Power authority slips away on Navajo Nation

U.S. EV and Hybrid Sales 2024 show slower adoption versus gas-powered cars, as charging infrastructure gaps, range anxiety, higher upfront costs, and affordability concerns persist despite incentives, battery tech advances, and expanding fast-charging networks.

Key Points

They represent 10-15% of U.S. car sales, lagging gas models due to costs, charging gaps, range anxiety, and access.

✅ 10-15% of U.S. auto sales; gas cars dominate

✅ Barriers: upfront cost, limited charging, range anxiety

✅ Incentives, battery tech, and networks may boost adoption

Sales of hybrid and electric vehicles (EVs) in the U.S. are continuing to trail behind traditional gas-powered vehicles in 2024, despite significant advancements in automotive technology and growing public awareness of environmental concerns. While the electric vehicle market has seen steady growth and recent sales momentum over the past few years, the gap between EVs and gasoline-powered cars remains wide.

In 2024, hybrid and electric vehicles are projected to account for roughly 10-15% of total car sales in the U.S., a figure that, though significant, still lags far behind the sales of gas-powered vehicles and follows a Q1 2024 EV market share dip in the U.S., according to recent data. Analysts point to several factors contributing to this slower adoption rate, including higher upfront costs, limited charging infrastructure, and consumer concerns over range anxiety. Additionally, while EVs and hybrids offer lower lifetime operating costs, the initial price difference remains a hurdle for many prospective buyers.

One of the key challenges for EV sales continues to be the perception of cost, even as analyses show they can be better for the planet and often your budget over time. While federal and state incentives have made EVs more affordable, especially for lower-income buyers, the price tag for many electric models remains steep, particularly for higher-end vehicles. Even with government rebates, EVs can still be priced higher than their gasoline counterparts, making them less accessible for middle-class consumers. Many potential buyers are also hesitant to make the switch, unsure if the long-term savings will outweigh the initial investment.

Another critical factor is the limited charging infrastructure in many parts of the country. Though major cities have seen significant improvements in charging stations, rural areas and smaller towns still lack the necessary infrastructure to support widespread EV use. This uneven distribution of charging stations leads to concerns about being stranded in areas without access to fast-charging options. While automakers are working on expanding charging networks, the pace of this development is slow, and EVs won't go mainstream until key problems are fixed according to industry leaders.

Range anxiety is also a continuing issue, despite improvements in battery technology. Though newer electric vehicles can go further on a single charge than ever before, the range of many EVs still doesn't meet the expectations of some drivers, particularly those who regularly take long road trips or live in rural areas. The longer charging times and the necessity of planning routes around charging stations add to the hesitation, especially when gasoline-powered vehicles provide greater convenience and flexibility.

The shift toward EVs is further hindered by the continued dominance of gas-powered cars in the market. Gasoline vehicles benefit from decades of development, an extensive fueling infrastructure, and familiarity with the technology. For many consumers, the convenience, affordability, and ease of use of gas-powered vehicles still outweigh the benefits of switching to an electric alternative. Additionally, with fluctuating fuel prices, many drivers continue to find gas-powered cars relatively cost-effective in terms of daily commuting, especially when compared to the current costs of EV ownership.

Despite these challenges, there is hope for a future shift. The federal government’s push for stricter emissions regulations and tax incentives continues to fuel growth in the electric vehicle market. As automakers ramp up production and more affordable options become available, EV sales are expected to increase in the coming years. Companies like Tesla, Ford, whose hybrids are getting a boost, and General Motors are leading the charge, while new manufacturers like Rivian and Lucid Motors are offering alternatives to traditional gasoline vehicles.

Furthermore, the development of new technologies, such as solid-state batteries and faster charging systems, could help alleviate some of the current drawbacks of electric vehicles. If these advancements reach mass-market production in the next few years, they could help make EVs a more attractive and practical option for consumers, aligning with within-a-decade adoption forecasts from some industry observers.

In conclusion, while hybrid and electric vehicles are growing in popularity, gas-powered vehicles continue to dominate the U.S. car market in 2024. Challenges such as high upfront costs, limited charging infrastructure, and concerns about range persist, making it difficult for many consumers to make the switch to electric even as they ask if it's time to buy an EV in 2024. However, with continued investment in technology and infrastructure, the gap between EVs and gas-powered vehicles could narrow in the years to come.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hedonistic Sustainability turns Copenhagen's ARC waste-to-energy plant into a public playground, blending ski slope, climbing wall, and trails with carbon-neutral heating, renewables, circular economy design, and green growth for climate action and liveability.

Key Points

A design approach fusing public recreation with clean-energy infrastructure to drive carbon-neutral, livable urban growth.

✅ Waste-to-energy plant doubles as recreation hub

✅ Supports carbon-neutral heating and renewables

✅ Stakeholder-driven, scalable urban climate model

“We call it hedonistic sustainability,” says Jacob Simonsen of the decision to put an artificial ski slope on the roof of the £485m Amager Resource Centre (Arc), Copenhagen’s cutting-edge new waste-to-energy power plant that feeds the city’s district heating network as well. “It’s not just good for the environment, it’s good for life.”

Skiing is just one of the activities that Simonsen, Arc’s chief executive, and Bjarke Ingels, its lead architect, hope will enhance the latest jewel in Copenhagen’s sustainability crown. The incinerator building also incorporates hiking and running trails, a street fitness gym and the world’s highest outdoor climbing wall, an 85-metre “natural mountain” complete with overhangs that rises the full height of the main structure.

In Copenhagen, green transformation goes hand-in-hand with job creation, a growing economy and a better quality of life

Frank Jensen, lord mayor

It’s all part of Copenhagen’s plan to be net carbon-neutral by 2025. Even now, after a summer that saw wildfires ravagethe Arctic Circle and ice sheets in Greenland suffer near-record levels of melt, the goal seems ambitious. In 2009, when the project was formulated, it was positively revolutionary.

“A green, smart, carbon-neutral city,” declared the cover of the climate action plan, aligning with a broader electric planet vision, before detailing the scale of the challenge: 100 new wind turbines; a 20% reduction in both heat and commercial electricity consumption; 75% of all journeys to be by bike, on foot, or by public transport; the biogas-ification of all organic waste; 60,000 sq metres of new solar panels; and 100% of the city’s heating requirements to be met by renewables.

Radical and far-reaching, the scheme dared to rethink the very infrastructure underpinning the city. There’s still not a climate project anywhere else in the world that comes close, even as leaders elsewhere champion a fully renewable grid by 2030.

And, so far, it’s working. CO2 emissions have been reduced by 42% since 2005, and while challenges around mobility and energy consumption remain (new technologies such as better batteries and carbon capture are being implemented, and global calls for clean electricity investment grow), the city says it is on track to achieve its ultimate goal.

More significant still is that Copenhagen has achieved this while continuing to grow in traditional economic terms. Even as some commentators insist that nothing short of a total rethink of free-market economics and corporate structures is required to stave off global catastrophe, the Danish capital’s carbon transformation has happened alongside a 25% growth in its economy over two decades. Copenhagen’s experience will be a model for other world cities as the global energy transition unfolds.

The sentiment that lies behind Arc’s conception as a multi-use public good – “hedonistic sustainability” – is echoed by Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard, former mayor of Copenhagen for the environment and the man originally tasked, back in 2010, with making the plan a reality.

“We combined life quality with sustainability and called it ‘liveability’,” says Kjeldgaard, now CEO of his own climate adaptation company, Greenovation. “We succeeded in building a good narrative around this, one that everybody could believe in.”

The idea was first floated in the late 1990s, when the newly elected Kjeldgaard had a vision of Copenhagen as the environmental capital of Europe. His enthusiasm ran into political intransigence, however, and despite some success, a lack of budget meant most of his work became “just another branding exercise – it was greenwashing”.

We’re such a rich country – change should be easy for us

Claus Nielsen, furniture maker and designer

But after stints as mayor of family and the labour market, and children and young people, he ended up back at environment in 2010 with renewed determination and, crucially, a broader mandate from the city council. “I said: ‘This time, we have to do it right,’” he recalls, “so we made detailed, concrete plans for every area, set the carbon target, and demanded the money and the manpower to make it a reality.”

He brought on board more than 200 stakeholders, from businesses to academia to citizen representatives, and helped them develop 22 specific business plans and 65 separate projects. So far the plan appears on track: there has been a 15% reduction in heat consumption, 66% of all trips in the city are now by bike, on foot or public transport, and 51% of heat and power comes from renewable electricity sources.

The onus placed on ordinary Copenhageners to walk and cycle more, pay higher taxes (especially on cars) and put up with the inconvenience of infrastructure construction has generally been met with understanding and good grace. And while some people remain critical of the fact that Copenhagen airport is not factored into the CO2 calculations – it lies beyond the city’s boundaries – and grumble about precise definitions and formulae, dissent has been rare.

This relative lack of nimbyism and carping about change can, says Frank Jensen, the city’s lord mayor, be traced to longstanding political traditions.

“Caring for the environment and taking responsibility for society in general has been an integral part of the upbringing of many Danes,” he says. “Moreover, there is a general awareness that climate change now calls for immediate, ambitious and collective action.” A 2018 survey by Concito, a thinktank, found that such action was a top priority for voters.

Jensen is keen to stress the cooperative nature of the plan and says “our visions have to be grounded in the everyday lives of people to be politically feasible”. Indeed, involving so many stakeholders, and allowing them to actively help shape both the ends and the means, has been key to the plan’s success so far and the continued goodwill it enjoys. “It’s so important to note that we [the authorities] cannot do this alone,” says Jørgen Abildgaard, Copenhagen’s executive climate programme director.

Many businesses around the world have typically been reluctant to embrace sustainability when a dip in profits or inconvenience might be the result, but not in Copenhagen. Martin Manthorpe, director of strategy, business development and public affairs at NCC, one of Scandinavia’s largest construction and industrial groups, was brought in early on by Abildgaard to represent industry on the municipality’s climate panel, and to facilitate discussions with the wider business community. He thinks there are several reasons why.

“The Danes have a trading mindset, meaning ‘What will I have to sell tomorrow?’ is just as important as ‘What am I producing today?’” he says. “Also, many big Danish companies are still ultimately family-owned, so the culture leans more towards long-term thinking.”

It is, he says, natural for business to be concerned with issues around sustainability and be willing to endure short-term pain: “To do responsible, long-term business, you need to see yourself as part of the larger puzzle that is called ‘society’.”

Furthermore, in Denmark climate change denial is given extremely short shrift. “We believe in the science,” says Anders Haugaard, a local entrepreneur. “Why wouldn’t you? We’re told sustainability brings only benefits and we’ve got no reason to be suspicious.”

“No one would dare argue against the environment,” says his friend Claus Nielsen, a furniture maker and designer. “We’re such a rich country – change should be easy for us.” Nielsen talks about how enlightened his kids are – “my 11-year-old daughter is now a flexitarian ” – and says that nowadays he mainly buys organic; Haugaard doesn’t see a problem with getting rid of petrol cars (the whole country is aiming to be fossil fuel-free by 2050 as the EU electricity use by 2050 is expected to double).

Above all, there’s a belief that sustainability need not make the city poorer: that innovation and “green growth” can be lucrative in and of themselves. “In Copenhagen, green transformation goes hand-in-hand with job creation, a growing economy and a better quality of life,” says Jensen. “We have also shown that it’s possible to combine this transition with economic growth and market opportunities for businesses, and I think that other countries can learn from our example.”

Besides, as Jensen notes, there is little alternative, and even less time: “National states have failed to take enough responsibility, but cities have the power and will to create concrete solutions. We need to start accelerating their implementation – we need to act now.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada Clean Electricity drives a net-zero grid by 2035, scaling renewables like wind, solar, and hydro, with storage, smart grids, interprovincial transmission, and electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry to cut emissions and costs.

Key Points

Canada Clean Electricity is a shift to a net-zero grid by 2035 using renewables, storage, and smart grids to decarbonize

✅ Doubles non-emitting generation for electrified transport and heating

✅ Expands wind, solar, hydro with storage and smart-grid balancing

✅ Builds interprovincial lines and faster permitting with Indigenous partners

By Merran Smith and Mark Zacharias

Canada is an electricity heavyweight. In addition to being the world’s sixth-largest electricity producer and third-largest electricity exporter in the global electricity market today, Canada can boast an electricity grid that is now 83 per cent emission-free, not to mention residential electricity rates that are the cheapest in the Group of Seven countries.

Indeed, on the face of it, the country’s clean electricity system appears poised for success. With an abundance of sunshine and blustery plains, Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Prairie provinces most often cited for wind and solar, have wind- and solar-power potential that rivals the best on the continent. Meanwhile, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador have long excelled at generating low-cost hydro power.

So it would only be natural to assume that Canada, with this solid head start and its generous geography, is already positioned to provide enough affordable clean electricity to power our much-touted net-zero and economic ambitions.

But the reality is that Canada, like most countries, is not yet prepared for a world increasingly committed to carbon neutrality, in part because demand for solar electricity has lagged, even as overall momentum grows.

The federal government’s forthcoming Clean Electricity Standard – a policy promised by the governing Liberals during the most recent election campaign and restated for an international audience by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the United Nations’ COP26 climate summit – would require all electricity in the country to be net zero by 2035 nationwide, setting a new benchmark. But while that’s an encouraging start, it is by no means the end goal. Electrification – that is, hooking up our vehicles, heating systems and industry to a clean electricity grid – will require Canada to produce roughly twice as much non-emitting electricity as it does today in just under three decades.

This massive ramp-up in clean electricity will require significant investment from governments and utilities, along with their co-operation on measures and projects such as interprovincial power lines to build an electric, connected and clean system that can deliver benefits nationwide. It will require energy storage solutions, smart grids to balance supply and demand, and energy-efficient buildings and appliances to cut energy waste.

While Canada has mostly relied on large-scale hydroelectric and nuclear power in the past, newer sources of electricity such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass with carbon capture and storage will, in many cases, be the superior option going forward, thanks to the rapidly falling costs of such technology and shorter construction times. And yet Canada added less solar and wind generation in the past five years than all but three G20 countries – Indonesia, Russia and Saudi Arabia, with some experts calling it a solar power laggard in recent years. That will need to change, quickly.

In addition, Canada’s Constitution places electricity policy under provincial jurisdiction, which has produced a patchwork of electricity systems across the country that use different energy sources, regulatory models, and approaches to trade and collaboration. While this model has worked to date, given our low consumer rates and high power reliability, collaborative action and a cohesive vision will be needed – not just for a 100-per-cent clean grid by 2035, but for a net-zero-enabling one by 2050.

Right now, it takes too long to move a clean power project from the proposal stage to operation – and far too long if we hope to attain a clean grid by 2035 and a net-zero-enabling one by 2050. This means that federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments must work with rural communities and industry stakeholders to accelerate the approvals, financing and construction of clean energy projects and provide investor certainty.

In doing so, Canada can set a course to carbon neutrality while driving job creation and economic competitiveness, a transition many analyses deem practical and profitable in the long run. Our closest trading partners and many of the world’s largest companies and investors are demanding cleaner goods. A clean grid underpins clean production, just as it underpins our climate goals.

The International Energy Agency estimates that, for the world to reach net zero by 2050, clean electricity generation worldwide must increase by more than 2.5 times between today and 2050. Countries are already plotting their energy pathways, and there is much to learn from each other.

Consider South Australia. The state currently gets 62 per cent of its electricity from wind and solar and, combined with grid-scale battery storage, has not lost a single hour of electricity in the past five years. South Australia expects 100 per cent of its electricity to come from renewable sources before 2030. An added bonus given today’s high energy prices: Annual household electricity costs have declined there by 303 Australian dollars ($276) since 2018.

The transition to clean energy is not about sacrificing our way of life – it’s about improving it. But we’ll need the power to make it happen. That work needs to start now.

Merran Smith is the executive director of Clean Energy Canada, a program at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. Mark Zacharias is a special adviser at Clean Energy Canada and visiting professor at the Simon Fraser University School of Public Policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Ontario Nuclear Refurbishment Economic Impact powers growth as Bruce Power's MCR and OPG's Darlington unit 2 refurbishment drive jobs, supply-chain spending, medical isotopes, clean baseload power, and lower GHG emissions across Ontario and Canada.

Key Points

It is the measured gains from Bruce Power's MCR and OPG's Darlington refurbishment in jobs, taxes, and clean energy.

✅ CAD7.6B-10.6B impact in Ontario; CAD8.1B-11.6B nationwide.

✅ Supports 60% nuclear supply, jobs, and medical isotopes.

✅ MCR and Darlington cut GHGs, drive innovation and supply chains.

The 13-year Major Component Replacement (MCR) project being undertaken as part of Bruce Power's life-extension programme, which officially began with a reactor taken offline earlier this year, will inject billions of dollars into Ontario's economy, a new report has found. Meanwhile, the major project to refurbish Darlington unit 2 remains on track for completion in 2020, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has announced.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) said its report, Major Component Replacement Project Economic Impact Analysis, outlines an impartial assessment of the MCR programme and related manufacturing contracts across the supply chain. The report was commissioned by Bruce Power.

"Our analysis shows that Bruce Power's MCR project is a fundamental contributor to the Ontario economy. More broadly, the life-extension of the Bruce Power facility will provide quality jobs for Ontarians, produce a stable supply of medical isotopes for the world's healthcare system, and deliver economic benefit through direct and indirect spending," OCC President and CEO Rocco Rossi said."As Ontario's energy demand grows, nuclear truly is the best option to meet those demands with reduced GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions. The Bruce Power MCR Project will not only drive economic growth in the region, it will position Ontario as a global leader in nuclear innovation and expertise."

According to the OCC's economic analysis, the MCR's economic impact on Ontario is estimated to be between CAD7.6 billion (USD5.6 billion) and CAD10.6 billion. Nationally, its economic impact is estimated to be between CAD8.1 billion and CAD11.6 billion. It estimates that the federal government will receive CAD144 million in excise tax and CAD1.2 billion in income tax, while the provincial government will receive CAD300 million and CAD437 million. Ontario’s municipal governments are estimated to receive a collective CAD192 million in tax.

The nuclear industry currently provides 60% of Ontario’s daily energy supply needs, with Pickering life extension plans bolstering system reliability, and is made up of over 200 companies and more than 60,000 jobs across a diversity of sectors such as operations, manufacturing, skilled trades, healthcare, and research and innovation, the report notes.

Greg Rickford, Ontario's minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, and minister of Indigenous Affairs, said continued use of the Bruce generating station which recently set an operating record would create jobs and advance Ontario’s nuclear industrial sector. "It is great to see projects like the MCR that help make Ontario the best place to invest, do business and find a job," he said.

The MCR is part of Bruce Power's overall life-extension programme, which started in January 2016. Bruce 6 will be the first of the six Candu units to undergo an MCR which will take 46 months to complete and give the unit a further 30-35 years of operational life. The total cost of refurbishing Bruce units 3-8 is estimated at about CAD8 billion, in addition to CAD5 billion on other activities under the life-extension programme, which is scheduled for completion by 2053.

Darlington milestones

OPG's long-term refurbishment programme at Darlington, alongside SMR plans for the site announced by the province, began with unit 2 in 2016 after years of detailed planning and preparation. Reassembly of the reactor, which was disassembled last year, is scheduled for completion this spring, and the unit 2 refurbishment project remains on track for completion in early 2020. At the same time, final preparations are under way for the start of the refurbishment of unit 3.

"We've entered a critical phase on the project," Senior Vice President of Nuclear Refurbishment Mike Allen said. "OPG and our project partners continue to work as an integrated team to meet our commitments on Unit 2 and our other three reactors at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station."

A 350-tonne generator stator manufactured by GE in Poland is currently in transit to Canada, where it will be installed in Darlington 3's turbine hall as the province also breaks ground on its first SMR this year.

The 10-year Darlington refurbishment is due to be completed in 2026, while the province plans to refurbish Pickering B to extend output beyond that date.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News