Tampa Electric seeks 22 per cent rate hike

Spring Storm Grid Risks highlight tornado outbreaks, flooding, power outages, and transmission disruptions, with NOAA flood outlooks, coal and barge delays, vulnerable nuclear sites, and distribution line damage demanding resilience, reliability, and emergency preparedness.

Key Points

Spring Storm Grid Risks show how tornadoes and floods disrupt power systems, fuel transport, and plants guide resilience.

✅ Tornado outbreaks and derechos damage distribution and transmission

✅ Flooding drives outages via treefall, substation and plant inundation

✅ Fuel logistics disrupted: rail coal, river barges, road access

The storm and tornado outbreak that recently barreled through the US Midwest, South and Mid-Atlantic was a devastating reminder of how much danger spring can deliver, despite it being the “milder” season compared to summer and winter.  

Danger season is approaching, and the country is starting to see the impacts. 

The event killed at least 32 people across seven states. The National Weather Service is still tallying up the number of confirmed tornadoes, which has already passed 100. Communities coping with tragedy are assessing the damage, which so far includes at least 72 destroyed homes in one Tennessee county alone, and dozens more homes elsewhere. 

On Saturday, April 1–the day after the storm struck–there were 1.1 million US utility customers without power, even as EIA reported a January power generation surge earlier in the year. On Monday morning, April 3, there were still more than 80,000 customers in the dark, according to PowerOutage.us. The storm system brought disruptions to both distribution grids–those networks of local power lines you generally see running overhead to buildings–as well as the larger transmission grid in the Midwest, which is far less common than distribution-level issues. 

While we don’t yet have a lot of granular details about this latest storm’s grid impacts, recent shifts in demand like New York City's pandemic power patterns show how operating conditions evolve, and it’s worth going through what else the country might be in for this spring, as well as in future springs. Moreover, there are steps policymakers can take to prepare for these spring weather phenomena and bolster the reliability and resilience of the US power system. 

Heightened flood risk 
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a recent outlook that about 44 percent of the United States is at risk of floods this spring, equating to about 146 million people. This includes most of the eastern half of the country, the federal agency said. 

The agency also sees “major” flood risk potential in some parts of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and relatively higher risk in the Sierra Nevada region, due in part to a historic snowpack in California.  

Multiple components of the power system can be affected by spring floods. 

Power lines – Floods can saturate soil and make trees more likely to uproot and fall onto power lines. This has been contributing to power outages during California’s recent heavy storms–called atmospheric rivers–that started over the winter. In other regions, soil moisture has even been used as a predictor of where power outages will occur due to hurricanes, so that utility companies are better prepared to send line repair crews to the right areas. Hurricanes are primarily a summer and fall phenomenon, and summer also brings grid stress from air conditioning demand in many states, so for now, during spring, they are less of a concern.  

Fuel transport – Spring floods can hinder the transportation of fuels like coal. While it is a heavily polluting fossil fuel that is set to continue declining as a fuel source for US electricity generation, with the EIA summer outlook for wind and solar pointing to further shifts, coal still accounted for roughly 20 percent of the country’s generation in 2022.   

About 70 percent of US coal is transported at least part of the way by trains. The rail infrastructure to transport coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming–the country’s primary coal source–was proven to be vulnerable to extreme floods in the spring of 2011, and even more extreme floods in the spring of 2019. The 2019 floods’ disruptions of coal shipments to power plants via rail persisted for months and into the summertime, also affecting river shipments of coal by barge. In June 2019, hundreds of barges were stalled in the Mississippi River, through which millions of tons of the fossil fuel are normally transported. 

Power plants – Power plants themselves can also be at risk of flooding, since most of them are sited near a source of water that is used to create steam to spin the plants’ turbines, and conversely, low water levels can constrain hydropower as seen in Western Canada hydropower drought during recent reservoir shortfalls. Most US fossil fuel generating capacity from sources like methane gas, which recently set natural gas power records across the grid, and coal utilizes steam to generate electricity. 

However, much of the attention paid to the flood risk of power plant sites has centered on nuclear plants, a key source of low-carbon electricity discussed in IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons that also require a water source for the creation of steam, as well as for keeping the plant cool in an emergency. To name a notable flood example here in the United States–both visually and substantively–in 2011, the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska was completely surrounded by water due to late-spring flooding along the Missouri River. This sparked a lot of concerns because it was just a few months after the March 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan. The public was thankfully not harmed by the Nebraska incident, but this was unfortunately not an isolated incident in terms of flood risks posed to the US nuclear power fleet. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Iceland Bitcoin Mining Energy Shortage highlights surging cryptocurrency and blockchain data center electricity demand, as hydroelectric and geothermal power strain to cool servers, stabilize grid, and meet rapid mining farm growth amid Arctic-friendly conditions.

Key Points

Crypto mining data centers in Iceland are outpacing renewable power, straining the grid and exceeding residential electricity demand.

✅ Hydroelectric and geothermal capacity nearing allocation limits

✅ Cooling-friendly climate draws energy-hungry mining farms

✅ Grid planning and regulation lag rapid data center growth

The value of bitcoin may have stumbled in recent months, but in Iceland it has known only one direction so far: upward. The stunning success of cryptocurrencies around the globe has had a more unexpected repercussion on the island of 340,000 people: It could soon result in an energy shortage in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

As Iceland has become one of the world's prime locations for energy-hungry cryptocurrency servers — something analysts describe as a 21st-century gold-rush equivalent — the industry’s electricity demands have skyrocketed, too. For the first time, they now exceed Icelanders’ own private energy consumption, and energy producers fear that they won’t be able to keep up with rising demand if Iceland continues to attract new companies bidding on the success of cryptocurrencies, a concern echoed by policy moves like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Companies have flooded Iceland with requests to open new data centers to “mine” cryptocurrencies in recent months, even as concerns mount that the country may have to slow down investments amid an increasingly stretched electricity generation capacity, a dynamic seen in BC Hydro's suspension of new crypto connections in Canada.

“There was a lot of talk about data centers in Iceland about five years ago, but it was a slow start,” Johann Snorri Sigurbergsson, a spokesman for Icelandic energy producer HS Orka, told The Washington Post. “But six months ago, interest suddenly began to spike. And over the last three months, we have received about one call per day from foreign companies interested in setting up projects here.”

“If all these projects are realized, we won’t have enough energy for it,” Sigurbergsson said.

Every cryptocurrency in the world relies on a “blockchain” platform, which is needed to trade with digital currencies. Tracking and verifying a transaction on such a platform is like solving a puzzle because networks are often decentralized, and there is no single authority in charge of monitoring payments. As a result, a transaction involves an immense number of mathematical calculations, which in turn occupy vast computer server capacity. And that requires a lot of electricity, as analyses of bitcoin's energy use indicate worldwide.

The bitcoin rush may have come as a surprise to locals in sleepy Icelandic towns that are suddenly bustling with cryptocurrency technicians, but there’s a simple explanation. “The economics of bitcoin mining mean that most miners need access to reliable and very cheap power on the order of 2 or 3 cents per kilowatt hour. As a result, a lot are located near sources of hydro power, where it’s cheap,” Sam Hartnett, an associate at the nonprofit energy research and consulting group Rocky Mountain Institute, told the Washington Post.

Top financial regulators briefed a Senate panel on Feb. 6 about their work with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, and the risks to potential investors. (Reuters)

Located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and famous for its hot springs and mighty rivers, Iceland produces about 80 percent of its energy in hydroelectric power stations, compared with about 6 percent in the United States, and innovations such as underwater kites illustrate novel ways to harness marine energy. That and the cold climate make it a perfect location for new data-mining centers filled with servers in danger of overheating.

Those conditions have attracted scores of foreign companies to the remote location, including Germany's Genesis Mining, which moved to Iceland about three years ago. More have followed suit since then or are in the process of moving. 

While some analysts are already sensing a possible new revenue source for the country that is so far mostly known abroad as a tourist haven and low-budget airline hub, others are more concerned by a phenomenon that has so far mostly alarmed analysts because of its possible financial unsustainability, alongside issues such as clean energy's dirty secret that complicate the picture. Some predictions have concluded that cryptocurrency computer operations may account for “all of the world’s energy by 2020” or may already account for the equivalent of Denmark's energy needs. Those predictions are probably too alarmist, though. 

Most analysts agree that the real energy-consumption figure is likely smaller, and several experts recently told the Washington Post that bitcoin — currently the world's biggest cryptocurrency — used no more than 0.14 percent of the world’s generated electricity, as of last December. Even though global consumption may not be as significant as some have claimed, it still presents a worrisome drain for a tiny country such as Iceland, where consumption suddenly began to spike with almost no warning — and continues to grow fast.

Some networks are considering or have already pushed through changes to their protocols, designed to reduce energy use. But implementing such changes for the leading currency, bitcoin, won't be as easy because it is inherently decentralized. The companies that provide the vast amounts of computing power needed for these transactions earn a small share, comparable to a processing fee or a reward.

They are the source of the Icelandic bitcoin miners’ income — a revenue source that many Icelanders are still not quite sure what to make of, especially if the lights start flickering.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Miami Valley EV Chargers Expansion strengthens Level 2 charging infrastructure across Dayton, with Ohio EPA funding and Volkswagen settlement support, easing range anxiety and promoting sustainable transportation at Austin Landing and high-traffic destinations.

Key Points

An Ohio initiative installing 24 Level 2 stations to boost EV adoption, reduce range anxiety, and expand access in Dayton.

✅ 24 new Level 2 chargers at high-traffic regional sites

✅ Ohio EPA and VW settlement funds support deployment

✅ Reduces range anxiety, advancing sustainable mobility

The Miami Valley region in Ohio is accelerating its transition to electric vehicles (EVs) with the installation of 24 new Level 2 EV chargers, funded through a $1.1 million project supported by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This initiative aims to enhance EV accessibility and alleviate "range anxiety" among drivers as the broader U.S. EV boom tests grid readiness.

Strategic Locations Across the Region

The newly installed chargers are strategically located in high-traffic areas to maximize their utility as national charging networks compete to expand coverage across travel corridors. Notable sites include Austin Landing, the Dayton Art Institute, the Oregon District, Caesar Creek State Park, and the Rose Music Center. These locations were selected to ensure that EV drivers have convenient access to charging stations throughout the region, similar to how Ontario streamlines station build-outs to place chargers where drivers already travel.

Funding and Implementation

The project is part of Ohio's broader effort to expand EV infrastructure, reflecting the evolution of U.S. charging infrastructure while utilizing funds from the Volkswagen Clean Air Act settlement. The Ohio EPA awarded approximately $3.25 million statewide for the installation of Level 2 EV chargers, with the Miami Valley receiving a significant portion of this funding, while Michigan utility programs advance additional investments to scale regional infrastructure.

Impact on the Community

The expansion of EV charging infrastructure is expected to have several positive outcomes. It will provide greater convenience for current EV owners and encourage more residents to consider electric vehicles as a viable transportation option, including those in apartments and condos who benefit from expanded access. Additionally, the increased availability of charging stations supports the state's environmental goals by promoting the adoption of cleaner, more sustainable transportation.

Looking Ahead

As the adoption of electric vehicles continues to grow, the Miami Valley's investment in EV infrastructure positions the region as a leader in sustainable transportation as utilities pursue ambitious charging strategies to meet demand. The success of this project may serve as a model for other regions looking to expand their EV charging networks. This initiative reflects a significant step towards a more sustainable and accessible transportation future for the Miami Valley.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Smart Meter Texas real-time pricing faces rollback as utilities limit on-demand reads, impacting demand response, home area networks, ERCOT wholesale tracking, and thermostat automation, reducing efficiency gains promised through deregulation and smart meter investments.

Key Points

A plan linking smart meters to ERCOT prices, enabling near real-time usage alignment and automated demand response.

✅ Twice-hourly reads miss 15-minute ERCOT price spikes.

✅ Less than 1% of 7.3M meters use HAN real-time features.

✅ Limits hinder automation for HVAC, EV charging, and pool pumps.

Utilities made a promise several years ago when they built Smart Meter Texas that they’d come up with a way for consumers to monitor their electricity use in real time. But now they’re backing out of the deal with the approval of state regulators, leaving in the lurch retail power companies that are building their business model on the promise of real time pricing and denying consumers another option for managing their electricity costs.

Texas utilities collected higher rates to finance the building of a statewide smart meter network that would allow customers to track their electricity use and the quickly changing prices on wholesale power markets almost as they happened. Some retailers are building electricity plans around this promise, providing customers with in-home devices that would eventually track pricing minute-by-minute and allow them to automatically turn down or shut off air conditioners, pool pumps and energy sucking appliances when prices spiked on hot summer afternoons and turn them back on when they prices fell again.

The idea is to help save consumers money by allowing them to shift their electricity consumption to periods when power is cheaper, typically nights and weekends, even as utility revenue in a free-power era remains a debated topic.

“We’re throwing away a large part of (what) ratepayers paid for,” said John Werner, CEO of GridPlus Texas, one of the companies offering consumers a real-time pricing plan that is scheduled to begin testing next month. “They made the smart meters dumb meters.”

When Smart Meter Texas was launched a decade ago by a consortium of the state’s biggest utilities, it was considered an important part of deregulation. The competitive market for electricity held the promise that consumers would eventually have the technology to control their electricity use through a home area network and cut their power bills.

Regulators and legislators also were enticed by the possibility of making the electric system more efficient and relieving pressure on the power grid as consumers responded to high prices and cut consumption when temperatures soared, with ongoing discussions about Texas grid reliability informing policy choices.

One study found that smart meters coupled with smart real time consumption monitors could reduce electricity use between 3 percent and 5 percent, according to Call Me Power, a website sponsored by the European electricity price shopping service Selectra.

But utilities complained that the home area network devices were expensive to install and not used very often, and, with flat electricity demand weighing on growth, they questioned further investment. CenterPoint manager Esther Floyd Kent filed an affidavit with the commission in May that it costs the utility about $30,000 annually to support the network devices, plus maintenance.

Over a six-year period, CenterPoint paid $124,500, or about $20,000 a year, to maintain the system. As of April, there were only 4,067 network devices in CenterPoint’s service area, meaning the utility pays about $30.70 each year to maintain each device.

Centerpoint last year generated $9.6 billion in revenues and earned a $1.8 billion profit, according to its financial filings. CenterPoint officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Other utilities that are part of the Smart Meter consortium also complained to the Public Utility Commission that, up to now, the system hasn’t developed. All told, Texas has 7.3 million meters connected to Smart Meter Texas, but less than 1 percent are using the networking functions to track real-time prices and consumption, according to the testimony of Donny R. Helm, director of technology strategy and architecture for the state’s largest utility Oncor Electric Delivery Co. in Dallas.

The isssue was resolved recently through a settlement agreement that limits on-demand readings to twice an hour that Smart Meter Texas must provide customers. The price of power changes every 15 minutes, so a twice an hour reading may miss some price spikes.

The Public Utility Commission signed off on the deal, and so did several other groups including several retail electricity providers and the Office of Public Utility Counsel which represents residential customers and small businesses.

Michele Gregg, spokeswoman for the Public Utility Counsel, testified in December that the consumer advocate supported the change because widespread use of the networks never materialized. Catherine Webking, an Austin lawyer who represents the Texas Energy Association for Marketers, a group of retail electric providers, said she believes the deal was a reasonable resolution of providing the benefits of Smart Meter Texas while not incurring too much cost.

But Griddy, an electricity provider that offers customers the opportunity to pay wholesale power prices, which also issued a plea to customers during a price surge, said the state hasn’t given the smart-meter networks a chance and could miss out on its potential. Griddy was counting on the continued adoption of real time pricing as the next step for customers wanting to control their electricity costs.

Right now, Griddy sends out price alerts from the grid operator Electric Reliability Council of Texas so businesses like hotels can run washers and dryers when electricity prices are cheapest. But the company was counting on a smart-meter program that would allow customers to track wholesale prices and manage consumption themselves, making Griddy’s offerings attractive to more people.

Wholesale prices are generally cheaper than retail prices, but they can fluctuate widely, especially when the Texas power grid faces another crisis during extreme weather. Last year, wholesale prices averaged less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour, much lower than than retail rates that now are running above 11 cents, but they can spike at times of high demand to as much as $9 a kilowatt hour.

What customers want is to be able to use energy when it’s cheapest, said Greg Craig, Griddy’s CEO, and they want to do it automatically. They want to be able to program their thermostat so that if the price rises they can shut off their air conditioning and if the price falls, they can charge their electric-powered vehicle.

Griddy customers may still save money even without real time data, he said. But they won’t be able to see their usage in real time or see how much they’re spending.

“The big utilities have big investments in the existing way and going to real time and more transparency isn’t really in their best interest,” said Craig.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News