Survey work for the $1 billion power-export transmission line from Ethiopia to Kenya is expected to start this month, according to Kenya Minister of Energy Kiraitu Murungi, who added that the project would be completed by 2013.
The project is to be partly funded by loans from the African Development Fund, the European Investment Bank, and the World Bank, together with funds provided by the government of Kenya. The project follows on from a power purchase agreement signed by the two countries in June this year, enabling Kenya to import electricity from Ethiopia.
The transmission line is scheduled to run between the Sodo substation in Ethiopia for a distance of almost 1,200 kilometers to metropolitan Nairobi in Kenya. The line is proposed to run at 500 kilovolts direct current and will supply 500 megawatts (MW) of power to Kenya. The project will also include the development of two converting stations to enable the export of power from southern Ethiopia to the Eastern Africa Power Pool.
Ethiopia is the only country in East Africa with a power supply capable of meeting domestic demand and has a power reserve margin of 30%, twice the recommended level. Ethiopia relies largely on hydroelectric power stations and plans are under way to increase generating capacity in the country and enable power exports to other countries in the East African region.
Ethiopia has a generating capacity of 1,170 MW. Last month, the country officially inaugurated the 300-MW Tekeze hydroelectric power plant, which contains four 75-MW turbines and is connected to the national grid by a 105-kilometer transmission line to the town of Mekelle. The Ethiopian government plans to implement several more hydroelectric schemes within the next 10 years and hopes to have three of these, including Tekeze, operational in 2010.
The situation is not so positive in Kenya, which has an installed power generating capacity of 1,416 MW and a power demand that reached 1,073 MW this year, which is growing at a conservative estimate of 8% annually. As with Ethiopia, the majority of Kenya's electricity, about 55%, is generated from hydroelectric schemes, with 33% coming from thermal power stations, and the remainder largely from geothermal sources.
Because of its relatively high reliance on hydroelectric power, Kenya is especially vulnerable to climate and weather patterns. In June this year, the country experienced a 23% shortfall in power generation capacity as a result of low water levels. The government plans to reduce this reliance on hydroelectricity by seeking to invest in other forms of generation, such as geothermal and wind, and has set a target for more than 9,000 MW of generating capacity to be commissioned by 2030.
Although Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KenGen) acknowledges that import of power from Ethiopia is a necessity, the import could also cause problems for the state-owned company's profitability. The planned import of electricity from Ethiopia will be at a cheaper rate than that generated by KenGen. To counter this, KenGen is reportedly seeking to acquire an equity stake in the power-sharing project.
Duke Energy Carolinas Solar RFP draws 3.9 GW of utility-scale bids, oversubscribed in DEP and DEC, below avoided cost rates, minimal battery storage, strict PPA terms, and interconnection challenges across North and South Carolina.
Key Points
Utility-scale solar procurement in DEC and DEP, evaluated against avoided cost, with few storage bids and PPA terms.
✅ 3.9 GW bids for 680 MW; DEP most oversubscribed
✅ Most projects 7-80 MWac; few include battery storage
✅ Bids must price below 20-year avoided cost estimate
Last week the independent administrator for Duke’s 680 MW solar solicitation revealed data about the projects which have bid in response to the offer, showing a massive amount of interest in the opportunity.
Overall, 18 individuals submitted bids for projects in Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC) territory and 10 in Duke Energy Progress (DEP), with a total of more than 3.9 GW of proposals – more nearly 6x the available volume. DEP was relatively more over-subscribed, with 1.2 GWac of projects vying for only 80 MW of available capacity.
This is despite a requirement that such projects come in below the estimate of Duke’s avoided cost for the next 20 years, and amid changes in solar compensation that could affect project economics. Individual projects varied in capacity from 7-80 MWac, with most coming within the upper portion of that range.
These bids will be evaluated in the spring of 2019, and as Duke Energy Renewables continues to expand its portfolio, Duke Energy Communications Manager Randy Wheeless says he expects the plants to come online in a year or two.
Lack of storage
Despite recent trends in affordable batteries, of the 78 bids that came in only four included integrated battery storage. Tyler Norris, Cypress Creek Renewables’ market lead for North Carolina, says that this reflects that the methodology used is not properly valuing storage.
“The lack of storage in these bids is a missed opportunity for the state, and it reflects a poorly designed avoided cost rate structure that improperly values storage resources, commercially unreasonable PPA provisions, and unfavorable interconnection treatment toward independent storage,” Norris told pv magazine.
“We’re hopeful that these issues will be addressed in the second RFP tranche and in the current regulatory proceedings on avoided cost and state interconnection standards and grid upgrades across the region.”
Limited volume for North Carolina?
Another curious feature of the bids is that nearly the same volume of solar has been proposed for South Carolina as North Carolina – despite this solicitation being in response to a North Carolina law and ongoing legal disputes such as a church solar case that challenged the state’s monopoly model.
Ontario EV Battery Separator Plant anchors Canada's EV supply chain, with Asahi Kasei producing lithium-ion battery separators in Niagara Region to support Honda's Alliston assembly, clean transportation growth, and sustainable manufacturing jobs.
Key Points
Asahi Kasei's Niagara Region plant makes lithium-ion battery separators supplying Honda's EV factory in Ontario.
✅ Starts up by 2027 to align with Honda EV output timeline.
✅ Backed by clean tech tax credits and public investment.
✅ Boosts local jobs, R&D, and clean transportation leadership.
The automotive industry is undergoing a seismic shift, and Canada is firmly planting its flag in the electric vehicle (EV) revolution, propelled by recent EV assembly deals across the country. A new $1.6 billion battery component plant in Ontario's Niagara Region signifies a significant step towards a cleaner, more sustainable transportation future. This Asahi Kasei facility, a key player in Honda's $15 billion electric vehicle supply chain investment, promises to create jobs, boost the local economy, and solidify Ontario's position as a leader in clean transportation technology.
Honda's ambitious project forms part of Honda's Ontario EV investment that involves constructing a dedicated battery plant adjacent to their existing Alliston, Ontario assembly facility. This new plant will focus on producing fully electric vehicles, requiring a robust supply chain for critical components. Asahi Kasei's Niagara Region plant enters the picture here, specializing in the production of battery separators – a thin film crucial for separating the positive and negative electrodes within a lithium-ion battery. These separators play a vital role in ensuring the battery functions safely and efficiently.
The Niagara Region plant is expected to be operational by 2 027, perfectly aligning with Honda's EV production timeline. This strategic partnership benefits both companies: Honda secures a reliable source for a vital component, while Asahi Kasei capitalizes on the burgeoning demand for EV parts. The project is a catalyst for economic growth in Ontario, creating jobs in construction and manufacturing, supporting an EV jobs boom province-wide, and potentially future research and development sectors. Additionally, it positions the province as a hub for clean transportation technology, attracting further investment and fostering innovation.
This announcement isn't an isolated event. News of Volkswagen constructing a separate EV battery plant in St. Thomas, Ontario, and the continuation of a major EV battery project near Montreal further underscore Canada's commitment to electric vehicles. These developments signify a clear shift in the country's automotive landscape, with a focus on sustainable solutions.
Government support has undoubtedly played a crucial role in attracting these investments. The Honda deal involves up to $5 billion in public funds. Asahi Kasei's Niagara Region plant is also expected to benefit from federal and provincial clean technology tax credits. This demonstrates a collaborative effort between government and industry, including investments by Canada and Quebec in battery assembly, to foster a thriving EV ecosystem in Canada.
The economic and environmental benefits of this project are undeniable. Battery production is expected to create thousands of jobs, while the shift towards electric vehicles will lead to reduced emissions and a cleaner environment. Ontario stands to gain significantly from this transition, becoming a leader in clean energy technology and attracting skilled workers and businesses catering to the EV sector, especially as the U.S. auto pivot to EVs accelerates across the border.
However, challenges remain. Concerns about the environmental impact of battery production, particularly the sourcing of raw materials and the potential for hazardous waste, need to be addressed. Additionally, ensuring a skilled workforce capable of handling the complexities of EV technology is paramount.
Despite these challenges, the future of electric vehicles in Canada appears bright. Major automakers are making significant investments, government support is growing, and consumer interest in EVs is on the rise. The Niagara Region plant serves as a tangible symbol of Canada's commitment to a cleaner and more sustainable transportation future. With careful planning and continued Canada-U.S. collaboration across the sector, this project has the potential to revolutionize the Canadian automotive industry and pave the way for a greener tomorrow.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Ukraine Winter Energy Attacks strain the power grid as Russian missile strikes hit critical infrastructure, causing blackouts, civilian casualties, and damage in Kyiv, Kherson, and Kharkiv, underscoring air defense needs and looming cold-weather risks.
Key Points
Russian strikes on energy infrastructure cause outages, damage, and harm as Ukraine braces for freezing winter months.
✅ Power cuts reported in 400 localities; grid stability at risk.
✅ Kyiv seeks more air defenses as winter threats intensify.
Ukraine has warned that a difficult winter looms ahead after a massive Russian missile barrage targeted civilian infrastructure, killing three in the south and wounding many across the country.
Russia launched the strikes as Ukraine prepares for a third winter during Moscow's 19-month long invasion and as President Volodymyr Zelensky made his second wartime trip to Washington amid a U.S. end to grid support announcement.
"Most of the missiles were shot down. But only the majority. Not all," Zelensky said, calling for the West to provide Kyiv with more anti-missile systems to help keep the lights on this winter amid ongoing attacks.
The fresh attack came as Poland said it would honour pre-existing commitments of weapons supplies to Kyiv, a day after saying it would no longer arm its neighbour in a mounting row between the two allies.
Moscow hit cities from Rivne in western Ukraine to Kherson in the south, the capital Kyiv and cities in the centre and northeast of the country.
Kyiv also reported power cuts across the country -- in almost 400 cities, towns and villages -- as Russia targeted power plants across the grid, but said it was "too early" to tell if this was the start of a new Russian campaign against its energy sites.
Officials added that electricity reserves could limit scheduled outages if no new large-scale strikes occur.
Last winter many Ukrainians had to go without electricity and heating in freezing temperatures as Russia hit Kyiv's energy facilities.
"Difficult months are ahead: Russia will attack energy and critically important facilities," said Oleksiy Kuleba, the deputy head of Kyiv's presidential office.
Ukraine also said that it had struck a military airfield in Moscow-annexed Crimea, a claim denied by Russian-installed authorities.
'Ceilings fell down' Russia's overnight strikes were deadliest in the southern Kherson, where three people were killed.
In Kyiv's eastern Darnitsky district, frightened residents of a dormitory woke up to their rooms with shattered windows and parked cars outside completely burnt out.
Communities have also adopted new energy solutions to cope with winter blackouts, from generators to shared warming points.
Debris from a downed missile in the capital wounded seven people, including a child.
"God, god, god," Maya Pelyukh, a cleaner who lives in the building, said as she looked at her living room covered in broken glass and debris on her bed.
Her windows and door were blown away, with the 50-year-old saying she crawled out from under a door frame.
Some residents outside were still in dressing gowns as they watched emergency workers put out a fire the authorities said had spread over 400 square meters (4,300 square feet).
In the northeastern city of Kharkiv seamstresses were clearing a damaged clothing factory, with a Russian missile hitting nearby.
"The ceilings fell down. Windows were blown out. There are chunks of the road inside," Yulia Barantsova said, as she cleared a sewing machine from dust and rubble.
Alberta Energy Price Spike signals rising electricity and natural gas costs; lock in fixed rates as storage is low, demand surged in heat waves, and exports rose after Hurricane Ida, driving volatility and higher futures.
Key Points
An anticipated surge in Alberta electricity and natural gas prices, urging consumers to lock fixed rates to reduce risk.
✅ Fixed-rate gas near $3.79/GJ vs futures approaching $6/GJ
✅ Low storage after heat waves and U.S. export demand
✅ Switch providers or plans; UCA comparison tool helps
Energy economists are warning Albertans to review their gas and electricity bills and lock in a fixed rate if they haven't already done so because prices are expected to spike in the coming months.
"I have been urging anyone who will listen that every single Albertan should be on a fixed rate for this winter," University of Calgary energy economist Blake Shaffer said Monday. "And I say that for both natural gas and power."
Shaffer said people will rightly point out energy costs make up only roughly a third of their monthly bill. The rest of the costs for such things as delivery fees can't be avoided.
But, he said, "there is an energy component and it is meaningful in terms of savings."
For example, Shaffer said, when he checked last week, a consumer could sign a fixed rate gas contract for $3.79 a gigajoule and the current future price for gas is nearly $6 a gigajoule.
A typical household would use about 15 gigajoules a month, he said, so a consumer could save $30 to $45 a month for five months. For people on lower or fixed incomes, "that is a pretty significant saving."
Comparable savings can also be achieved with electricity, he said.
Shaffer said research has shown households that are least able to afford sharp increases in gas and electrical bills are less likely to pick up the phone and call their energy provider and either negotiate a lower fixed rate contract or jump to a new provider.
But, he said, it is definitely worth the time and effort, particularly as Calgary electricity bills are rising across the city. Alberta's Utilities Consumer Advocate has a handy cost comparison tool on its website that allows consumers to conduct regional price comparisons that will assist in making an informed decision.
"Folks should know that for most providers you can change back to a floating rate any time you want," Shaffer said.
Summer heat wave affected natural gas supply Why are energy prices set to spike in Alberta, which is a major producer of natural gas?
Sophie Simmonds, managing director of the brokerage firm Anova Energy, said Alberta is now generating the majority of its power using natural gas.
The heat wave in June and July created record electrical demand. Normally, natural gas is stored in the summer for use in the winter. But this year, there was much greater gas consumption in the summer and so less was stored.
On top of that, Alberta has been exporting much more natural gas to the United States since August and September because Hurricane Ida knocked out natural gas assets in the Gulf of Mexico.
"So what this means is we are actually going into winter with very, very low storage numbers," Simmonds said.
Why natural gas prices have surged to some of their highest levels in years Canadians to remain among world's top energy users even as government strives for net zero Consultant Matt Ayres said he believes rising electricity prices also are being affected by Alberta's transition from carbon-intensive fuel sources to less carbon-intensive fuel sources.
"That transition is not always smooth," said Ayres, who is also an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy.
"It is my view that at least some of the price increases we are seeing on electricity comes down to difficulties imposed by that transition and also by a reduction in competition amongst generators, as well as power market overhaul debates shaping policy."
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.
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.
