AEP plans backyard energy storage

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

U.S. Power Sector Outlook 2022 previews clean energy targets, grid reliability and resilience upgrades, transmission expansion, renewable integration, EV charging networks, and decarbonization policies shaping utilities, markets, and climate strategies amid extreme weather risks.

Key Points

An outlook on clean energy goals, grid resilience, transmission, and EV infrastructure shaping U.S. decarbonization.

✅ States set 100% clean power targets; equity plans deepen.

✅ Grid reforms, transmission builds, and RTO debates intensify.

✅ EV plants, batteries, and charging corridors accelerate.

As sweeping climate legislation stalled in Congress this year, states and utilities were busy aiming to reshape the future of electricity.

States expanded clean energy goals and developed blueprints on how to reach them. Electric vehicles got a boost from new battery charging and factory plans.

The U.S. power sector also is sorting through billions of dollars of damage that will be paid for by customers over time. States coped with everything from blackouts during a winter storm to heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires and tornadoes. The barrage has added urgency to a push for increased grid reliability and resilience, especially as the power generation mix evolves, EV grid challenges grow as electricity is used to power cars and the climate changes.

“The magnitude of our inability to serve with these sort of discontinuous jumps in heat or cold or threats like wildfires and flooding has made it really clear that we can’t take the grid for granted anymore — and that we need to do something,” said Alison Silverstein, a Texas-based energy consultant.

Many of the announcements in 2021 could see further developments next year as legislatures, utilities and regulators flesh out details on everything from renewable projects to ways to make the grid more resilient.

On the policy front, the patchwork of state renewable energy and carbon reduction goals stands out considering Congress’ failure so far to advance a key piece of President Biden’s agenda — the "Build Back Better Act," which proposed about $550 billion for climate action. Criticism from fellow Democrats has rained on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) since he announced his opposition this month to that legislation (E&E Daily, Dec. 21).

The Biden administration has taken some steps to advance its priorities as it looks to decarbonize the U.S. power sector by 2035. That includes promoting electric vehicles, which are part of a goal to make the United States have net-zero emissions economywide no later than 2050. The administration has called for a national network of 500,000 EV charging stations as the American EV boom raises power-supply questions, and mandated the government begin buying only EVs by 2035.

Still, the fate of federal legislation and spending is uncertain. States and utility plans are considered a critical factor in whether Biden’s targets come to fruition. Silverstein also stressed the importance of regional cooperation as policymakers examine the grid and challenges ahead.

“Our comfort as individuals and as households and as an economy depends on the grid staying up,” Silverstein said, “and that’s no longer a given.”

Here are three areas of the electricity sector that saw changes in 2021, and could see significant developments next year:

1. Clean energy
The list of states with new or revamped clean energy goals expanded again in 2021, with Oregon and Illinois joining the ranks requiring 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 2040 and 2050, respectively.

Washington state passed a cap-and-trade bill. Massachusetts and Rhode Island adopted 2050 net-zero goals.

North Carolina adopted a law requiring a 70 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and establishing a midcentury net-zero goal.

Nebraska didn’t adopt a statewide policy, but its three public power districts voted separately to approve clean energy goals, actions that will collectively have the same effect. Even the governor of fossil-fuel-heavy North Dakota, during an oil conference speech, declared a goal of making the state carbon-neutral by the end of the decade.

These and other states join hundreds of local governments, big energy users and utilities, which were also busy establishing and reworking renewable energy and climate goals this year in response to public and investor pressure.

However, many of the details on how states will reach those targets are still to be determined, including factors such as how much natural gas will remain online and how many renewable projects will connect to the grid.

Decisions on clean energy that could be made in 2022 include a key one in Arizona, which has seen support rise and fall over the years for a proposal to lead to 100 percent clean power for regulated electric utilities. The Arizona Corporation Commission could discuss the matter in January, though final approval of the plan is not a sure thing. Eyes also are on California, where a much bigger grid for EVs will be needed, as it ponders a recent proposal on rooftop solar that has supporters of renewables worried about added costs that could hamper the industry.

In the wake of the major energy bill North Carolina passed in 2021, observers are waiting for Duke Energy Corp.’s filing of its carbon-reduction plan with state utility regulators. That plan will help determine the future electricity mix in the state.

Warren Leon, executive director of the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA), said that without federal action, state goals are “going to be more difficult to achieve.”

State and federal policies are complementary, not substitutes, he said. And Washington can provide a tailwind and help states achieve their goals more quickly and easily.

“Progress is going to be most rapid if both the states and the federal government are moving in the same direction, but either of them operating independently of the others can still make a difference,” he said.

While emissions reductions and renewable energy goals were centerpieces of the state energy and climate policies adopted this year, there were some other common threads that could continue in 2022.

One that’s gone largely unnoticed is that an increasing number of states went beyond just setting targets for clean energy and have developed plans, or road maps, for how to meet their goals, Leon said.

Like the New Year resolutions that millions of Americans are planning — pledges to eat healthier or exercise more — it’s far easier to set ambitious goals than to achieve them.

According to CESA, California, Colorado, Nevada, Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Washington state all established plans for how to achieve their clean energy goals. Prior to late 2020, only two states — New York and New Jersey — had done so.

Another trend in state energy and climate policies: Equity and energy justice provisions factored heavily in new laws in places such as Maine, Illinois and Oregon.

Equity isn’t a new concern for states, Leon said. But state plans have become more detailed in terms of their response to ways the energy transition may affect vulnerable populations.

“They’re putting much more concrete actions in place,” he said. “And they are really figuring out how they go about electricity system planning to make sure there are new voices at the table, that the processes are different, and there are things that are going to be measured to determine whether they’re actually making progress toward equity.”

2. Grid
Climate change and natural disasters have been a growing worry for grid planners, and 2021 was a year the issue affected many Americans directly.

Texas’ main power grid suffered massive outages during a deadly February winter storm, and it wasn’t far from an uncontrolled blackout that could have required weeks or months of recovery.

Consumers elsewhere in the country watched as millions of Texans lost grid power and heat amid a bitter cold snap. Other parts of the central United States saw more limited power outages in February.

“I think people care about the grid a lot more this year than they did last year,” Silverstein said, adding, “All of a sudden people are realizing that electricity’s not as easy as they’ve assumed it was and … that we need to invest more.”

Many of the challenges are not specific to one state, she added.

“It seems to me that the state regulators need to put a lot — and utilities need to put a lot — more commitment into working together to solve broad regional problems in cooperative regional ways,” Silverstein said.

In 2022, multiple decisions could affect the grid, including state oversight of spending on upgrades and market proposals that could sway the amount of clean energy brought online.

A focal point will be Texas, where state regulators are examining further changes to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas’ market design. That could have major implications for how renewables develop in the state. Leaders in other parts of the country will likely keep tabs on adjustments in Texas as they ponder their own changes.

Texas has already embarked on reforms to help improve the power sector and its coordination with the natural gas system, which is critical to keeping plants running. But its primary power grid, operated by ERCOT, remains largely isolated and hasn’t been able to rule out power shortages this winter if there are extreme conditions (Energywire, Nov. 22).

Transmission also remains a key issue outside of the Lone Star State, both for resilience and to connect new wind and solar farms. In many areas of the country, the job of planning these new regional lines and figuring out how to allocate billions of dollars in costs falls to regional grid operators (Energywire, Dec. 13).

In the central U.S., the issue led to tension between states in the Midwest and the Gulf South (Energywire, Oct. 15).

In the Northeast, a Maine environmental commissioner last month suspended a permit for a major transmission project that could send hydropower to the region from Canada (Greenwire, Nov. 24). The project’s developers are now battling the state in court to force construction of the line — a process that could be resolved in 2022 — after Mainers signaled opposition in a November vote.

Advocates of a regional transmission organization for Western states, meanwhile, hope to keep building momentum even as critics question the cost savings promoted by supporters of organized markets. Among those in existing markets, states such as Louisiana are expected to monitor the costs and benefits of being associated with the Midcontinent Independent System Operator.

In other states, more details are expected to emerge in 2022 about plans announced this year.

In California, where policymakers are also exploring EVs for grid stability alongside wildfire prevention, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. announced a plan over the summer to spend billions of dollars to underground some 10,000 miles of power lines to help prevent wildfires, for example (Greenwire, July 22).

Several Southeastern utilities, including Dominion Energy Inc., Duke Energy, Southern Co. and the Tennessee Valley Authority, won FERC approval to create a new grid plan — the Southeast Energy Exchange Market, or SEEM — that they say will boost renewable energy.

SEEM is an electricity trading platform that will facilitate trading close to the times when the power is used. The new market is slated to include two time zones, which would allow excess renewables such as solar and wind to be funneled to other parts of the country to be used during peak demand times.

SEEM is significant because the Southeast does not have an organized market structure like other parts of the country, although some utilities such as Dominion and Duke do have some operations in the region managed by PJM Interconnection LLC, the largest U.S. regional grid operator.

SEEM is not a regional transmission organization (RTO) or energy imbalance market. Critics argue that because it doesn’t include a traditional independent monitor, SEEM lacks safeguards against actions that could manipulate energy prices.

Others have said the electric companies that formed SEEM did so to stave off pressure to develop an RTO. Some of the regulated electric companies involved in the new market have denied that claim.

3. Electric vehicles
With electric vehicles, the Midwest and Southeast gained momentum in 2021 as hubs for electrifying the transportation sector, as EVs hit an inflection point in mainstream adoption, and the Biden administration simultaneously worked to boost infrastructure to help get more EVs on the road.

From battery makers to EV startups to major auto manufacturers, companies along the entire EV supply chain spectrum moved to or expanded in those two regions, solidifying their footprint in the fast-growing sector.

A wave of industry announcements capped off in December with California-based Rivian Automotive Inc. declaring it would build a $5 billion electric truck, SUV and van factory in Georgia. Toyota Motor Corp. picked North Carolina for its first U.S.-based battery plant. General Motors Co. and a partner plan to build a $2.5 billion battery plant in GM’s home state of Michigan. And Proterra Inc. has unveiled plans to build a new battery factory in South Carolina.

Advocates hope the EV shift by automakers in the Midwest and Southeast will widen the options for customers. Automakers and startups also have been targeting states with zero-emission vehicle targets to launch new and more models because there’s an inherent demand for them.

“The states that have adopted those standards are getting more vehicles,” said Anne Blair, senior EV policy manager for the Electrification Coalition.

EV advocates say they hope those policies could help bring products like Ford’s electrified signature truck line on the road and into rural areas. Ford also is partnering with Korean partner SK Innovation Co. Ltd. to build two massive battery plants in Kentucky.

Regardless of the fanfare about new vehicles, more jobs and must-needed economic growth, barriers to EV adoption remain. Many states have tacked on annual fees, which some elected officials argue are needed to replace revenues secured from a gasoline tax.

Other states do not allow automakers to sell directly to consumers, preventing companies like Lordstown Motors Corp. and Rivian to effectively do business there.

“It’s about consumer choice and consumers having the capacity to buy the vehicles that they want and that are coming out, in new and innovative ways,” Blair told E&E News. Blair said direct sales also will help boost EV sales at traditional dealerships.

In 2022, advocates will be closely watching progress with the National Electric Highway Coalition, amid tensions over charging control among utilities and networks, which was formed by more than 50 U.S. power companies to build a coast-to-coast fast-charging network for EVs along major U.S. travel corridors by the end of 2023 (Energywire, Dec. 7).

A number of states also will be holding legislative sessions, and they could include new efforts to promote EVs — or change benefits that currently go to owners of alternative vehicles.

EV advocates will be pushing for lawmakers to remove barriers that they argue are preventing customers from buying alternative vehicles.

Conversations already have begun in Georgia to let startup EV makers sell their cars and trucks directly to consumers. In Florida, lawmakers will try again to start a framework that will create a network of charging stations as charging networks jostle for position under federal electrification efforts, as well as add annual fees to alternative vehicles to ease concerns over lost gasoline tax revenue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

PG&E 2024 Rate Hikes signal sharp increases to fund wildfire safety, infrastructure upgrades, and CPUC-backed reliability, with rates expected to stabilize in 2025, affecting rural residents, businesses, and high-risk zones across California.

Key Points

PG&E’s 2024 hikes fund wildfire safety and grid upgrades, with pricing expected to stabilize in 2025.

✅ Driven by wildfire safety, infrastructure, and reinsurance costs

✅ Largest impacts in rural, high-risk zones; business rates vary

✅ CPUC oversight aims to ensure necessary, justified investments

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is expected to implement a series of rate hikes that, amid analyses of why California electricity prices are soaring across the state, will significantly impact California residents. These increases, while substantial, are anticipated to be followed by a period of stabilization in 2025, offering a sense of relief to customers facing rising costs.

PG&E, one of the largest utility providers in the state, announced that its 2024 rate hikes are part of efforts to address increasing operational costs, including those related to wildfire safety, infrastructure upgrades, and regulatory requirements. As California continues to face climate-related challenges like wildfires, utilities like PG&E are being forced to adjust their financial models to manage the evolving risks. Wildfire-related liabilities, which have plagued PG&E in recent years, play a significant role in these rate adjustments. In response to previous fire-related lawsuits, including a bankruptcy plan supported by wildfire victims that reshaped liabilities, and the increased cost of reinsurance, PG&E has made it clear that customers will bear part of the financial burden.

These rate hikes will have a multi-faceted impact. Residential users, particularly those in rural or high-risk wildfire zones, will see some of the largest increases. Business customers will also be affected, although the adjustments may vary depending on the size and energy consumption patterns of each business. PG&E has indicated that the increases are necessary to secure the utility’s financial stability while continuing to deliver reliable service to its customers.

Despite the steep increases in 2024, PG&E's executives have assured that the company's pricing structure will stabilize in 2025. The utility has taken steps to balance the financial needs of the business with the reality of consumer affordability. While some rate hikes are inevitable given California's regulatory landscape and climate concerns, PG&E's leadership believes the worst of the increases will be seen next year.

PG&E’s anticipated stabilization comes after a year of scrutiny from California regulators. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has been working closely with PG&E to scrutinize its rate request and ensure that hikes are justifiable and used for necessary investments in infrastructure and safety improvements. The CPUC’s oversight is especially crucial given the company’s history of safety violations and the public outrage over past wildfire incidents, including reports that its power lines may have sparked fires in California, which have been linked to PG&E’s equipment.

The hikes, though significant, reflect the broader pressures facing utilities in California, where extreme weather patterns are becoming more frequent and intense due to climate change. Wildfires, which have grown in severity and frequency in recent years, have forced PG&E to invest heavily in fire prevention and mitigation strategies, including compliance with a judge-ordered use of dividends for wildfire mitigation across its service area. This includes upgrading equipment, inspecting power lines, and implementing more rigorous protocols to prevent accidents that could spark devastating fires. These investments come at a steep cost, which PG&E is passing along to consumers through higher rates.

For homeowners and businesses, the potential for future rate stabilization offers a glimmer of hope. However, the 2024 increases are still expected to hit consumers hard, especially those already struggling with high living costs. The steep hikes have prompted public outcry, with calls for action as bills soar amplifying advocacy group arguments that utilities should absorb more of the costs related to climate change and fire prevention instead of relying on ratepayers.

Looking ahead to 2025, the expectation is that PG&E’s rates will stabilize, but the question remains whether they will return to pre-2024 levels or continue to rise at a slower rate. Experts note that California’s energy market remains volatile, and while the rates may stabilize in the short term, long-term cost management will depend on ongoing investments in renewable energy sources and continued efforts to make the grid more resilient to climate-related risks.

As PG&E navigates this challenging period, the company’s commitment to transparency and working with regulators will be crucial in rebuilding trust with its customers. While the immediate future may be financially painful for many, the hope is that the utility's focus on safety and infrastructure will lead to greater long-term stability and fewer dramatic rate increases in the years to come.

Ultimately, California residents will need to brace for another tough year in terms of utility costs but can find reassurance that PG&E’s rate increases will eventually stabilize. For those seeking relief, there are ongoing discussions about increasing energy efficiency, exploring renewable energy alternatives, and expanding assistance programs for lower-income households to help mitigate the financial strain of these price hikes.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Iran Bushehr Earthquake rattles southern province near the Bushehr nuclear power plant, USGS reports M5.1 at 38 km depth; seismic activity along major fault lines raises safety, damage, and monitoring concerns.

Key Points

A magnitude 5.1 quake near Bushehr nuclear plant at 38 km depth, with no damage reported, per USGS.

✅ USGS lists magnitude 5.1 at 38 km depth

✅ Near Bushehr nuclear power plant; built for stronger quakes

✅ Iran lies on major fault lines; quake risk is frequent

A magnitude 5 earthquake struck southern Iran early Friday near the Islamic Republic's only nuclear power plant. There were no immediate reports of damage or injuries as Iran continues combined-cycle conversions across its power sector.

The quake hit Iran's Bushehr province at 5:23 a.m., according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It put the magnitude at 5.1 and the depth of the earthquake at 38 kilometres (24 miles), in a province tied to efforts to transmit electricity to Europe in coming years.

Iranian state media did not immediately report on the quake. However, the Bushehr nuclear power plant was designed to withstand much stronger earthquakes, a notable consideration as Iraq plans nuclear power plants to address shortages.

A magnitude 5 earthquake can cause considerable damage, including power disruptions that have seen blackouts spark protests in some Iranian cities.

Iran sits on major fault lines and is prone to near-daily earthquakes, yet it remains a key player in regional power, with Iran-Iraq energy cooperation ongoing. In 2003, a 6.6-magnitude quake flattened the historic city of Bam, killing 26,000 people, and today Iran supplies 40% of Iraq's electricity through cross-border power deals. Bam is near the Bushehr nuclear plant, which wasn’t damaged at that time, while more recently Iran finalized deals to rehabilitate Iraq's power grid to improve resilience.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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