Duke Energy to begin steam station demolition

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

California Electricity Rate Overhaul proposes a fixed fee and lower per-kWh rates to boost electrification, renewables, and grid reliability, while CPUC weighs impacts on conservation, low-income customers, and time-of-use pricing across the state.

Key Points

A proposal to add fixed fees and cut per-kWh prices to drive electrification, support renewables, and balance grid costs.

✅ Fixed monthly fee plus lower volumetric per-kWh charges

✅ Aims to accelerate EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification

✅ CPUC review weighs equity, conservation, and grid reliability

California is contemplating a significant overhaul to its electricity rate structure that could bring major changes to electric bills statewide, a move that has ignited debate among environmentalists and politicians alike. The proposed modifications, spearheaded by the California Energy Commission (CEC), would introduce a fixed fee on electric bills and lower the rate per kilowatt-hour (kWh) used.

Motivations for the Change

Proponents of the plan argue that it would incentivize Californians to transition to electric appliances and vehicles, a critical aspect of the state's ambitious climate goals. They reason that a lower per-unit cost would make electricity a more attractive option for applications like home heating and transportation, which are currently dominated by natural gas and gasoline. Additionally, they believe the plan would spur investment in renewable energy sources and distributed generation, ultimately leading to a cleaner electricity grid.

California has some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country, aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The transportation sector is the state's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and electrification is considered a key strategy for reducing emissions. A 2021 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that electrifying all California vehicles and buildings could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2020 levels.

Concerns and Potential Impacts

Opponents of the proposal, including some consumer rights groups, express apprehensions that it would discourage conservation efforts. They argue that with a lower per-kWh cost, Californians would have less motivation to reduce their electricity consumption. Additionally, they raise concerns that the income-based fixed charges could disproportionately burden low-income households, who may struggle to afford the base charge regardless of their overall electricity consumption.

A recent study by the CEC suggests that the impact on most Californians would be negligible, even as regulators face calls for action over soaring bills from ratepayers across the state. The report predicts that the average household's electricity bill would change by less than $5 per month under the proposed system. However, some critics argue that this study may not fully account for the potential behavioral changes that could result from the new rate structure.

Similar Initiatives and National Implications

California is not the only state exploring changes to its electricity rates to promote clean energy. Hawaii and New York have also implemented similar programs to encourage consumers to use electricity during off-peak hours. These time-varying rates, also known as time-of-use rates, can help reduce strain on the electricity grid during peak demand periods.

The California proposal has garnered national attention as other states grapple with similar challenges in balancing clean energy goals with affordability concerns amid soaring electricity prices in California and beyond. The outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. power sector.

The Road Ahead

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is reviewing the proposal and anticipates making a decision later this year, with a potential income-based flat-fee structure under consideration. The CPUC will likely consider the plan's potential benefits and drawbacks, including its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, electricity costs for consumers, and the overall reliability of the grid, even as some lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in the legislature.

The decision on California's electricity rates is merely one piece of the puzzle in the fight against climate change. However, it is a significant one, with the potential to shape the state's energy landscape for years to come, including the future of residential rooftop solar markets and investments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Foote Creek I Wind Farm Repowering upgrades Wyoming turbines with new nacelles, towers, and blades, cutting 68 units to 12 while sustaining 41.6 MW, under PacifiCorp and Rocky Mountain Power's Energy Vision 2020 plan.

Key Points

Replacement at Foote Creek Rim I, cutting to 12 turbines while sustaining about 41.6 MW using modern 2-4.2 MW units.

✅ 12 turbines replace 68, output steady near 41.6 MW

✅ New nacelles, towers, blades; taller 500 ft turbines

✅ Part of PacifiCorp Energy Vision 2020 and Gateway West

A Wyoming utility company has filed a permit to replace its first wind farm—originally commissioned in 1998, composed of over 65 turbines—amid new gas capacity competing with nuclear in Ohio, located at Foote Creek Rim I. The replacement would downsize the number of turbines to 12, which would still generate roughly the same energy output.

According to the Star Tribune, PacifiCorp’s new installation would involve new nacelles, new towers and new blades. The permit was filed with Carbon County.

New WY Wind Farm

The replacement wind turbines will stand more than twice as tall as the old: Those currently installed stand 200 feet tall, whereas their replacements will tower closer to 500 feet. Though this move is part of the company’s overall plan to expand its state wind fleet as some utilities respond to declining coal returns in the Midwest, the work going into the Foote Creek site is somewhat special, noted David Eskelsen, spokesperson for Rocky Mountain Power, the western arm of PacifiCorp.

“Foote Creek I repowering is somewhat different from the repowering projects announced in the (Energy Vision) 2020 initiative,” he said. “Foote Creek is a complete replacement of the existing 68 foundations, towers, turbine nacelles and rotors (blades).”

Currently, the turbines at Foote Creek have 600 kilowatts capacity each; the replacements’ maximum production ranges from 2 megawatts to 4.2 megawatts each, with the total output remaining steady at 41.4 megawatts, a scale similar to a 30-megawatt wind expansion in Eastern Kings, though there will be a slight capacity increase to 41.6 megawatts, according to the Star Tribune.

As part of the wind farm repowering initiative, PacifiCorp is to become full owner and operator of the Foote Creek site. When the farm was originally built, an Oregon-based water and electric board was 21 percent owner; 37 percent of the project’s output was tied into a contract with the Bonneville Power Administration.

Otherwise, PacifiCorp is moving to further expand its state wind fleet in line with initiatives like doubling renewable electricity by 2030 in Saskatchewan, with the addition of three new wind farms—to be located in Carbon, Albany and Converse counties—which may add up to 1,150 megawatts of power.

According to PacifiCorp, the company has more than 1,000 megawatts of owned wind generation capability, along with long-term purchase agreements for more than 600 megawatts from other wind farms owned by other entities. Energy Vision 2020 refers to a $3.5 billion investment and company move that is looking to upgrade the company's existing wind fleet with newer technology, adding 1,150 megawatts of new wind resources by 2020 and a a new 140-mile Gateway West transmission segment in Wyoming, comparable to a transmission project in Missouri just energized.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. 100% Tariff on Chinese EVs aims to protect domestic manufacturing, counter subsidies, and reshape the EV market, but could raise prices, disrupt supply chains, invite retaliation, and complicate climate policy and trade relations.

Key Points

A 100% import duty on Chinese EVs to boost U.S. manufacturing, counter subsidies, and address supply chain risks.

✅ Protects domestic EV manufacturing and jobs

✅ Counters alleged subsidies and IP concerns

✅ May raise prices, limit choice, trigger retaliation

President Joe Biden's administration recently made headlines with its announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), marking a significant escalation in trade tensions between the two economic powerhouses. The decision, framed as a measure to protect American industries and promote domestic manufacturing, has sparked debates over its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and bilateral relations between the United States and China.

The imposition of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs reflects the Biden administration's broader efforts to revitalize the American automotive industry and promote the transition to electric vehicles as part of its climate agenda and tighter EPA emissions rules that could accelerate adoption. By imposing tariffs on imported EVs, particularly those from China, the administration aims to incentivize domestic production and create jobs in the growing green economy, and to secure critical EV metals through allied supply efforts. Additionally, the tariff is seen as a response to concerns about unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft and market distortions, allegedly perpetuated by Chinese companies.

However, the announcement has triggered a range of reactions from various stakeholders, with both proponents and critics offering contrasting perspectives on the potential consequences of such a policy. Proponents argue that the tariff will help level the playing field for American automakers, who face stiff competition from Chinese companies benefiting from government subsidies and lower production costs. They contend that promoting domestic manufacturing of EVs will not only create high-quality jobs but also enhance national security by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains at a time when an EV inflection point is approaching.

On the other hand, critics warn that the 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs could have unintended consequences, including higher prices for consumers, as seen in the UK EV prices and Brexit debate, disruptions to global supply chains, and retaliatory measures from China. Chinese EV manufacturers, such as NIO, BYD, and XPeng, have been gaining momentum in the global market, offering competitive products at relatively affordable prices. The tariff could limit consumer choice at a time when U.S. EV market share dipped in Q1 2024, potentially slowing the adoption of electric vehicles and undermining efforts to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, the tariff announcement comes at a sensitive time for U.S.-China relations, which have been strained by various issues, including trade disputes, human rights concerns, and geopolitical tensions. The imposition of tariffs on Chinese-made EVs could further exacerbate bilateral tensions, potentially leading to retaliatory measures from China and escalating trade frictions. As the world's two largest economies, the United States and China have significant economic interdependencies, and any escalation in trade tensions could have far-reaching implications for global trade and economic stability.

In response to the Biden administration's announcement, Chinese officials have expressed concerns and called for dialogue to resolve trade disputes through negotiation and mutual cooperation. China has also emphasized its commitment to fair trade practices and compliance with international rules and regulations governing trade.

Moving forward, the Biden administration faces the challenge of balancing its domestic priorities with the need to maintain constructive engagement with China and other trading partners, even as EV charging networks scale under its electrification push. While promoting domestic manufacturing and protecting American industries are legitimate policy goals, achieving them without disrupting global trade and undermining diplomatic relations requires careful deliberation and strategic foresight.

In conclusion, President Biden's announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles reflects his administration's commitment to revitalizing American industries and promoting domestic manufacturing. However, the decision has raised concerns about its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and U.S.-China relations. As policymakers navigate these complexities, finding a balance between protecting domestic interests and fostering international cooperation will be crucial to achieving sustainable economic growth and addressing global challenges such as climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Pickering nuclear refurbishment will modernize Ontario's Candu reactors at Pickering B, sustaining 2,000 MW of clean electricity, aiding net-zero goals, and aligning with Ontario Power Generation plans and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reviews.

Key Points

An 11-year overhaul of Pickering B Candu reactors to extend life, keep 2,000 MW online, and back Ontario net-zero grid.

✅ 11-year project; 11,000 annual jobs; $19.4B GDP impact.

✅ Refurbishes four Pickering B Candu units; maintains 2,000 MW.

✅ Requires Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission license approvals.

The Ontario government has announced its intention to pursue a Pickering refurbishment at the venerable nuclear power station, which has been operational for over fifty years. This move could extend the facility's life by another 30 years.

This decision is timely, as Ontario anticipates a significant surge in electricity demand and a growing electricity supply gap in the forthcoming years. Additionally, all provinces are grappling with new federal mandates for clean electricity, necessitating future power plants to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.

Todd Smith, the Energy Minister, is expected to endorse Ontario Power Generation's proposal for the plant's overhaul, as per a preliminary version of a government press release.

The renovation will focus on four Candu reactors, known collectively as Pickering B, which were originally commissioned in the early 1980s. This upgrade is projected to continue delivering 2,000 megawatts of power, equivalent to the current output of these units.

According to the press release, the project will span 11 years, create approximately 11,000 annual jobs, and contribute $19.4 billion to Ontario's GDP. However, the total budget for the project remains unspecified.

The project follows the ongoing refurbishment of four units at the nearby Darlington nuclear station, which is more than halfway completed with a budget of $12.8 billion.

The proposal awaits the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's approval, and officials face extension request timing considerations before key deadlines.

The Commission is also reviewing a prior request from OPG to extend the operational license of the existing Pickering B units until 2026. This extension would allow the plant to safely continue operating until the commencement of its renovation, pending approval.

Ontario's Ambitious Nuclear Strategy

The announcement regarding Pickering is part of Ontario's broader clean energy plan for an unprecedented expansion of nuclear power in Canada.

Last summer, the province announced its intention to nearly double the output at Bruce Power, currently the world's largest nuclear generating station.

Additionally, Ontario revealed SMR plans to construct three more alongside the existing project at Darlington. These reactors are expected to supply enough electricity to power around 1.2 million homes.

Discussions about revitalizing the Pickering facility began in 2022, after the station had been slated to close as planned amid debate, with Ontario Power Generation submitting a feasibility report to the government last summer.

The Ford government emphasized the necessity of this nuclear expansion to meet the increasing electricity demands anticipated from the auto sector's shift to electric vehicles, the steel industry's move away from coal-fired furnaces, and the growing population in Ontario.

Ontario's capability to attract major international car manufacturers like Volkswagen and Stellantis to produce electric vehicles and batteries is partly attributed to the fact that 90% of the province's electricity comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Greengen Misfeasance Ruling details a B.C. Supreme Court decision awarding $10.125 million over wrongfully denied Crown land and water licence permits for a Fries Creek run-of-river hydro project under a BC Hydro contract.

Key Points

A B.C. Supreme Court ruling awarding $10.125M for wrongful denial of Crown land and water licences on Greengen's project.

✅ $10.125M damages for misfeasance in public office

✅ Denial of Crown land tenure and water licence permits

✅ Tied to Fries Creek run-of-river and BC Hydro EPA

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered the provincial government to pay $10.125 million after it denied permits to a company that wanted to build a run-of-the river independent power project near Squamish.

In his Oct. 10 decision, Justice Kevin Loo said the plaintiff, Greengen Holdings Ltd., “lost an opportunity to achieve a completed and profitable hydro-electric project” after government representatives wrongfully exercised their legal authority, a transgression described in the ruling as “misfeasance,” with separate concerns reflected in an Ontario market gaming investigation reported elsewhere.

Between 2003 and 2009, the company sought to develop a hydro-electric project on and around Fries Creek, which sits opposite the Brackendale neighbourhood on the other side of the Squamish River. To do so, Greengen Holdings Ltd. required a water licence from the Minister of the Environment and tenure over Crown land from the Minister of Agriculture.

After a lengthy process involving extensive communications between Greengen and various provincial and other ministries and regulatory agencies, the permits were denied, according to Loo. Both decisions cited impacts on Squamish Nation cultural sites that could not be mitigated.

Elsewhere, an Indigenous-owned project in James Bay proceeded despite repeated denials, underscoring varied approaches to community participation.

40-year electricity plan relied on Crown land
The case dates back to December 2005, when BC Hydro issued an open call for power with Greengen. The company submitted a tender several months later.

On July 26, 2006, BC Hydro awarded Greengen an energy purchase agreement, amid evolving LNG electricity demand across the province, under which Greengen would be entitled to supply electricity at a fixed price for 40 years.

Unlike conventional hydroelectric projects, such as new BC generating stations recently commissioned, which store large volumes of water in reservoirs, and in so doing flood large tracts of land, a run of the river project often requires little or no water storage. Instead, from a high elevation, they divert water from a stream or river channel.

Water is then sent into a pressured pipeline known as a penstock, and later passed through turbines to generate electricity, Loo explained, as utilities pursue long-term plans like the Hydro-Québec strategy to reduce fossil fuel reliance. The system returns water to the original stream or river, or into another body of water. 

The project called for most of that infrastructure to be built on Crown land, according to the ruling.

All sides seemed to support the project
In early 2005, company principle Terry Sonderhoff discussed the Fries Creek project in a preliminary meeting with Squamish Nation Chief Ian Campbell.

“Mr. Sonderhoff testified that Chief Campbell seemed supportive of the project at the time,” Loo said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News