

Peter Gorrie is a Victoria-based freelance writer and editor who has covered environmental issues for more than 30 years.

The post Think you can’t afford that EV? In a faceoff against gas cars, the numbers say otherwise appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The rankings, derived from the 2018 Fuel Consumption Guide published by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), rate environmental performance among all vehicles within each of the guide’s 12 categories.

Seven of the top scorers run solely on battery power while three others are conventional or plug-in hybrids that combine battery propulsion and internal combustion. Vehicles operating exclusively on internal combustion lead only in the two categories without electrified vehicles – small and standard pickup trucks.

The results represent a remarkable shift: In just two decades since the Toyota Prius hybrid was introduced in Japan and less than 10 years since the first all-electric Nissan LEAF went on sale, battery power has moved from a diehard environmentalist niche into every car class and even minivans and SUVs.

This does not mean, yet, that we are witnessing the triumph of electric vehicles; they still account for a tiny fraction of sales. Still, our rankings show electrification is a key strategy for automakers to meet increasingly stringent fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas-emission standards. Not only are EVs emissions-free but their manufacturers, in return for producing them, also get credits that lower the mandatory targets for the rest of their vehicles.

The standards, introduced in 2012 in the United States and copied by Canada and several other nations, require steady improvements in fuel economy until 2025, when each automaker’s passenger vehicle fleet is to average 55.2 miles per U.S. gallon, or 4.3 litres per 100 kilometres. Because of the credits for EVs as well as others for “green” technologies, such as the use of safer refrigerants, in internal-combustion vehicles, the estimated actual mileage will be about 36 mpg, or 6.5 litres/100. While some might question the credit system, created to ensure automakers’ consent to the standards, its result would be a significant cut in fuel consumption and, for consumers, unprecedented choice.

The fate of the American standards is unclear now that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), urged on by automakers, has undertaken to ease those set for 2022 to 2025. California imposes its own rules, which were the template for the national program, and it vows to challenge any rollbacks. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia follow California’s lead. Since together they account for one-third of the U.S. vehicle market, the stage seems set for a tough battle between competing regulations.

Canada will likely continue to follow whatever the Americans finally decide. But the European Union, China, South Korea and other leading vehicle production centres have imposed standards similar to the current EPA targets, and it’s not clear how they, and their automakers, would respond to changes in the U.S.

Despite the uncertain future, the NRCan guide and our Clean Cars rankings illustrate how progress has been, and will continue to be, achieved.

The guide’s 12 size classes include two-seat, sub-compact; compact, mid-size and full-size cars; minivans; small and standard pick-up trucks; small and mid-size station wagons; and small and standard SUVs. For each vehicle it lists engine size and number of cylinders, whether automatic or manual transmission, fuel type, fuel consumption and annual fuel cost, carbon emissions at the tailpipe and a rating for contribution to smog.

The all-important fuel consumption ratings are based on tests conducted by automakers under controlled laboratory conditions intended to simulate urban, suburban and highway driving. As NRCan explains: “It would be difficult to drive every model of new vehicle on the road to measure fuel consumption, and almost impossible to consistently duplicate on-road testing results because many variables can affect a vehicle’s performance.”

The test results are, typically, about 25 per cent better than what motorists will achieve under real-world conditions, where terrain, road surface, wind and other weather conditions, and driving style all impact the amount of fuel consumed. Even so, they allow useful comparisons among vehicles.

Neither the guide nor our rankings considers a vehicle’s initial cost, performance or total carbon footprint, including the environmental impacts of mining, production, transportation, extracting and refining fossil fuels, and generating and storing electricity.

We analysed a total of 1,047 vehicles, comparing each vehicle with all others in its NRCan classification. The 12 winners are those scoring highest in their respective class.

Results for the 2018 Canadian Clean Cars Guide:

–

–

–

We allotted a possible 50 per cent of the final scores to annual fuel cost; a gauge we considered more meaningful than fuel consumption for consumers. Low CO2 emissions and contribution to smog, as well as longer range between fuelling stops, were each worth up to 15 per cent. The remaining five per cent was allocated to recharge times. We excluded vehicles that failed to achieve a safety rating of at least 4 out of 5 from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Electric vehicles got top marks for their zero emissions and smog impact, and far lower fuel costs. On the other hand, internal-combustion vehicles got perfect scores for recharge time, reflecting the fact you can fill a gas tank in minutes while it can take hours to recharge a battery.

Electrification might be the poster technology for reduced fuel consumption and emissions. But since the vast majority of motorists still opt for internal combustion, automakers must improve there, too.

Going through past NRCan guides reveals a key change: Engines are, on average, getting smaller. For example, in 2010, you could buy a 3.6-litre, six-cylinder Chevrolet Malibu sedan or a 3.5-litre, six cylinder Honda Accord. For 2018, the largest engine available for either is a 2.0-litre with four cylinders.

In 2010, the smallest engine available on the standard version of Ford’s popular F-150 pickup truck boasted 4.6 litres and eight cylinders. The largest was a 5.4-litre, eight, and by 2012 it had grown to 6.2. Now, the smallest is a 2.7-litre six; the biggest, a 5.0-litre eight.

With these size reductions came lower fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

To squeeze acceptable performance from smaller power plants, manufacturers have adopted aluminum, plastics and other lighter-weight materials; more aerodynamic designs; devices that de-activate some cylinders under light load or shut off and restart the engine at stops; and sophisticated engine and transmission technologies with features such as turbo-charging and computer-controlled fuel injection spray patterns.

Mazda, the smallest Japanese carmaker, claims a 20-per-cent fuel-consumption gain from its new SkyActiv-X engine, which burns gasoline in the type of compression ignition system until now reserved for diesel engines.

However, such improvements are being undermined by a shift to vehicles in larger size classes, particularly pickup trucks and SUVs, which now represent nearly two-thirds of the U.S. market.

The result, as reported by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, is that the average fuel economy of all new cars and light trucks sold in the United States has stalled after years of steady advances. In October 2007, when the institute began keeping records, the average was 20.1 mpg, or 11.7 litres per 100 kilometres. By summer 2014, the number had improved to 25.5 mpg, or 9.2 litres/100. Since then, it has dropped and as of last December was down to 25.0 mpg, or 9.4 litres/100.

The university’s Eco-Driving Index, which estimates the average monthly emissions of greenhouse gases generated by an individual U.S. driver, has followed a similar pattern.

In this complex environment of good news and challenges, our Clean Cars winners stand as clear evidence we can do much better if we embrace the change they represent.

The post The 2018 Canadian Clean Cars Guide appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Some numbers suggest we’re hard on the accelerator toward a battery-powered future:

• Seven years ago, only a handful of EVs roamed the world’s roads; today, it’s nearly 1.3 million.
• Global EV sales soared 60 per cent last year from 2015.
• The number of EV models available in North America has leapt from two to 30 since 2011. Europe and China are keeping pace.
• Thirteen automakers now offer EVs compared with just two in 2010, and several plan to spend billions of dollars to expand their battery-powered lineups.
• A forest of charging stations, most crucially the DC fast chargers that replenish a battery to 80 per cent capacity in about half an hour, are popping up around the world.

Other figures, though, point to a steep, slow climb:

• Those 1.3 million EVs are less than one-tenth of one per cent of the planet’s cars and light trucks. Even the 2016 sales boom raised EVs to just one per cent of the new-vehicle market, despite generous incentives – including up to $14,000 in Ontario.
• Only in Norway (23 per cent), the Netherlands (10) and California (3) have EVs begun to reach a critical mass.
• The 30 EV models in North America pale in comparison with the nearly 300 that burn fossil fuels – and only 10 of the 30 are widely available.
• EVs are still more expensive than equivalent internal-combustion vehicles and, excepting the $100,000-plus Tesla Model S and X, those that operate only on battery power offer too short a range to suit most drivers.

Forecasting EVs’ future is fraught with uncertainties. Analysts must evaluate potential changes in costs, technology, incentives, fossil-fuel prices and regulations, as well as how all these elements might interact. Given these unknowns, they are navigating partially blindfolded, at best.

Predictions are complicated, too, by the different EV types they assess.

In conventional hybrids (HEVs), the battery doesn’t plug into the electricity grid for a recharge and the electric motor merely assists internal combustion. Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) have bigger batteries, rechargeable from the grid, that propel the car for most daily commutes; internal combustion fuels longer trips. In battery-electrics (BEVs), only the battery provides fuel.

Most analysts assume manufacturers will produce more HEVs for a few years to assist in complying with current fuel-economy regulations, but that they’ll soon become obsolete. PHEVs, they say, will persist longer as a stopgap until the truly important transformation, the shift to BEVs. Still, most combine PHEVs and BEVs in their forecasts.

Predictions cover a wide range of possibilities.

British research company IDTechEx is among the bulls, enthusiastically forecasting that cars and light trucks powered only by fossil fuels will be defunct in 2035.

The middle ground includes many, such as the International Energy Agency, who predict EVs will account for 30 to 40 per cent of new-vehicle sales by 2035 to 2050.

At the conservative end, forecasts – often connected with the oil industry – suggest EVs will account for only about 10 per cent of sales by 2035 or 2040.

Perhaps the surest indication of interest in EVs is automakers’ increasing commitment.

In the race that matters most – increasing BEV sales – competitors must catch Tesla and General Motors, whose latest models are considered game changers, offering the first affordable, long-distance battery power.

Affordable and long-distance, though, are relative terms.

GM’s Bolt starts at about $35,000 (U.S.), before incentives, and boasts a range of up to 383 kilometres. Tesla, which has poured $5 billion into its Nevada battery gigafactory, promises its Model 3, due by early next year, will offer a 346-kilometre range and start at about $37,000.

Apart from a few luxury models, BEVs are small, and even with extremely generous incentives cost more than equivalent internal-combustion models. And while the Bolt and Model 3 boast twice the range of first-generation BEVs, they still lag internal-combustion vehicles.

But manufacturers are pushing hard, though keeping their plans vague because they rarely discuss future products.

GM’s CEO Mary Barra said at the recent North American International Auto Show in Detroit that the Bolt would be the platform for “a huge range of (electric) vehicles.”

Ford Motor Company is investing $4.5 billion to create 13 new global EVs by 2020; albeit a mix of conventional hybrids, PHEVs and BEVs – at least one of which aims to be a Bolt-beater, with a range up to 480 kilometres.

Mercedes-Benz and BMW say EVs should account for up to 25 per cent of their sales by 2025.

The Volkswagen Group will spend billions to create up to 30 EV models by 2020. Its Audi subsidiary promises a new EV annually, starting next year.

Volvo, owned by China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, promises two BEV models by 2019 as part of a plan to sell at least one million by 2025.

Nissan, which led the way to BEVs with its Leaf, promises a new version in 2018 and has showed a 400-kilometre concept. Honda has unveiled a concept small, boxy, battery-powered utility vehicle, the NeuV.

Hyundai recently introduced its Ioniq line, which includes a PHEV and BEV, and already plans to boost the BEV’s range from about 200 kilometres to 300.

Jaguar’s I-Pace, a luxury SUV due next year, will be the company’s first BEV.

Even Toyota, which although a pioneer in hybrid technology has focused on fuel-cell development, and Mazda, which once declared itself too small to get involved, are designing BEVs.

China’s BYD, the world’s leading BEV manufacturer, also makes electric buses and trucks. It is creating new models in its home country, plans to build two battery bus factories in Latin America and is considering U.S. BEV sales.

In Europe, the head of Opel is mulling making the brand all-electric after its previous owner, General Motors, agreed to sell the company to France’s PSA Group in March.

And from outside the auto industry, Apple and Google are reported to be developing BEVs.

These plans would lead to EVs having a small but decent market share by the mid-2020s. Beyond that, though, can dramatic price and performance gains make them mainstream?

Signals are mixed. Research around the world, combined with mass production and economies of scale, has slashed the cost of lithium-ion battery packs from more than $1,000 (U.S.) per kilowatt/hour in 2010 to around $250.

Most analysts say $100 per kilowatt/hour would vault EVs to about 15 per cent of new sales. At the current rate of cost decline, battery makers would hit that number in a couple of years. But the rate is slowing as researchers struggle with new chemistries and designs that seem to generate as many problems as they solve. Thus, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analysis predicts a price of about $140 by 2025.

At the same time, battery performance has soared. Energy density – the amount of energy stored in a certain weight of fuel – has climbed four-fold since 2010.

There’s still far to go. A typical lithium-ion pack is remains just one per cent as energy-dense as gasoline, and a recent report from the Argonne National Laboratory, near Chicago, forecasts battery packs won’t match gasoline until 2045.

But here, too, complexity makes forecasts tough. Batteries don’t need to equal gasoline’s energy density to be as efficient and effective. Losses in the engine and powertrain mean internal-combustion engines convert no more than 40 per cent of their fuel energy to driving power. Batteries and electric motors are at least 90 per cent efficient. On the other hand, batteries’ immense weight eliminates much of their efficiency advantage.

Current evidence suggests government regulations and purchase incentives are crucial to EV sales.

Incentives must be very generous. Even Ontario’s subsidy – among the world’s richest – hasn’t pushed EV sales above one per cent in the province.

Norway illustrates the scale required. Its incentives exempt EVs from the European Union’s 25-per-cent value-added tax, as well as hefty Norwegian vehicle taxes based on weight, cylinder count, horsepower and carbon emissions. In addition, EV owners enjoy free parking in municipal lots, exemptions from ferry and road tolls, reduced annual road taxes and free battery charging.

These measures, which essentially equalize the price of similar EVs and internal-combustion vehicles, have helped EVs achieve their 23 per cent market share. But total BEV and PHEV sales have plateaued and BEV sales are down nearly 40 per cent this year. Norwegians are opting instead for plug-in hybrids, particularly the Mitsubishi Outlander, a sizable SUV.

China is providing a good test of incentives. EV sales there have skyrocketed, rising 50 per cent in 2016 with a 58-per-cent gain forecast this year. But those sales are propelled by massive subsidies, which are to be phased out by 2020. Whether market demand sustains the momentum remains to be seen.

Regulations must be stringent. Current fuel-economy standards in North America, Europe, Japan and China force manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles. But real change demands laws like California’s that require automakers to sell a certain percentage of zero-emission vehicles if they want to do business in the state. Nine other U.S. states have adopted California’s regulations, and manufacturers have built vehicles to comply. Most early BEVs were created as “compliance cars,” available only in the zero-emission states and just in large enough numbers to meet the standard. Even with that push, though, and the biggest U.S. incentives, EV sales capture only three per cent of California’s market.

Quebec has a similar rule. Next year, 3.5 per cent of a manufacturer’s sales there must be EVs, including hybrids. That number gradually rises to 15.5 per cent in 2025 – a big jump from the current 0.5-per-cent share.

Technology advancements are key, but uncertain. The optimistic forecasts assume far more efficient battery chemistries will supplant lithium-ion. But no one yet knows what those might be, or when. It’s simply an article of faith.

IDTechEx bases its rosy BEV outlook on the assumption that by 2035 we’ll drive “energy independent” vehicles with on-board recharging – perhaps with yet-to-be-invented, super-efficient solar panels.

Again, the direction is clear; the speed uncertain.

The post Charged up appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Some cities are doing better than others, but, “I am amazed at their overall lack of preparedness to limit the potential for flooding and to not suffer unduly when floods do occur,” says Blair Feltmate, a professor in the Faculty of the Environment at the University of Waterloo, who led the research study funded by The Co-operators Group Ltd. insurance company.

The report, “Preparedness of Fifteen Canadian Cities to Limit Flood Damage,” is part of a project that, according to Feltmate, is intended “to motivate cites to be more proactive and to lower their risk profile from flooding so insurers can continue to offer affordable coverage.”

It’s a first look at the issue in Canada, he says. “Relatively little effort has gone into what are the key areas of vulnerability, and what we need to do to mitigate them. First we need to recognize the challenges; then, we need to address them.”

The researchers interviewed a total of 60 officials from 15 cities, selected because they are large, encompass Canada’s different geographic areas, and are instrumental in supporting regional, provincial or national economic continuity.

Every city was graded – from a low of E to a high of A for each of 16 issues related to their existing or planned preparedness for flooding events. Those 16 grades were then used to determine an overall grade. Ottawa came out on top, with a grade of A-, closely followed by Winnipeg, at B+. Halifax trailed the pack with a D grade.

Almost every Canadian city is prone to flooding: They are, after all, built in river valleys or beside lakes or oceans. But the risk is growing as climate change leads to more frequent intense rainfall events and, in a few places, increased and rapid snow melt. Calgary, Mississauga and Toronto all experienced severe flooding in 2013, and most of the 15 cities in the study have had major floods during this decade.

“What constitutes a one-in-100-year flood now is really only one in 20, due to changes in the intensity of storm events,” Feltmate says. “In close to all cases, cities do not possess flood-plain maps for the kind of storms we get today, let alone those we’ll experience 25 or 30 years from now.”

Much of the destruction these storms cause is from floodwater flowing overland, for which insurance coverage is not offered in Canada.

The Co-operators and the University of Waterloo embarked on the project to determine whether steps could be taken to reduce the impacts of this overland flooding so that the insurance industry might be more inclined to offer coverage for it.

In the first phase, senior executives from Canada’s property and casualty insurance industry identified 14 initiatives that could create such a situation.

In the second phase, an advisory roundtable known as Partners for Action – comprised of people from the insurance industry and government, flood risk experts, professional associations, business and law – set three “winning conditions” that must be established to help reduce flood risk. Using them as guidance, they whittled the 14 conditions from the first phase down to a priority list.

Determining the level of flood preparedness in major Canadian cities was identified as one of the priorities, which, in turn, led Co-operators to engage Feltmate to conduct the study, the first of many on de-risking cities. Ongoing collaboration of Partners For Action stakeholders will include calculating the economist costs and benefits of adaptation, determining the social and environmental co-benefits, and emphasizing the need for improved flood mapping across Canada.

Sewer backups rising

This first report doesn’t relate to insurance protection for overland flooding. But storms do lead to sewer backups into basements, which many policies do cover. And across the country, in nine of the past 11 years, claims for such damage have exceeded the premiums paid, Feltmate says.

Reducing backup damage is essential to keep the cost of this insurance under control, he says. “If cities become increasingly risky, premiums and deductibles will go up and the cap limits will get lower.”

Almost all 15 cities did well on what Feltmate calls a “big ticket” group of issues. This means they had:

• Up-to-date flood plain maps;
• Land-use plans that attempt to control or protect development in flood-prone areas;
• Consistent efforts to improve urban drainage, such as ensuring that culverts, sewer grates and storm sewer systems remain clear and promoting “green” solutions to reduce storm water run-off;
• Policies that support the installation in new construction of backflow valves, which prevent sewage backup into residential basements.

Scores varied for other measures, such as management of the water supply and raw sewage, and identification and funding of emergency responders.

But in what the report terms “areas of outstanding challenge,” most of the cities lag. These include encouraging the retrofit of backflow valves on existing homes, as well as a series of issues that many cities contend are not municipal responsibilities — e.g. measures to ensure that during floods, transportation and communication networks continue to operate, and electricity, petroleum, banking services and retail food remain available.

“Cities would say, ‘that’s important but it’s not our responsibility’,” Feltmate says. “But if something goes wrong, they’ll be blamed for not coordinating and managing the situation.”

Adding to the risk, some municipal politicians, under pressure from developers and the public, continue to approve construction in areas that officials recommend be restricted due to flood risk, Feltmate says. “There still is an element of the citizenry that says, ‘we want to live near water. We’ve been in the city 25 years and have never seen a flood.’ Often, the politicians will acquiesce,” particularly since new construction boosts property tax revenues.

But that attitude is changing, he says. On a scale of zero to 100, five years ago the politicians would have received a mediocre score of 50 for allowing development where it shouldn’t occur. “Today, it’s around 80.”

In addition to urging progress on “big ticket” items, the report advises municipal leaders to act on the areas they now say are outside their responsibility, like the provincially controlled 400-series expressways in Toronto, and Vancouver’s provincially operated electric system.

Mayors, for example, could bring together the service providers to produce flood preparation plans, Feltmate says. That’s especially true for Toronto, the country’s largest city. “The ramifications of it failing would be felt across Canada. Toronto has a heightened responsibility to be ahead of the curve, which they’re not answering.”

Cities must also step up education programs, including making homeowners aware of subsidies for backflow valves, the report states. It found that homeowners haven’t been taking advantage of the subsidies, because they don’t understand the function and importance of backwater valves, or haven’t realized subsidies were available.

“The Co-operators is committed to working with Canadians to ensure they understand the risk associated with flooding and have strategies for protecting themselves and their properties,” says Rob Wesseling, executive vice-president of The Co-operators’ property and casualty insurance products and chief operating officer of The Sovereign General Insurance Company.

“Professor Feltmate’s report and recommendations provide a great benchmark for municipalities as they work to protect their communities and citizens.”

On Monday, The Co-operators launched a new insurance coverage product that can protect homeowners in Alberta against damage caused by overland flooding, such as flooding caused by an overflow from a body of water, sewer/water backup and accumulation of surface water caused by heavy rain.

“Planning is currently underway to make the product available across the country,” the company said.

Click here to go back to the ranking landing page.

The post When the flood comes appeared first on Corporate Knights.

“Our government wants to ensure the responsible and sustainable devel­opment of these resources to benefit all of Canada, and especially Quebec,” Harper said. The agreement, intended to eventu­ally create a Canada-Quebec Offshore Pe­troleum Board, is “a major milestone” that “will usher in a new era of prosperity.”

In what has become a familiar story – think Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and Energy East – Harper’s announcement raised the temperature of a battle between those aiming to exploit the Gulf’s petro­leum resources and critics who want the in­dustry barred from this rich and fragile en­vironment. The latter include First Nations, environmentalists, and many in the fishing and tourism industries.

At issue is whether this is an area that should simply be off limits.

“Whether you are a whale scientist, a fisherman, or you’re on holiday on the shores of the Gulf, this issue and this place touches all Canadians,” says Gretchen Fitzgerald, Atlantic campaigns director for Sierra Club Canada, which is part of Save Our Seas and Shores, a coalition opposing development.

“People who live around the Gulf know its vital importance to their lives, in terms of their economy and their communities. But we need all Canadians to learn about the Gulf and to celebrate this unique and stunningly beautiful place. It’s a place we need to protect and restore, not place on the auction block.”

The Geological Survey of Canada esti­mates the Gulf holds 39 trillion cubic feet of gas, equal to about half of Canada’s current known reserves, and, conservatively, 1.5 bil­lion barrels of oil, a significant amount al­though tiny compared with the nearly 170 billion barrels in Alberta’s oil sands.

The search for the resource has proceed­ed sporadically since the mid-1960s, with 60,000 kilometres of seismic surveys and 10 exploration wells, mainly in the southern Gulf. The drilling produced just one “sig­nificant” gas discovery; the other wells were “minor shows” or came up dry.

Five provinces share jurisdiction over the Gulf. Each negotiates with Ottawa to create an offshore board for its zone. The boards are required to conduct open bidding for exploration permits as well as ensure that proposed projects undergo environmental assessments and measures are in place to prevent and respond to spills. Project oper­ators are responsible for cleanup costs and damages up to $1 billion. Each province sets and receives its own royalties.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador got boards nearly 30 years ago to manage development off Sable Island and Newfoundland’s east coast. Quebec, which allows drilling on Anticosti Island and the Gaspé Peninsula but suspended offshore ex­ploration in 1997, agreed with Ottawa three years ago to begin the steps toward a board. The legislation announced by Harper will put that deal into effect. New Brunswick wants to start negotiations. Prince Edward Island has no known offshore reserves.

Driven to drill

While the bureaucratic stage is being com­pleted, petroleum development is proceed­ing slowly.

A small Halifax-based company, Corri­dor Resources Ltd., has conducted seismic tests on its undersea block, 80 kilometres off Newfoundland’s southwest corner, and is working on an environmental assessment. It must still undertake an “extensive public consultation,” complete further regulatory steps and find a partner to help finance the $55-million drilling cost.

With drilling more than two years away, the company is seeking a third, indefinite, extension of its exploration permit past the current deadline of Jan. 1, 2016.

Corridor points out that while prelimi­nary evaluations suggest its block could contain up to five billion barrels of light crude oil or seven trillion cubic feet of natu­ral gas, no deposits have been discovered.

Part of the block is in Quebec’s waters, and work can’t proceed there until the new legislation is in place.

Another junior company, Black Spruce Exploration Corp. of St. John’s, along with a couple of partners, plans this year to con­duct seismic and other preliminary activity and prepare environmental assessments on three neighbouring blocks estimated to con­tain about 750 million barrels of light crude.

In November, the Newfoundland board announced it had received no bids on four additional blocks near Corridor’s. While opponents cheered that result as an indi­cation petroleum development might stall, the federal government and the industry remain bullish:

“We do not believe the result of that call for bids is indicative of the prospectivity of the area and certainly not of the wider Gulf of St. Lawrence,” Natural Resources Canada said in an emailed response to questions.

“We wholeheartedly agree” with those who “extol the immense opportunity” and we’re committed to developing our properties, says Black Spruce president David Murray.

“The entire Gulf is an area of interest with potential for a hydrocarbon presence,” says Paul Barnes, Atlantic Canada manager of the Cana­dian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Still, questions remain about the size of the resource, indicated by the widely differ­ing figures from the Geological Survey and Corridor. “The exact quantity is not known,” Barnes says. The federal estimate “is a ball­park figure.”

Potential players face a labyrinthine regu­latory regime and the prospect of a tough le­gal battle with First Nations demanding a 12-year moratorium to allow consultation and a region-wide environmental assessment.

The industry and its foes agree the Gulf’s environment must be protected. They dis­agree on the current regulations’ effective­ness and whether protection is possible no matter how stringent the rules.

In a “Strategic Environmental Assess­ment” issued last May, the Newfoundland board announced: “Petroleum exploration activity generally can proceed in the West­ern Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area with the application of standard miti­gation measures currently applied.”

A spokesperson also says the board has dealt with concerns raised in a 2012 report by the federal Commissioner of the Environ­ment and Sustainable Development, which criticized spill-response and clean-up plans and the lack of policies “related to … obliga­tions under the Species at Risk Act.”

In addition, in response to complaints that Corridor’s environmental assessment was based, unrealistically, on a small spill of light, fast-evaporating crude oil in a calm sea, the board spokesperson says a “worst-case” scenario produced by Environment Canada would be incorporated into the en­vironmental assessment.

Corridor is equally sanguine: “There have been issues with respect to people bringing up concerns,” says president and CEO Steve Moran. “But we’ve done an aw­ful lot of work in that regard and we’re very comfortable that it can be done safely.”

No laughing matter

Critics say this optimism overstates the indus­try’s ability to manage the Gulf’s many risks while understating its significance and fragility.

They describe the Gulf, which covers about 250,000 square kilometres from the mouth of the St. Lawrence River out to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, as a bio­logically diverse and productive “global eco­logical treasure.”

Strong currents and tides mix fresh and salt water and nutrients over a wide variety

of underwater features, creating ideal habi­tats for more than 4,000 species, from tiny krill to massive blue whales. This bounty and the beauty of the surrounding land support a $1.5-billion fishing industry and $800 million in tourism activities. Salmon, shrimp and snow crab stocks provide food and income for 40 First Nations.

The Gulf is already stressed by pollution, oxygen-depleted dead zones and species loss and has qualities that make it an espe­cially hazardous, potentially ruinous, place to drill for oil and gas.

It’s a semi-enclosed sea in which the tides, winds and counter-clockwise cur­rents not only create precarious operating conditions for petroleum development, but also would quickly spread spilled oil and other pollutants. Since it takes a year for the water to flush out into the open Atlantic the widespread damage would persist. If a spill happened when ice covered the Gulf, cleanup would be next to impossible.

The critics say spill impacts would likely be far worse than even those from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, because that body of water is six times larger than the Gulf of St. Lawrence and flushes far more quickly.

An example of the risk, they say, is that Corridor’s block, known as Old Harry, sits within the 470-metre-deep Laurentian Channel, the sole passageway in and out of the Gulf for migrating blue whales and leatherneck sea turtles, both endangered species, as well as myriad other fish and marine mammals.

They’re amused that while Old Harry was named for a community on the nearby Magda­len Islands, it’s also a sailors’ term for the Devil.

The rest, they insist, is no laughing matter.

Development decisions disregard their concerns as well as gaps in knowledge about species and their interactions, they say.

“We don’t have enough science,” says Mary Gorman, who heads Save Our Seas and Shores. “According to the precaution­ary principle, this exploration can’t proceed because we don’t even know the harm we’re doing. How can you mitigate when you don’t have enough science to know what has to be mitigated?”

Environmentalists can’t even seek legal protection for blue whales and other endan­gered species because their “essential habi­tats” haven’t been mapped, as required un­der federal law, notes Sylvain Archambault, of the Quebec-based St. Lawrence Coalition, another group pushing for a moratorium.

As well, critics complain, the regulatory system divides the Gulf into areas of pro­vincial jurisdiction when, in fact, it is, eco­logically, a single body of water and must be managed as one.

“Only a complete picture of the social, environmental and economic impacts would allow for an enlightened decision regarding the future of the Gulf, which must be stud­ied from every angle, instead of the piece­meal approach based on the administrative boundaries set by men, as is presently the case,” says “Gulf 101,” a report published last summer by the St. Lawrence Coalition.

Furthermore, says Gorman: “The laws fa­vour the petroleum industry, and allow regu­lators to both protect marine habitat and issue licenses. It’s an inherent conflict of interest.”

Testing treaty rights

First Nations not only fear the environmen­tal impacts of petroleum development but also are angry about inadequate consulta­tion, says Troy Jerome, executive-director of the Nutewistoq Mi’gmawei Mawiomi Secretariat. The secretariat represents Que­bec’s Mi’gmaq nation and, along with Mali­seet and Innu groups, threatens legal ac­tion, based on treaty rights, if the demand for a moratorium is ignored.

“Why are we continuing to move for­ward with these kinds of developments without consulting with the people who would be directly affected? We have a clear­ly defined constitutional right.”

Oil and gas can’t be safely exploited with current technology, Jerome says. Whether that might change in 12 years, “I can’t say yes or no. We need to see the results of a proper study.” Such a review, he adds, would take at least a decade.

“You can’t just study the Gulf for a year. The patterns can change. We’re looking at a complex food chain. All the species create an environment … a lot of things occur that allow others to survive. A spill there would cause irreparable harm. It’s not like you’re cut­ting a tree down and the tree will grow back.”

The federal government was evasive when asked about the moratorium call: It “recognizes the importance of the Gulf … to Canadians, and offshore development will not proceed unless it is safe for Canadians and safe for the environment,” Natural Re­sources Canada said in its email. “Indepen­dent, arm’s-length regulators will not allow any offshore activity unless it can be done safely for workers and the environment.”

If the issue went to court, the First Na­tions would rely on Supreme Court of Cana­da rulings that have progressively enhanced aboriginal rights to be consulted and accom­modated about development on territories where they’ve submitted land claims.

Archambault notes some progress among regulators, particularly toward un­derstanding that “water and fish don’t rec­ognize provincial boundaries.” A report for the Quebec government said the Gulf should be studied as one area. Two Prince Edward Island Legislature committees made a similar recommendation. During its Strategic Environmental Assessment, the Newfoundland board held hearings in each Gulf province.

Still, industry opponents insist the search for oil and gas must stop.

The priority should be restoration, with the moratorium leading to establishment of a net­work of marine protected areas and integrated management of the entire Gulf by the federal and provincial governments, states “Gulf 101.”

So the lines are drawn: Corridor will perse­vere, Moran says. “Our mandate is to keep fol­lowing along through the regulatory process.”

And on the other side: “If you don’t stop the industry before they start … it’s game over,” Gorman says. “We just keep on keeping on. The only thing they can’t control is the passion of the people. Their biggest problem is that some of us can’t be silenced.

The post Harper’s Gulf game appeared first on Corporate Knights.

At least that’s the promise of a fledgling renewable-energy industry which, buoyed by recent regulatory rulings, appears set for rapid growth in the United States and, hobbled by minimal government support, is taking tentative first steps in Canada.

The potential comes from the biogas that’s produced when farm manure, human sewage, food leftovers, agricultural crop residues or other organic wastes are broken down by bacteria in oxygen-free or anaerobic conditions, releasing a methane-rich gas. This happens in engineered landfills, as well as specialized facilities known as anaerobic digesters, which are found mainly on farms and at wastewater treatment plants.

As is, biogas can fuel electricity generators. Remove its moisture and impurities – a relatively simple process – and it upgrades to renewable natural gas, or RNG, which is indistinguishable from the petroleum-based product.

While RNG can substitute for any use of natural gas, proponents consider its greatest promise as a vehicle fuel, particularly given the shift among truck and bus operators from diesel to compressed natural gas.

It has great potential in transportation, says Alicia Milner, president of the Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance, which includes the country’s main gas producers and distributors.

If the energy in all the organic wastes from U.S. households, institutions, factories and farms was converted into RNG, it could power almost every American urban truck and bus fleet, says the New York-based advocacy group, Energy Vision. Or, it could replace 16 per cent of the 144 billion litres of diesel fuel consumed annually by the 10 million fleet trucks and buses on U.S. roads and highways, the American Gas Foundation and American Petroleum Council estimates in a recent study. That use, in turn, accounts for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. transportation fuel.

Canada’s leading industry group, the Ottawa-based Biogas Association, reached a similar conclusion in a study this year, which said RNG could fill up to 3 per cent of the country’s natural gas demand, most significantly as a transportation fuel.

Unrealized potential

To date, only a tiny fraction of that potential has been realized.

Just 12 U.S. projects produce RNG for vehicle fuel and 30 or so more are proposed. Canada has only two commercial-scale projects, with a handful more at early and mainly uncertain stages of development. This year’s total RNG production will be equivalent to just 373 million litres of diesel, or less than 0.003 per cent of the truck and bus total.

The fuel faces tough challenges. Most troublesome are its 50 per cent cost premium over conventional natural gas and a shortage of distribution and fuelling infrastructure. Still, a combination of environmental and financial developments could boost it from niche to mainstream.

The advantages start with pressure to increase biogas production. The volume of materials to feed digesters is growing as municipal, state and provincial governments ban many organic wastes from landfills and impose tougher regulations to protect waterways from sewage and manure pollution.

Electricity generation remains the top option for that biogas. But North American electricity prices are low and government support – such as the premium price paid for renewable electricity under Ontario’s Feed-in Tariff program – is waning. So producers, seeking new biogas markets with better revenues, are considering RNG.

Here, the twists and turns multiply.

RNG is too expensive to compete with most uses of natural gas – unless governments offer incentives or, as in British Columbia, customers of the natural gas distributor, in this case FortisBC, agree to a voluntary surcharge for the green gas.

But RNG has a more promising route into transportation, thanks to the move from diesel to natural gas for buses and medium- or heavy-duty trucks.

Since few, if any, vehicles will run entirely on RNG, its potential is tied to sales of those fuelled by natural gas. There’s positive news here for RNG: an expanding market. Natural gas vehicles are about 25 per cent more expensive than similar diesel units. Yet at the same time, natural gas is plentiful, costs half as much as diesel and cuts greenhouse-gas emissions from the tailpipe by about one-third. According to Navigant Research, sales of natural gas trucks are increasing by about 25 per cent annually.

Good gas

When considering the environmental benefits, RNG is priced close enough to natural gas to make it attractive.

Those benefits are substantial. According to the California Energy Commission, RNG has the lowest carbon footprint of any transportation fuel. It cuts greenhouse gases by 90 per cent compared with diesel and 60 per cent below natural gas, while transforming expensive waste-management problems into revenue streams. Users can receive a variety of credits, tax breaks and other incentives, most notably under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard. They can also claim sustainability bragging rights since, along with its climate-change benefits, RNG avoids the controversy over fracking, the process of wresting natural gas from deep underground shale.

Among the RNG projects in the works:

• At Fair Oaks Farms in Indiana, manure from 11,500 dairy cows is converted into RNG that fuels 42 tanker trucks carrying milk to distant processing plants. The RNG displaces nearly 5.7 million litres of diesel fuel, providing $2 million in annual savings.

• In California, Clean Energy Renewable Fuels, a subsidiary of North America’s biggest natural gas seller, expects to sell RNG this year with energy content equal to 67 million litres of diesel, says company president Harrison Clay.

• The in-progress Promus Outlook-Granger project in Washington State aims to convert manure from about 3,150 dairy cows into RNG that’s equivalent to nearly 1.6 million litres of diesel annually. Some will be sold directly to nearby transportation fleets; the rest will be injected into the interstate pipeline network where it could help to fuel distant fleets.

• In Hamilton, Ontario, most of the biogas produced at the city’s main sewage treatment plant fuels an electricity generator. But a portion is upgraded to RNG and injected into the regional pipeline grid, displacing a small amount of conventional gas. The city buys pipeline gas for some of its vehicles and the local distributor, Union Gas, deducts the RNG’s value from the bill.

• Near Montreal, RNG from a landfill is injected into the pipeline network and helps to fuel 80 trucks operated by waste management company EBI Énergie. FortisBC is developing a similar operation in Surrey, a suburb of Vancouver, and Ontario’s Niagara region is considering the idea.

The U.S. renewable natural gas industry got a recent boost when the EPA announced its final Renewable Fuel Standard, the major incentive for ethanol, RNG and other alternative transportation fuels. The regulations guarantee a market by requiring that conventional oil companies buy minimum annual quantities of renewable fuels, and they create a complex system, based on a trade in Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs, to set the price.

Regulatory boost

The standard classifies fuels into four categories, each with its own minimum volume. Simply put, the final draft moved RNG into a different category with a much higher volume than its previous classification. It’s expected that increasing the amount of RNG that oil companies must purchase will boost the value of its RINs.

The EPA also announced that for the first time since its 2005 introduction, the fuel standard will apply to RNG consumed to generate electricity for plug-in electric vehicles.

While the exact impacts won’t be known until the EPA unveils more details, the changes are “above and beyond what we were hoping for,” says David Cox, director of operations at the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, the main industry lobby group. For the longer term, the unexpected inclusion of electricity for EVs “is a really big deal.”

California, which leads North America in most areas of renewable energy and is home to more RNG production than any other state or province, also recently approved regulations making it easier to put the gas into the pipeline network.

Canada’s situation is dimmer. The federal government requires minimum percentages of ethanol and biodiesel in gasoline and diesel fuel but won’t extend that provision to RNG. No province provides direct support.

“Things are moving in the right direction, but it’s slow because we don’t have the regulatory support,” says Stephanie Thorson, who heads the issue for the Biogas Association.

“We’re plodding along. We need some drivers that will move the market in a significant way.”

The post The potential of biogas appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Gardens cover the grounds and a roof of the hospital, which serves patients who need long-term rehabilitation or disease management. Inside, walls are painted in green or the blue of nearby Lake Ontario. Nature themes dominate artwork.

The design aims to connect patients to the surrounding community and park, says Celeste Alvaro, a specialist in experimental social psychology who heads a team researching green features and their impacts.

Data on health outcomes, such as how much sooner patients are ready to be discharged, are still being analyzed in a study that compares the year-old Bridgepoint with the building it replaced and another hospital with a similar mandate. The study is the first of its kind in Canada.

But one thing is already clear, Alvaro says. Patients and visitors use the gardens whenever possible; inside, they gravitate to the many windows. “Patients want to be outside, or positioned by a window to be exposed to what’s going on outside.”

Bridgepoint’s work is part of a trend toward acknowledging the health benefits of exposure to nature. It extends beyond hospital care: Corporations are being urged to adopt it to improve employees’ well-being and productivity. Experts view it as a general rule for everyone.

Decades of research consistently conclude that wilderness trips, time in a city park or even gazing at pictures of trees and water improves mental and physical health.

“Natural environments may have direct and positive impacts on well-being,” states a review of 25 studies, headed by Andrew Pullin of Bangor University in Wales.

“Humans are hard-wired genetically for an affiliation with the natural world,” says American author Richard Louv, who coined the term “nature deficit disorder” to describe the unhealthy consequences for the growing population deprived of it.

Nature builds strong minds and bodies three ways:

• Exposure to it directly improves health;

• People living near parks or other natural areas exercise more, which contributes to the prevention of more than 20 conditions including coronary heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, mental illness and obesity;

• Natural areas absorb pollution, reducing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

“A growing body of evidence suggests that human mental and physical health is closely associated with the health of our forest ecosystems,” says “A Healthy Dose of Green,” a recent report from Trees Ontario.

Green spaces provide exposure to the microbes, or “old friends,” that stimulate our immune system but are lacking in high-income countries, Graham Rook of University College London said in a study last year. It’s “a neglected ecosystem service that is essential for our well-being.”

Hospital patients are said to benefit from even minimal naturalization.

“Patients in rooms with plants and flowers had significantly shorter hospitalizations, fewer intakes of analgesics, lower ratings of pain, anxiety, and fatigue, and more positive feelings and higher satisfaction about their rooms when compared with patients in the control group,” states a 2009 study by researchers at Kansas State University.

That research echoed an earlier study of people who had gall bladder surgery at a Pennsylvania hospital. Those with trees outside their windows took fewer painkillers, appeared to nurses to have fewer negative effects and spent less time in hospital than those viewing only brick walls.

The addition of gardens, aquariums, plants and artwork (but not abstract) has become part of creating “healing environments,” along with more private rooms, less noise, natural lighting, better signage and social areas such as lounges.

Advocates of corporate social responsibility say businesses – even those creating natural areas on their properties, funding urban parks or protecting wilderness areas – aren’t yet engaged in the health impacts of these environmental activities, beyond attempting to improve employees’ job satisfaction and reduce workplace stress.

But they might consider a study of “visual search accuracy,” conducted two years ago at New Mexico State University that exposed undergraduates to natural or urban images, and then tested how well they could detect whether a target – an “O” – was embedded in pictures showing other letters.

The nature group did much better. Perhaps airport baggage-screening agents would perform more proficient searches if exposed to images of nature while on their shift, radiologists would benefit from a bit of foliage in the office or office workers would gain from a computer background cycling through nature images, the report suggests.

It seems, says American psychologist Eric Jaffe, that being in nature engages “involuntary” attention – “a rather effortless form of engagement with the world” – giving a breather to voluntary attention, which is crucial to problem-solving and demands energy and focus.

The post A natural advantage appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The post Trash turned into treasure appeared first on Corporate Knights.

So far, it’s governments that have made the biggest effort to solve the riddle, subsidizing charging stations as they have EVs. That, in turn, could transform the production and operation of stations into a profitable business.

In the largest contribution to date, the U.S. government gave a total of $152 million to the country’s two main industry players – ChargePoint, a division of California-based manufacturer Coulomb Technologies, and ECOtality, which runs the Blink network.

They’ve partially succeeded. As with EVs, station sales are expanding at an impressive rate and installation announcements are commonplace. But absolute numbers remain small, governments still dispense generous support, and charging is free at three-quarters of the sites.

“The private sector is starting to move on its own,” says Scott Miller, eastern U.S. vice-president at ChargePoint, which has installed nearly 11,000 stations, mainly in the United States. “About half our stations are installed by people saying they want to be ahead of the curve.”

But while Miller says government support is diminishing and the industry “would now survive without it,” it still benefits from policies such as federal tax credits of up to $30,000 for each commercial installation and $1,000 for personal use.

California, with half of America’s EVs, leads North America in charging infrastructure.

The majority of U.S. stations are at the homes of the 50,000 drivers who’ve bought all-battery or plug-in hybrid EVs. According to California-based analysts Frost & Sullivan, most rely on their standard 120-volt, or Level 1, household service for recharging. Some – Nissan says 90 per cent of its Leaf drivers – purchase Level 2 (240-volt) models, which cut recharging times by half or more.

Another 2,000 stations, most Level 2, are at workplaces – for corporate or government fleets, or employees. Google has 300 at its California headquarters.

Finally, there are 8,000 publicly accessible Level 2 stations, and another 200 Level 3 fast-chargers, which require 480 volts and fill batteries to 80 per cent of capacity in 30 minutes. In its own category, Tesla Motors is installing proprietary Superchargers, initially in California and the Northeast, to let its drivers tackle highway trips.

Canadians have purchased just 2,500 plug-in cars, and, with minimal government support, charging has developed on an equally tiny scale.

British Columbia leads: With $2.74 million from the federal government, it subsidized 570 Level 2 stations, for fleet or public use, to be installed by this spring. Quebec’s provincially owned utility, Hydro-Quebec, supports the Electric Circuit, now with about 150 public stations. Privately owned Sun Country Highway, backed by its owner’s personal wealth, has installed 200 Level 2 stations across Canada, most in Ontario, and aims for 1,000 within 18 months, says spokesperson Stephen Bieda.

Elsewhere, local governments, utilities and retailers have installed one or two, here and there.

Across North America, some home stations and virtually all workplace and public locations are provided by companies – dominated by ChargePoint, ECOtality and Texas-based NRG Energy – that sell or lease the devices and tie them into increasingly sophisticated computer networks that manage billing and security. They also provide services such as informing drivers where stations are located and whether they’re in use.

Recent developments suggest the industry might be at a tipping point, particularly with costs falling.

• A federal “Workplace Charging Challenge” aims for a 10-fold increase in stations provided by U.S. employers within five years. Thirteen major corporations signed on.

• Nissan is working with partners such as NRG to triple U.S. fast-chargers, including 40 in Washington, D.C.

• New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposes that one-fifth of parking spots in new buildings have charging stations, boosting the city’s total to 10,000, from 220, by 2019.

• ECOtality and retailer Sears have installed 12 Level 2 and five fast-charging stations at Tennessee and Arizona stores.

• Canada’s iconic Tim Hortons coffee chain plans to install a station at a suburban store near Toronto and says the service might expand to more of its 3,300 restaurants.

• The Simon Property Group, the world’s largest real-estate company, has teamed with the top U.S. electric power company, Duke Energy, as well as Toshiba and other corporations to install a solar-powered charging site with Level 2 and Level 3 stations at a Carmel, Indiana, mall – part of a statewide clean-tech initiative with federal backing.

Employers can justify the expense as a means to polish corporate green credentials and boost employee morale. But the rationale remains less obvious for retailers: With so few EVs on the road, charging done mainly at home or workplaces, and most trips limited to urban areas, distances are too short and charging too slow to attract business.

Some suggest stations are just a psychological crutch; “a service to avoid range anxiety,” says Nicholas Bowmany of Montreal-based GridBOT, which manufactures stations. “It’s only to appease their minds.”

The industry is expected to grow. The number of U.S. public stations should swell to 30,000 within two years, says Brendan Jones, director of EV marketing and infrastructure development with Nissan. The Washington-based Electric Drive Transportation Association predicts 1.7 million by 2017. Frost & Sullivan forecasts 4.1 million U.S. charging points, of all types, the same year.

Notwithstanding that rosy forecast, industry observers expect a shakeout as manufacturers and network operators await the critical mass that will eliminate the chicken-and-egg conundrum.

The post Solving the EV riddle appeared first on Corporate Knights.