Connect with us

Published

on

Electric grids do not change overnight. Power plants and other infrastructure are multi-decade investments, and it’s rare to retire them early. So, it’s a bit painful to watch how slowly they have been getting cleaned up. Even with the majority of new power plants being renewable energy power plants, the percentage of electricity coming from renewables only creeps up.

That can make 100% renewable energy or 100% clean electricity commitments seem car too far out, far too slow. A potential new requirement for utilities in the state of Oregon is one such example. If it gets through the state legislature, it will be one of the most aggressive timelines in the United States. However, it still gives the utilities nearly 20 years to fully decarbonize. Yes, 100% clean electricity by 2040 is ambitious when compared to other laws around the States. However, when looking at how much we need to cut emissions by 2040, that should be more of an average or norm than a leadership position. Nonetheless, in political context, it is something to celebrate.

Additionally, the bill as it is currently written requires that electric companies such as Portland General Electric and Pacific Power (the state’s two largest utilities) cut their carbon emissions 80% by 2030. An 80% reduction in emissions from a baseline level in just about a decade is a pretty aggressive transition for this sector. What is the baseline year, you ask? That’s actually not in the legislation. Not seeing it reported, I dug up the bill (Oregon House Bill 2021) and found this instead of a specific starting point: “Requires DEQ to determine each electric company’s baseline emissions level and, for each retail electricity provider, the amount of emissions reduction necessary to meet the established clean energy targets in the state policy.” Knowing how much these kind of things can be corrupted, I’m not thrilled to see a lack of clarity on this. However, I expect the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would be just about the best outfit to come up with the baseline. I hope.

Back to the state’s potential new requirement, reporting out of Oregon indicates that the legislation is likely to be passed this year. “Everyone OPB interviewed for this story suggested the bill is likely to pass this year, marking a significant milestone in Oregon’s energy policy — even if it’s one other states got to first.” It apparently has 100% opposition from Republicans in the state legislature, but Republicans don’t rule the show there. Its likelihood of passing is reportedly high despite a cap-&-trade bill dying last year as Republicans walked out of session early in order to kill it. This new bill is much narrower. Furthermore, it seems to have the support of the electric utility companies (which is something I find indicative of a not particularly aggressive legislative attempt, but I won’t get into all kinds of speculation or insinuation regarding that).

One line that rather annoyed me in the OPB reporting on the story is the following quote from Sunny Radcliffe, director of governmental affairs and energy policy at PGE, regarding getting to 100% clean electricity: “There is a lack of clarity for how we as an industry are going to get the last bits out,” Radcliffe said. “I don’t know anybody in our industry who knows how to get to zero with the technology we have today.”

I don’t know how Radcliffe doesn’t know anyone in the industry who can see how to get to 100% renewable electricity. After all, some places are already there (including places larger than Oregon), and there are these newfangled things called batteries that some people in the industry must have heard of. Also, by the way, a 2015 analysis out of Stanford showing how Oregon could get to 100% renewable electricity was referenced in the OPB article. In fact, I discovered the Oregon news because the lead author of that paper, Mark Z. Jacobson, tweeted out the story.

Anyway, let’s not harp on one quote from an industry player. Yes, we know how Oregon could get to 100% renewable electricity by 2040 — no worries.

There is plenty of good history and context on the Oregon bill over in that OPB article, so I recommend checking it out if you are curious to learn more. It’s one of the best pieces of local journalism I’ve seen on the topic of state renewable energy. The only major thing I’d change is that I’d point out what I just pointed out above. Though, the writer, Dirk VanderHart, did highlight the Stanford study in the article a bit before including that confusing quote from Radcliffe, so let’s just say that VanderHart slipped in the counterpoint preemptively and less offensively than I just did.

The article also points out key areas where the legislative shift from a cap-and-trade bill to this clean-electricity bill is evidence of somewhat deflated ambition. “Even if successful, the proposal only addresses a segment of the state’s carbon dioxide output.

“According to the DEQ, emissions from electricity accounted for 30% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. The entities regulated under HB 2021 are responsible for the vast majority of that, but some providers are left untouched.

“Several dozen small consumer-owned utilities around the state are not impacted by the bill. Nor is Idaho Power, the state’s smallest investor-owned utility, which was removed from HB 2021 after pressing for an exemption and touting its own decarbonization goals.”

I am certainly of the opinion that we need strong legislation to adequately deal with the climate catastrophe we are inviting upon ourselves. Though, in the case of stories like this, I am typically inspired to point out that we can each take individual action with or without such legislation. We can install record-cheap solar power on our roofs (well, some of us can) and we can switch to electric cars. In fact, the largest electric car seller in the country (by far) is also the second largest solar installer in the country and, seemingly, the one offering the cheapest solar, so you can quickly and easily go solar and go electric at the same time via a simple online store. So, whether Sunny Radcliffe knows how the whole state could run on renewables by 2040, Sunny could be driving on sunshine himself within a matter of months if he wanted to.

Related Stories:


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Oil giant BP braces for shareholder showdown over green strategy U-turn

Published

on

By

Oil giant BP braces for shareholder showdown over green strategy U-turn

The BP logo is displayed outside a petrol station that also offers electric vehicle recharging, on Feb. 27, 2025, in Somerset, England.

Anna Barclay | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Oil giant BP is bracing itself for a shareholder backlash at its annual general meeting (AGM) on Thursday, with a chorus of disgruntled investors planning to voice their concerns over the firm’s green strategy U-turn.

A planned resolution on the reelection of outgoing BP Chair Helge Lund has been billed as an opportunity for investors to signal discontent on climate change, corporate governance and the influence of U.S. hedge fund Elliott Management.

Britain’s beleaguered energy major, which has lagged behind more hydrocarbon-focused industry peers in recent years, has sought to resolve something of an identity crisis by launching a fundamental reset.

Seeking to rebuild investor confidence and boost near-term shareholder returns, BP in February pledged to slash renewable spending and ramp up annual expenditure on its core business of oil and gas.

The strategy reset was broadly welcomed by energy analysts, and BP CEO Murray Auchincloss has since said the pivot attracted “significant interest” in the firm’s non-core assets.

British asset manager Legal & General, a leading shareholder in BP with a roughly 1% stake, said it intends to vote against Lund’s reelection on Thursday — a position that would defy BP’s management recommendation.

Legal & General cited dissatisfaction over major revisions to the firm’s energy strategy, alongside BP’s decision not to allow a shareholder vote on the new direction.

Legal & General’s plans align with those of international asset manager Robeco, U.K. pension funds Nest and Border to Coast, as well as activist investors including Dutch group Follow This — all of which have indicated they will vote against Lund’s reelection.

Norway’s gigantic sovereign wealth fund and a number of U.S. pensions funds, however, have reportedly said they will back Lund’s reelection. Proxy advisors Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis have also recommended a vote in favor of Lund, according to Reuters.

It paves the way for a shareholder showdown at BP’s AGM, with observers closely monitoring the level of investor opposition to Lund’s reelection. Historically, votes against the chair of BP have remained under 10%.

A BP spokesperson declined to comment when contacted by CNBC.

Energy transition plans

BP’s renewed focus on oil and gas comes at a time when the London-listed energy firm is firmly in the spotlight as a potential takeover target. British rival Shell and U.S. oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron have all been touted as possible suitors.

“We value the significant steps BP has taken in recent years regarding its climate-related commitments and efforts, which we have supported through extensive and constructive dialogues, aimed at creating long-term value as the climate transition unfolds,” Legal & General’s investment stewardship team said on April 11.

Murray Auchincloss, chief executive officer of BP, during the “CERAWeek by S&P Global” conference in Houston, Texas, on March 11, 2025.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

“However, we are deeply concerned by the recent substantive revisions made to the company’s strategy as announced at the 2025 Capital Markets Day on 26 February, coupled with the decision not to allow a shareholder vote on the newly amended climate transition strategy at the 2025 AGM,” they added.

Legal & General said BP’s announcement earlier this month that Lund will step down, likely next year, was viewed “positively,” but ongoing unease about the firm’s succession plan means it intends to vote against the AGM resolution.

Five years ago, BP became one of the first energy giants to announce plans to cut emissions to net zero “by 2050 or sooner.” As part of that push, BP pledged to slash emissions by up to 40% by 2030 and to ramp up investment in renewables projects.

The company scaled back this emissions target to 20% to 30% in February 2023, saying at the time that it needed to keep investing in oil and gas to meet global demand.

Robeco said in its rationale that BP had refused to repeat a so-called “Say on Climate” vote for its strategy revision, despite previously requesting shareholder support for the firm’s previous and “more ambitious” transition goals.

“We have unsuccessfully requested such a consistent feedback mechanism several times, including in a public letter alongside other investors with GBP 5 trillion in assets under management,” said Michiel van Esch, head of voting at Robeco.

“As a result, we have growing concerns over the company’s resilience through the energy transition, and over the consistency of its approach to climate governance, leading us to vote against the chairman and chair of the safety and sustainability committee,” he added.

Governance concerns

Elliott Management, for its part, is widely thought to be putting pressure on BP to minimize low-carbon investments and prioritize oil and gas. It emerged recently that the activist investor has built a near 5% stake in BP, making it one of the firm’s largest shareholders.

Activist shareholder Follow This, which has a long history of pushing for Big Oil to do more to tackle climate change, said the need to vote against Lund had not disappeared following news of his looming departure. The group added that investors concerned with good governance should voice their dissatisfaction.

IEA downgrades 2025 oil demand growth outlook on escalating trade tensions

“Voting against the board is the only way for shareholders to express their dissent over BP’s refusal to allow a vote on its strategy U-turn,” Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This, said in a statement.

“Now, the board has unilaterally changed course without asking shareholder support with a vote. This raises serious governance concerns. It seems BP’s leadership is afraid of its own shareholders,” he added.

Shares of BP are down nearly 10% year-to-date.

Continue Reading

Environment

New off-road concept that ditches screens proves it: Genesis GETS luxury

Published

on

By

New off-road concept that ditches screens proves it: Genesis GETS luxury

Luxury is a tough concept to pin down, but being constantly connected to work, kids, and telemarketers ain’t it. Genesis gets it, and its latest ultra-luxe off-road concept ditches screens in favor of the view out the windshield – and it’s got enough off-road chops to promise two things about those views: they’re real, and they’re spectacular!

Genesis calls its new X Gran Equator concept an elegant overlander for the modern explorer that marries on-road sophistication with off-road resilience. Whatever they call it, the 4×4’s dashboard is delightfully free from sweeping touchscreens, mood lighting, and any hint of telephonic integration.

Indeed, the interior looked so much like something from the 90s that I double and triple-checked the date on the press release. But don’t take my word for it, check it for yourself.

It’s fantastic

If you zoom in, you can see screens in the instruments. High-definition roll and pitch displays, altimeters, and probably other outdoorsy, overland-y things that the sort of people who want to do that in what would surely be a very well-appointed six-figure SUV for a similarly very well-heeled buyer.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

And that buyer? They wouldn’t miss the screen, because the screen doesn’t matter. The real show is out the front windshield – and if someone from the office calls to interrupt the vibe, you won’t even know. I know I’d pay extra for that … and I can’t imagine I’m alone.

This is how Genesis explains it:

Inside, the X Gran Equator Concept orchestrates contrast between analog architecture and digital technologies, crafting a space that feels both functional and evocative. At the center of the cabin is a four-circle display cluster on the center stack, inspired by the vintage camera dials. The interior design features contrasting colors and shapes, with a preference for geometric over organic elements. The dashboard’s linear architecture and absence of decorations focus the driver’s attention on the journey, while swiveling front seats and modular storage solutions enhance practicality.

GENESIS

Genesis didn’t provide pictures of those swiveling seats or modular storage compartments on this concept, but the X Gran Equator Concept will make its in-person debut April 18th at the Genesis booth during the 2025 New York International Auto Show.

After the show, the company will move the concept to a display at Genesis House New York in the Meatpacking District, where it will stay “in residence” until the end of July. If you’re out that way for either event, take a picture of it and tag Electrek on Instagram!

SOURCE | IMAGES: Genesis.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

New electric Honda SUV with 469 hp and 403 mile range (in China)

Published

on

By

New electric Honda SUV with 469 hp and 403 mile range (in China)

The new-for-2025 Honda P7 electric SUV officially went on sale earlier today with 469 hp and more than 650 km (403 miles) of range from its 89.8-kWh nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) battery … and you won’t believe the price!

First shown as a concept at the launch of Honda’s Ye brand a year ago, today. Ye is a joint venture between Honda and local automakers Dongfeng, who build the brand’s S7 model, and GAC, which helped develop the mechanically similar P7 that just went on sale.

And, by “similar,” I mean really, really similar. The AWD version of the new Honda P7 offers up to 620 km (385 miles) of CLTC-rated range, while the RWD can go 650 km (403 miles), which are identical figures to the S7. Even the crossover’s dimensions, at 4,750 mm long, 1,930 mm wide, and 1,625 mm tall with a 2,930 mm wheelbase, are identical.

Even the interiors – which are fantastic, by the way, with an innovative mix of screens, buttons, and super-slick sideview monitors – are tough to tell apart.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Honda Ye EV interior(s)

So, how can you tell the P7 apart from its S7 sibling? The P7 has C-shaped lighting elements that are distinctive from the S7’s X-shaped lights. The end result is a face that reads a bit more “Honda” to me, but that may or may not be a good thing in the Chinese market.

Pricing for the new Honda P7 starts at 199,900 yuan (about $27,200) for the two wheel drive variant, and is also offered with all-wheel drive for 249,900 yuan (about $34,000, as I type this), complete with the sort of advanced ADAS features you have to pay good money to supervise here in the US. That pricing makes both P7 models significantly less expensive that the what the company thought would be the vehicle’s main competitor, the Tesla Model Y.

The world has changed a lot since then however – and whether or not the Model Y is still considered a serious rival remains to be seen.

If you’re in the mood to check out an all-electric Honda in the US, click here to set up a test drive and explore local deals on a new Prologue. In the meantime, I invite you to take a look at some of the press photos of the new P7, below, then let us know what you think in the comments.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Honda; via Paul Tan.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending