Areva in exclusive talks with Alstom/Schneider

US Power Grid Cyberattacks target utilities and nuclear plants, probing SCADA, ICS, and business networks at sites like Wolf Creek; suspected Russian actors, malware, and spear-phishing trigger DHS and FBI alerts on critical infrastructure resilience.

Key Points

Intrusions on energy networks probing ICS and SCADA, seeking persistence and elevating risks to critical infrastructure.

✅ Wolf Creek nuclear plant targeted; no operational systems breached

✅ Attackers leveraged stolen credentials, malware, and spear-phishing

✅ DHS and FBI issued alerts; utilities enhance cyber resilience

Hackers working for a foreign government recently breached at least a dozen US power plants, including the Wolf Creek nuclear facility in Kansas, according to current and former US officials, sparking concerns the attackers were searching for vulnerabilities in the electrical grid.

The rivals could be positioning themselves to eventually disrupt the nation’s power supply, warned the officials, who noted that a general alert, prompting a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid, was distributed to utilities a week ago. Adding to those concerns, hackers recently infiltrated an unidentified company that makes control systems for equipment used in the power industry, an attack that officials believe may be related.

The chief suspect is Russia, according to three people familiar with the continuing effort to eject the hackers from the computer networks. One of those networks belongs to an ageing nuclear generating facility known as Wolf Creek -- owned by Westar Energy Inc, Great Plains Energy Inc, and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc -- on a lake shore near Burlington, Kansas.

The possibility of a Russia connection is particularly worrying, former and current official s say, because Russian hackers have previously taken down parts of the electrical grid in Ukraine and appear to be testing increasingly advanced tools, including cyber weapons to disrupt power grids, to disrupt power supplies.

The hacks come as international tensions have flared over US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia tried to influence the 2016 presidential election, and amid U.S. government condemnation of Russian power-grid hacking in recent advisories. The US, which has several continuing investigations into Russia’s activities, is known to possess digital weapons capable of disrupting the electricity grids of rival nations.

“We don’t pay attention to such anonymous fakes,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, in response to a request to comment on alleged Russian involvement.

It was unclear whether President Donald Trump was planning to address the cyber attacks at his meeting on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In an earlier speech in Warsaw, Trump called out Russia’s “destabilising activities” and urged the country to join “the community of responsible nations.”

The Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation said they are aware of a potential intrusion in the energy sector. The alert issued to utilities cited activities by hackers since May.

“There is no indication of a threat to public safety, as any potential impact appears to be limited to administrative and business networks,” the government agencies said in a joint statement.

The Department of Energy also said the impact appears limited to administrative and business networks and said it was working with utilities and grid operators to enhance security and resilience.

“Regardless of whether malicious actors attempt to exploit business networks or operational systems, we take any reports of malicious cyber activity potentially targeting our nation’s energy infrastructure seriously and respond accordingly,” the department said in an emailed statement.

Representatives of the National Security Council, the Director of National Intelligence and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission declined to comment. While Bloomberg News was waiting for responses from the government, the New York Times reported that hacks were targeting nuclear power stations.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp, a nonprofit that works to ensure the reliability of the continent’s power system, said it was aware of the incident and was exchanging information with the industry through a secure portal.

“At this time, there has been no bulk power system impact in North America,” the corporation said in an emailed statement.

In addition, the operational controls at Wolf Creek were not pierced, according to government officials, even as attackers accessed utility control rooms elsewhere in the U.S., according to separate reports. “There was absolutely no operational impact to Wolf Creek,” Jenny Hageman, a spokeswoman for the nuclear plant, said in a statement to Bloomberg News.

“The reason that is true is because the operational computer systems are completely separate from the corporate network.”

Determining who is behind an attack can be tricky. Government officials look at the sophistication of the tools, among other key markers, when gauging whether a foreign government is sponsoring cyber activities.

Several private security firms, including Symantec researchers, are studying data on the attacks, but none has linked the work to a particular hacking team or country.

“We don’t tie this to any known group at this point,” said Sean McBride, a lead analyst for FireEye Inc, a global cyber security firm. “It’s not to say it’s not related, but we don’t have the evidence at this point.”

US intelligence officials have long been concerned about the security of the country’s electrical grid. The recent attack, striking almost simultaneously at multiple locations, is testing the government’s ability to coordinate an effective response among several private utilities, state and local officials, and industry regulators.

Specialised teams from Homeland Security and the FBI have been scrambled to help extricate the hackers from the power stations, in some cases without informing local and state officials. Meanwhile, the US National Security Agency is working to confirm the identity of the hackers, who are said to be using computer servers in Germany, Italy, Malaysia and Turkey to cover their tracks.

Many of the power plants are conventional, but the targeting of a nuclear facility adds to the pressure. While the core of a nuclear generator is heavily protected, a sudden shutdown of the turbine can trigger safety systems. These safety devices are designed to disperse excess heat while the nuclear reaction is halted, but the safety systems themselves may be vulnerable to attack.

Homeland Security and the FBI sent out a general warning about the cyber attack to utilities and related parties on June 28, though it contained few details or the number of plants affected. The government said it was most concerned about the “persistence” of the attacks on choke points of the US power supply. That language suggests hackers are trying to establish backdoors on the plants’ systems for later use, according to a former senior DHS official who asked not to be identified.

Those backdoors can be used to insert software specifically designed to penetrate a facility’s operational controls and disrupt critical systems, according to Galina Antova, co-founder of Claroty, a New York firm that specialises in securing industrial control systems.

“We’re moving to a point where a major attack like this is very, very possible,” Antova said. “Once you’re into the control systems -- and you can get into the control systems by hacking into the plant’s regular computer network -- then the basic security mechanisms you’d expect are simply not there.”

The situation is a little different at nuclear facilities. Backup power supplies and other safeguards at nuclear sites are meant to ensure that “you can’t really cause a nuclear plant to melt down just by taking out the secondary systems that are connected to the grid,” Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a phone interview.

The operating systems at nuclear plants also tend to be legacy controls built decades ago and don’t have digital control systems that can be exploited by hackers. Wolf Creek, for example, began operations in 1985. “They’re relatively impervious to that kind of attack,” Lyman said.

The alert sent out last week inadvertently identified Wolf Creek as one of the victims of the attack. An analysis of one of the tools used by the hackers had the stolen credentials of a plant employee, a senior engineer. A US official acknowledged the error was not caught until after the alert was distributed.

According to a security researcher who has seen the report, the malware that activated the engineer’s username and password was designed to be used once the hackers were already inside the plant’s computer systems.

The tool tries to connect to non-public computers, and may have been intended to identify systems related to Wolf Creek’s generation plant, a part of the facility typically more modern than the nuclear reactor control room, according to a security expert who asked to note be identified because the alert is not public.

Even if there is no indication that the hackers gained access to those control systems, the design of the malware suggests they may have at least been looking for ways to do so, the expert said.

Stan Luke, the mayor of Burlington, the largest community near Wolf Creek, which is surrounded by corn fields and cattle pastures, said he learned about a cyber threat at the plant only recently, and then only through golfing buddies.

With a population of just 2,700, Burlington boasts a community pool with three water slides and a high school football stadium that would be the envy of any junior college. Luke said those amenities lead back to the tax dollars poured into the community by Wolf Creek, Coffey County’s largest employer with some 1,000 workers, 600 of whom live in the county.

E&E News first reported on digital attacks targeting US nuclear plants, adding it was code-named Nuclear 17. A senior US official told Bloomberg that there was a bigger breach of conventional plants, which could affect multiple regions.

Industry experts and US officials say the attack is being taken seriously, in part because of recent events in Ukraine. Antova said that the Ukrainian power grid has been disrupted at least twice, first in 2015, and then in a more automated attack last year, suggesting the hackers are testing methods.

Scott Aaronson, executive director for security and business continuity at the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group, said utilities, grid operators and federal officials were already dissecting the attack on Ukraine’s electric sector to apply lessons in North America before the US government issued the latest warning to “energy and critical manufacturing sectors”. The current threat is unrelated to recently publicised ransomware incidents or the CrashOverride malware, Mr Aaronson said in an emailed statement.

Neither attack in Ukraine caused long-term damage. But with each escalation, the hackers may be gauging the world’s willingness to push back.

“If you think about a typical war, some of the acts that have been taken against critical infrastructure in Ukraine and even in the US, those would be considered crossing red lines,” Antova said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Manitoba Hydro Court Ruling affirms the Public Utilities Board exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a First Nations rate class, overturning an electricity rates appeal tied to geography, poverty, and regulatory authority in Manitoba.

Key Points

A decision holding the PUB lacked authority to create a First Nations rate class, restoring uniform electricity pricing.

✅ Court says PUB exceeded jurisdiction creating on-reserve rate

✅ Equalized electricity pricing reaffirmed across Manitoba

✅ Geography, not poverty, found decisive in unlawful rate class

Manitoba Hydro was wrongly forced to create a new rate class for electricity customers living on First Nations, the Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled. 

The court decided the Public Utilities Board "exceeded its jurisdiction" by mandating Indigenous customers on First Nations could have a different electricity rate from other Manitobans. 

The board made the order in 2018, which exempted those customers from the general rate increase that year of 3.6 per cent.

"The directive constituted the creation and implementation of general social policy, an area outside of the PUB's jurisdiction and encroaching into areas that are better suited to the federal and provincial government," says the decision, which was released Tuesday.

Hydro's appeal of the PUB's decision went to court earlier this year.

At the time, the Crown corporation acknowledged many Indigenous people on First Nations live in poverty, but it argued the Public Utilities Board was overstepping its authority in trying to address the issue by creating a new rate class.

It also argued it was against provincial law to charge different rates in different areas of the province.

The PUB, however, insisted that legislation gives it the right to decide which factors are relevant when considering electricity prices, such as social issues. 

Special Manitoba Hydro rate class needed to offset challenges of living on First Nations, appeal court hears
Manitoba Hydro can appeal order to create special First Nation rate
The board had heard evidence that some customers were making "unacceptable" sacrifices to keep the lights on each month.

Decision 'heavy-handed': AMC
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, an intervener in the appeal, had backed the utility board's position. It said on-reserve customers are disproportionately vulnerable to rate hikes over time.

Grand Chief Arlen Dumas said Wednesday he was surprised by the court's ruling. 

He argued Indigenous people are unduly excluded in the setting of electricity rates in Manitoba.

"I will be speaking with my federal and provincial counterparts on how we deal with this issue, because I think it's the wrong [decision]. It's heavy-handed and we need to address it."

The appeal court judges said there is past precedent for setting equal electricity rates, regardless of where customers live. Legislation to that effect was made in the early 2000s and a few years ago, the PUB recognized that geographical limitations should not be imposed on a class of customers.

Since the board's new order didn't extend the same savings to First Nations members who don't live on reserve but face similar financial circumstances, it is clear the deciding factor was geography, rather than poverty or treaty status, the judges said.

Manitoba Hydro temporarily cutting 200 jobs, many of them front-line workers
"In my view, the PUB erred in law when it created an on-reserve class based solely on a geographic region of the province in which customers are located," the decision read.

While Manitoba Hydro objected to the PUB's order in 2018, it still devoted money to create the new customer class.

Spokesperson Bruce Owen said the utility is still studying the impact of the court's decision, but it appreciates the ruling.  

"We all recognize that many people on First Nations have challenges, but our argument was solely on whether or not the PUB had the authority to create a special rate class based on where people live."

Owen added that Hydro recognizes electricity rates can be a hardship on individuals facing poverty. He said those considerations are part of the discussions the corporation has with the utilities board.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One investment risk reflects Ontario government influence, board shakeup, Avista acquisition uncertainty, regulatory hearings, dividend growth prospects, and utility M&A moves in Peterborough, with stock volatility since the 2015 IPO.

Key Points

Hydro One investment risk stems from political control, governance turnover, regulatory outcomes, and uncertain M&A.

✅ Ontario retains near-50% stake, affecting autonomy and policy risk

✅ Board overhaul and CEO exit create governance uncertainty

✅ Avista deal, OEB hearings, local utility M&A drive outcomes

Hydro One may be only half-owned by the province on Ontario but that’s enough to cause uncertainty about the company’s future, thus making for an investment risk, says Douglas Kee of Leon Frazer & Associates.

Since its IPO in November of 2015, Hydro One has seen its share of ups and downs, including a Q2 profit decline earlier this year, mostly downs at this point. Currently trading at $19.87, the stock has lost 11 per cent of its value in 2018 and 12 per cent over the last 12 months, despite a one-time gain boosting Q2 profit that followed a court ruling.

This year has been a turbulent one, to say the least, as newly elected Ontario premier Doug Ford made good this summer on his campaign promise re Hydro One by forcing the resignation of the company’s 14-person board of directors along with the retirement of its chief executive, an event that saw Hydro One shares fall amid the turmoil. An interim CEO has been found and a new 10-person board and chairman put in place, but Kee says it’s unclear what impact the shakeup will ultimately have, other than delaying a promising-looking deal to purchase US utility Avista Corp, with the companies moving to ask the U.S. regulator to reconsider the order.

Douglas Kee’s take on Hydro One stock

“We looked at Hydro One a couple of times two years ago and just decided that with the Ontario government’s still owning a big chunk of the company … there are other public companies where you get the same kind of yield, the same kind of dividend growth, so we just avoided it,” says Kee, managing director and chief investment officer with Leon Frazer & Associates, to BNN Bloomberg.

“The old board versus the new board, I’m not sure that there’s much of an improvement. It was politics more than anything,” he says. “The unfortunate part is that the acquisition they were making in the United States is kind of on hold for now. The regulatory procedures have gone ahead but they are worried, and I guess the new board has to make a decision whether to go ahead with it or not.”

“Their transmissions side is coming up for regulatory hearings next year, which could be difficult in Ontario,” says Kee. “The offset to that is that there are a lot of municipal distributions systems in Ontario that may be sold — they bought one in Peterborough recently, which was a good deal for them. There may be more of that coming too.”

Last month, Hydro One reached an agreement with the City of Peterborough to buy its Peterborough Distribution utility which serves about 37,000 customers for $105 million. Another deal to purchase Orillia Power Distribution Corp for $41 million has been cancelled after an appeal to the Ontario Energy Board was denied in late August. Hydro One’s sought-after Avista Corp acquisition is reported to be worth $7 billion.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Ontario Global Adjustment Supreme Court Appeal spotlights a constitutional challenge to Ontario's electricity charge, pitting National Steel Car against the IESO over regulatory charge vs tax, procurement policy, and renewable energy feed-in tariff contracts.

Key Points

An SCC leave bid on whether Ontario's global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge or an unconstitutional tax.

✅ Appeals Court revived case for full record review

✅ Dispute centers on regulatory charge vs tax classification

✅ FIT renewables contracts and procurement policies at issue

The Ontario government wants the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in on a constitutional challenge being brought against a large provincial electricity charge, a case the province claims raises issues of national importance.

Ontario’s attorney general and its Independent Electricity System Operator applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in January, according to the court’s website.

The province is trying to appeal a Court of Appeal decision reinstating the challenge from November that said a legal challenge by Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. should be sent back to a lower-court for a full hearing.

Court reinstates constitutional challenge to Ontario's hefty ‘global adjustment’ electricity charge
National Steel Car appealing decision in legal challenge of Ontario electricity fee it calls an unconstitutional tax
Doug Ford’s cancellation of green energy deals costs Ontario taxpayers $231 million
National Steel Car launched its legal challenge in 2017, with the maker of steel rail cars claiming the province’s global adjustment electricity charge was a tax intended to fund certain post-financial-crisis policy goals. Since it is allegedly a tax, and one not imposed by the provincial legislature, the company’s argument is the global adjustment is unconstitutional, and also in breach of a provincial law requiring a referendum for new taxes.

The global adjustment mostly bridges the gap between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts and regulated rates with power generators. It also helps cover the cost of building new electricity infrastructure and providing conservation programs, but the fee now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household power bill in the province.

Ontario argued the global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge, and moved to have National Steel Car’s challenge thrown out. An Ontario Superior Court judge agreed, and dismissed the challenge in 2018, saying it was “plain, obvious and beyond doubt” it could not succeed. However, an appeals court judge disagreed, writing in a decision last November that the “merits should not have been determined on a pleadings motion and without the development of a full record.”

In filings made to the Supreme Court, both the IESO and Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General argued their proposed appeals raise “issues of national and public importance,” such as whether incorporating environmental and social policy goals in procurement could turn attempts by a public body to recover costs into an unconstitutional tax.

Most applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are dismissed, but the Ontario government claims the court’s guidance is required in this case, as it could lead to questions being raised about other fees or charges, such as money raised from fishing licences.

“A failure to dispose of this claim at the pleadings stage may well result in such uncertainty that public authorities across Canada decline to incorporate the kind of environmental and social policy goals objected to in this case into the decisions they make about how to spend funds raised from regulatory charges,” the filing from the attorney general states. “Alternatively, it may induce governments not to engage in cost recovery in connection with publicly supplied goods and services, which can otherwise be sound public policy.”

The government has so far had to pay National Steel Car $250,000 in legal costs “to avoid responding to the credible claim that the Global Adjustment is an unconstitutional tax,” said David Trafford of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers.

“The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits,” Trafford added in an email.

The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits

David Trafford of Morse Shannon, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers
 
National Steel Car has particularly taken issue with the part of the global adjustment that funded contracts for renewable energy under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which the company called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity.”

The FIT program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place and form part of the global adjustment. Ontario’s auditor general estimated in 2015 that electricity consumers would pay $9.2 billion more for renewable energy under the government’s guaranteed-price program, a figure that later featured in a dispute between the auditor and the electricity regulator that drew political attention.

National Steel Car said its global adjustment costs grew from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, reflecting how high electricity rates have pressured manufacturers, to almost $3.4 million in 2016. For 2018, there was approximately $11.2 billion in global adjustment collected, according to the IESO’s reporting.

A spokesperson for the IESO said it “is not in a position to comment” because the case is still before the courts.

Electricity prices have been an ongoing problem for both Ontario consumers and politicians, which the previous Liberal government tried to address in 2017 by, among other things, refinancing global-adjustment costs through the Fair Hydro Plan and other measures.

Since National Steel Car filed its lawsuits, though, the Liberals lost power in the province and were succeeded in 2018 by Premier Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, who made changes to the previous government’s power policies, including legislation to lower electricity rates introduced early in their mandate.

The province has also pursued interprovincial power arrangements, including building on an electricity deal with Quebec as part of its broader energy strategy.

“The present government of Ontario does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement program, which ceased awarding new contracts in 2016,” Ontario’s attorney general said in a filing. “However, Ontario submits that (the lower-court judge) was correct in holding that it does not give rise to a claim susceptible to being remedied by the courts.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target highlights how rising greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation and natural gas power plants threaten Ontario’s climate goals, environmental sustainability, and clean energy transition efforts amid growing economic and policy challenges.

Why is Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target?

Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target examines the province’s setback in meeting climate goals due to higher power-sector emissions and shifting energy policies.

✅ Rising greenhouse gas emissions from gas-fired electricity generation

✅ Climate policy uncertainty and missed environmental targets

✅ Balancing clean energy transition with economic pressures

Ontario’s path toward meeting its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target has taken a sharp turn for the worse, according to internal government documents obtained by Global News. The province, once on track to surpass its reduction goals, is now projected to miss them—largely due to rising emissions from electricity generation, even as the IEA net-zero electricity report highlights rising demand nationwide.

In October 2024, the Ford government’s internal analysis indicated that Ontario was on track to reduce emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, effectively exceeding its target. But a subsequent update in January 2025 revealed a grim reversal. The new forecast showed an increase of about eight megatonnes (Mt) of emissions compared to the previous model, with most of the rise attributed to the province’s energy policies.

“This forecast is about 8 Mt higher than the October 2024 forecast, mainly due to higher electricity sector emissions that reflect the latest ENERGY/IESO energy planning and assumptions,” the internal document stated.

While the analysis did not specify which policy shifts triggered the change, experts point to Ontario’s growing reliance on natural gas. The use of gas-fired power plants has surged to fill temporary gaps created by nuclear refurbishment projects and other grid constraints, even as renewable energy’s role grows. In fact, natural gas generation in early 2025 reached its highest level since 2012.

The internal report cited “changing electricity generation,” nuclear power refurbishment, and “policy uncertainty” as major risks to achieving the province’s climate goals. But the situation may be even worse than the government’s updated forecast suggests.

On Wednesday, Ontario’s auditor general warned that the January projections were overly optimistic. The watchdog’s new report concluded the province could fall even further behind its 2030 emissions target, noting that reductions had likely been overestimated in several sectors, including transportation—such as electric vehicle sales—and waste management. “An even wider margin” of missed goals was now expected, the auditor said.

Environment Minister Todd McCarthy defended the government’s position, arguing that climate goals must be balanced against economic realities. “We cannot put families’ financial, household budgets at risk by going off in a direction that’s not achievable,” McCarthy said.

The minister declined to commit to new emissions targets beyond 2030—or even to confirm that the existing goals would be met—but insisted efforts were ongoing. “We are continuing to meet our commitment to at least try to meet our commitment for the 2030 target,” he told reporters. “But targets are not outcomes. We believe in achievable outcomes, not unrealistic objectives.”

Environmental advocates warn that Ontario’s reliance on fossil-fuel generation could lock the province into higher emissions for years, undermining national efforts to decarbonize Canada’s electricity grid. With cleaning up Canada’s electricity expected to play a central role in both industrial growth and climate action, the province’s backslide represents a significant setback for Canada’s overall emissions strategy.

Other provinces face similar challenges; for example, B.C. is projected to miss its 2050 targets by a wide margin.

As Ontario weighs its next steps, the tension between energy security, affordability, and environmental responsibility continues to define the province’s path toward a lower-carbon future and Canada’s 2050 net-zero target over the long term.

Related Articles

• Canada Electricity News

Tesla Supercharger Billing Update details kWh-based pricing that now includes HVAC, battery thermal management, and other HV loads during charging sessions, improving cost transparency across pay-per-use markets and extreme climate scenarios.

Key Points

Tesla's update bills for kWh used by HVAC, battery heating, and HV loads during charging, reflecting true energy costs.

✅ kWh charges now include HVAC and battery thermal management

✅ Expect 10-25 kWh increases in extreme climates during sessions

✅ Some regions still bill per minute due to regulations

Tesla has updated its Supercharger billing policy to add the cost of electricity use for things other than charging, like HVAC, battery thermal management, etc, while charging at a Supercharger station, a shift that impacts overall EV charging costs for drivers. 

For a long time, Tesla’s Superchargers were free to use, or rather the use was included in the price of its vehicles. But the automaker has been moving to a pay-to-use model over the last two years in order to finance the growth of the charging network amid the Biden-era charging expansion in the United States.

Not charging owners for the electricity enabled Tesla to wait on developing a payment system for its Supercharger network.

It didn’t need one for the first five years of the network, and now the automaker has been fine-tuning its approach to charge owners for the electricity they consume as part of building better charging networks across markets.

At first, it meant fluctuating prices, and now Tesla is also adjusting how it calculates the total power consumption.

Last weekend, Tesla sent a memo to its staff to inform them that they are updating the calculation used to bill Supercharging sessions in order to take into account all the electricity used:

The calculation used to bill for Supercharging has been updated. Owners will also be billed for kWhs consumed by the car going toward the HVAC system, battery heater, and other HV loads during the session. Previously, owners were only billed for the energy used to charge the battery during the charging session.

Tesla says that the new method should more “accurately reflect the value delivered to the customer and the cost incurred by Tesla,” which mirrors recent moves in its solar and home battery pricing strategy as well.

The automaker says that customers in “extreme climates” could see a difference of 10 to 25 kWh for the energy consumed during a charging session:

Owners may see a noticeable increase in billed kWh if they are using energy-consuming features while charging, e.g., air conditioning, heating etc. This is more likely in extreme climates and could be a 10-25 kWh difference from what a customer experienced previously, as states like California explore grid-stability uses for EVs during peak events.

Of course, this is applicable where Tesla is able to charge by the kWh for charging sessions. In some markets, regulations push Tesla to charge by the minute amid ongoing fights over charging control between utilities and private operators.

Electrek’s Take
It actually looks like an oversight from Tesla in the first place. It’s fair to charge for the total electricity used during a session, and not just what was used to charge your battery pack, since Tesla is paying for both, even as some states add EV ownership fees like the Texas EV fee that further shape costs.

However, I wish Tesla would have a clearer way to break down the charging sessions and their costs.

There have been some complaints about Tesla wrongly billing owners for charging sessions, and this is bound to create more confusion if people see a difference between the kWhs gained during charging and what is shown on the bill.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News