AEP receives approvals to complete separate Ohio assets

BC Hydro Air Conditioning Efficiency Tips help cut energy bills as HVAC use rises. Avoid inefficient portable AC units, set thermostats near 25 C, use fans and window shading, and turn systems off when unoccupied.

Key Points

BC Hydro's guidelines to lower summer power bills by optimizing A/C settings, fans, shading, and usage habits at home.

✅ Set thermostats to 25 C; switch off A/C when away

✅ Prefer fans and window shading; close doors/windows in heat

✅ Avoid multiple portable A/C units; choose efficient HVAC

BC Hydro is scolding British Columbians for their ineffective, wasteful and costly use of home air conditioners.

In what the electric utility calls “not-so-savvy” behaviour, it says many people are over-spending on air conditioning units that are poorly installed or used incorrectly.

"The majority of British Columbians will spend more time at home this summer because of the COVID-19 pandemic," BC Hydro says in a news release about an August survey of customers.

"With A/C use on the rise, there is evidence British Columbians are not cooling down efficiently, leading to higher summer electricity bills, as extreme heat boosts U.S. bills too this summer."

BC Hydro estimates some customers are shelling out $200 more on their summer energy bills than they need to during a record-breaking 2021 demand year for electricity.

The pandemic is compounding the demand for cool, comfortable air at home. Roughly two in five British Columbians between the ages of 25 and 50 are working from home five days a week.

However, it’s not just COVID-19 that is putting a strain on energy consumption and monthly bills, with drought affecting generation as well today.

About 90 per cent of people who use an air conditioner set it to a temperature below the recommended 25 Celsius, according to BC Hydro.

In fact, one in three people have set their A/C to the determinedly unseasonable temperature of 19 C.

Another 30 per cent are using more than one portable air conditioning unit, which the utility says is considered the most inefficient model on the market, and questions remain about crypto mining electricity use in B.C. today.

The use of air conditioners is steadily increasing in B.C. and has more than tripled since 2001, according to BC Hydro, with all-time high demand also reported in B.C. during recent heat waves. The demand for climate control is particularly high among condo-dwellers since apartments tend to trap heat and stay warmer.

This may explain why one in 10 residents of the Lower Mainland has three portable air conditioning units, and elsewhere Calgary's frigid February surge according to Enmax.

In addition, 30 per cent of people keep the air conditioning on for the sake of their pets while no one is home.

BC Hydro makes these recommendations to save energy and money on monthly bills while still keeping homes cooled during summer’s hottest days, and it also offers a winter payment plan to help manage costs:

Cool homes to 25 C in summer months when home; air conditioning should be turned off when homes are unoccupied.
In place of air conditioning, running a fan for nine hours a day over the summer costs $7.
Shading windows with drapes and blinds can help insulate a home by keeping out 65 per cent of the heat.
If the temperature outside a home is warmer than inside, keep doors and windows closed to keep cooler air inside.
Use a microwave, crockpot or toaster oven to avoid the extra heat produced by larger appliances, such as an oven, when cooking. Hang clothes to dry instead of using a dryer on hot days.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Germany nuclear phase-out underscores a high-stakes energy transition, trading reactors for renewables, LNG imports, and grid resilience to secure supply, cut emissions, and navigate climate policy, public opinion shifts, and post-Ukraine supply shocks.

Key Points

Germany's nuclear phase-out retires reactors, shifting to renewables, LNG, and grid upgrades for low-carbon power.

✅ Last three reactors: Neckarwestheim, Isar 2, and Emsland closed

✅ Supply secured via LNG imports, renewables, and grid flexibility

✅ Policy accelerated post-Fukushima; debate renewed after Ukraine war

The German government is phasing out nuclear power despite the energy crisis. The country is pulling the plug on its last three reactors, betting it will succeed in its green transition without nuclear power.

On the banks of the Neckar River, not far from Stuttgart in south Germany, the white steam escaping from the nuclear power plant in Baden-Württemberg will soon be a memory.

The same applies further east for the Bavarian Isar 2 complex and the Emsland complex, at the other end of the country, not far from the Dutch border.

While many Western countries depend on nuclear power, Europe's largest economy is turning the page, even if a possible resurgence of nuclear energy is debated until the end.

Germany is implementing the decision to phase out nuclear power taken in 2002 and accelerated by Angela Merkel in 2011, after the Fukushima disaster.

Fukushima showed that "even in a high-tech country like Japan, the risks associated with nuclear energy cannot be controlled 100 per cent", the former chancellor justified at the time.

The announcement convinced public opinion in a country where the powerful anti-nuclear movement was initially fuelled by fears of a Cold War conflict, and then by accidents such as Chernobyl.

The invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 brought everything into question. Deprived of Russian gas, the flow of which was essentially interrupted by Moscow, Germany found itself exposed to the worst possible scenarios, from the risk of its factories being shut down to the risk of being without heating in the middle of winter.

With just a few months to go before the initial deadline for closing the last three reactors on 31 December, the tide of public opinion began to turn, and talk of a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout grew louder. 

"With high energy prices and the burning issue of climate change, there were of course calls to extend the plants," says Jochen Winkler, mayor of Neckarwestheim, where the plant of the same name is in its final days.

Olaf Scholz's government, which the Green Party - the most hostile to nuclear power - is part of, finally decided to extend the operation of the reactors to secure the supply until 15 April.

"There might have been a new discussion if the winter had been more difficult if there had been power cuts and gas shortages nationwide. But we have had a winter without too many problems," thanks to the massive import of liquefied natural gas, notes Mr Winkler.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Industrial Electricity Pricing Reforms aim to cut regulatory burden for industrial ratepayers through an energy concierge service, IESO billing reviews, GA estimation enhancements, clearer peak demand data, and contract cost savings.

Key Points

Measures to reduce industrial power costs via an energy concierge, IESO and GA reviews, and better peak demand data.

✅ Energy concierge eases pricing and connection inquiries

✅ IESO to simplify bills and refine GA estimation

✅ Real-time peak data and contract savings under review

Ontario's government is pursuing burden reduction measures for industrial electricity ratepayers, including legislation to lower rates to help businesses compete, and stimulate growth and investment.

Over the next year, Ontario will help industrial electricity ratepayers focus on their businesses instead of their electricity management practices by establishing an energy concierge service to provide businesses with better customer service and easier access to information about electricity pricing and changes for electricity consumers as well as connection processes.

Ontario is also tasking the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to review and report back on its billing, settlement and customer service processes, building on initiatives such as electricity auctions that aim to reduce costs.

Improve and simplify industrial electricity bills, including clarifying the recovery rate that affects charges;

Review how the monthly Global Adjustment (GA) charge is estimated and identify potential enhancements related to cost allocation across classes; and,

Improve peak demand data publication processes and assess the feasibility of using real-time data to determine the factors that allocate GA costs to consumers.

Further, as part of the government's continued effort to finding efficiencies in the electricity system, Ontario is also directing IESO to review generation contracts to find opportunities for cost savings.

These measures are based on industry feedback received during extensive industrial electricity price consultations held between April and July 2019, which underscored how high electricity rates have impacted factories across the province.

"Our government is focused on finding workable electricity pricing solutions that will provide the greatest benefit to Ontario," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. "Reducing regulatory burden on businesses can free up resources that can then be invested in areas such as training, new equipment and job creation."

The government is also in the process of developing further changes to industrial electricity pricing policy, amid planned rate increases announced by the OEB, informed by what was heard during the industrial electricity price consultations.

"It's important that we get this right the first time," said Minister Rickford. "That's why we're taking a thoughtful approach and listening carefully to what businesses in Ontario have to say."

Helping industrial ratepayers is part of the government's balanced and prudent plan to build Ontario together through ensuring our province is open for business and building a more transparent and accountable electricity system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

B.C. LNG Electrification embeds clean hydro and wind power into low-emission liquefied natural gas, cutting carbon intensity, enabling coal displacement in Asia, and opening grid-scale demand for independent power producers and ITMO-based climate accounting.

Key Points

Powering LNG with clean electricity cuts carbon intensity, displaces coal, and grows demand for B.C.'s clean power.

✅ Electric-drive LNG cuts emissions intensity by up to 80%.

✅ Creates major grid load, boosting B.C. independent power producers.

✅ Enables ITMO crediting when coal displacement is verified.

B.C. has abundant clean power – if only there was a way to ship those electrons across the sea to help coal-dependent countries reduce their emissions, and even regionally, Alberta–B.C. grid link benefits could help move surplus power domestically.

Natural gas that is liquefied using clean hydro and wind power and then exported would be, in a sense, a way of embedding B.C.’s low emission electricity in another form of energy, and, alongside the Canada–Germany clean energy pact, part of a broader export strategy.

Given the increased demand that could come from an LNG industry – especially one that moves towards greater electrification and, as the IEA net-zero electricity report notes, broader system demand – poses some potentially big opportunities for B.C.’s clean energy independent power sector, as those attending the Clean Energy Association of BC's annual at the Generate conference heard recently.

At a session on LNG electrification, delegates were told that LNG produced in B.C. with electricity could have some significant environmental benefits.

Given how much power an LNG plant that uses electric drive consumes, an electrified LNG industry could also pose some significant opportunities for independent power producers – a sector that had the wind taken out of its sails with the sanctioning of the Site C dam project.

Only one LNG plant being built in B.C. – Woodfibre LNG – will use electric drive to produce LNG, although the companies behind Kitimat LNG have changed their original design plans, and now plan to use electric drive drive as well.

Even small LNG plants that use electric drive require a lot of power.

“We’re talking about a lot of power, since it’s one of the biggest consumers you can connect to a grid,” said Sven Demmig, head of project development for Siemens.

Most LNG plants still burn natural gas to drive the liquefaction process – a choice that intersects with climate policy and electricity grids in Canada. They typically generate 0.35 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG produced.

Because it will use electric drive, LNG produced by Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity that is 80% less than LNG produced in the Gulf of Mexico, said Woodfibre president David Keane.

In B.C., the benchmark for GHG intensities for LNG plants has been set at 0.16 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG. Above that, LNG producers would need to pay higher carbon taxes than those that are below the benchmark.

The LNG Canada plant has an intensity of 0.15 tonnes og CO2e per tonne of LNG. Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity of just 0.059, thanks to electric drive.

“So we will be significantly less than any operating facility in the world,” Keane said.

Keane said Sinopec has recently estimated that it expects China’s demand for natural gas to grow by 82% by 2030.

“So China will, in fact, get its gas supply,” Keane said. “The question is: where will that supply come from?

“For every tonne of LNG that’s being produced today in the United States -- and tonne of LNG that we’re not producing in Canada -- we’re seeing about 10 million tonnes of carbon leakage every single year.”

The first Canadian company to produce LNG that ended up in China is FortisBC. Small independent operators have been buying LNG from FortisBC’s Tilbury Island plant and shipping to China in ISO containers on container ships.

David Bennett, director of communications for FortisBC, said those shipments are traced to industries in China that are, indeed, using LNG instead of coal power now.

“We know where those shipping containers are going,” he said. “They’re actually going to displace coal in factories in China.”

Verifying what the LNG is used for is important, if Canadian producers want to claim any kind of climate credit. LNG shipped to Japan or South Korea to displace nuclear power, for example, would actually result in a net increase in GHGs. But used to displace coal, the emissions reductions can be significant, since natural gas produces about half the CO2 that coal does.

The problem for LNG producers here is B.C.’s emissions reduction targets as they stand today. Even LNG produced with electricity will produce some GHGs. The fact that LNG that could dramatically reduce GHGs in other countries, if it displaces coal power, does not count in B.C.’s carbon accounting.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries agree to set their own reduction targets, and, for Canada, cleaning up Canada’s electricity remains critical to meeting climate pledges, but don’t typically get to claim any reductions that might result outside their own country.

Canada is exploring the use of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMO) under the Under the Paris Agreement to allow Canada to claim some of the GHG reductions that result in other countries, like China, through the export of Canadian LNG.

“For example, if I were producing 4 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. and I was selling 100% of my LNG to China, and I can verify that they’re replacing coal…they would have a reduction of about 60 or million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions,” Keane said.

“So if they’re buying 4 million tonnes of emissions from us, under these ITMOs, then they have net reduction of 56 million tonnes, we’d have a net increase of zero.”

But even if China and Canada agreed to such a trading arrangement, the United Nations still hasn’t decided just how the rules around ITMOs will work.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News