California just made more clean energy than it needed

Hong Kong Electricity Tariff Increase reflects a projected 1-2% rise as HK Electric and CLP Power shift to cleaner fuel and natural gas, expand gas-fired units and LNG terminals, and adjust the fuel clause charge.

Key Points

An expected 1-2% 2018 rise from cleaner fuel, natural gas projects, asset growth, and shrinking fuel cost surpluses.

✅ Expected 1-2% rise amid cleaner fuel and gas shift

✅ Fuel clause charge and asset expansion pressure prices

✅ HK Electric and CLP Power urged to use surpluses prudently

Hong Kong customers have been asked to expect higher electricity bills next year, as seen with BC Hydro rate increases in Canada, with a member of a government panel on energy policy anticipating an increase in tariffs of one or two per cent.

The environment minister, Wong Kam-sing, also hinted they should be prepared to dig deeper into their pockets for electricity, as debates over California electric bills illustrate, in the wake of power companies needing to use more expensive but cleaner fuel to generate power in the future.

HK Electric supplies power to Hong Kong Island, Lamma Island and Ap Lei Chau. Photo: David Wong

The city’s two power companies, HK Electric and CLP Power, are to brief lawmakers on their respective annual tariff adjustments for 2018, amid Ontario electricity price pressures drawing international attention, at a Legislative Council economic development panel meeting on Tuesday.

HK Electric supplies electricity to Hong Kong Island and neighbouring Lamma Island and Ap Lei Chau, while CLP Power serves Kowloon and the New Territories, including Lantau Island.

Wong said on Monday: “We have to appreciate that when we use cleaner fuel, there is a need for electricity tariffs to keep pace. I believe it is the hope of mainstream society to see a low-carbon and healthier environment.”

Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing believes most people desire a low-carbon environment. Photo: Sam Tsang

But he declined to comment on how much the tariffs might rise.

World Green Organisation chief executive William Yu Yuen-ping, also a member of the Energy Advisory Committee, urged the companies to better use their “overflowing” surpluses in their fuel cost recovery accounts.

Tariffs are comprised of two components: a basic amount reflecting a company’s operating costs and investments, and the fuel clause charge, which is based on what the company projects it will pay for fuel for the year.

William Yu of World Green Organisation says the companies should use their surpluses more carefully. Photo: May Tse

Critics have claimed the local power suppliers routinely overestimate their fuel costs and amass huge surpluses.

In recent years, the two managed to freeze or cut their tariffs thanks to savings from lower fuel costs. Last year, HK Electric offered special rebates to its customers, which saw its tariff drop by 17.2 per cent. CLP Power froze its own charge for 2017.

Yu said the two companies should use the surpluses “more carefully” to stabilise tariffs.

Rise after fall in Hong Kong electricity use linked to subsidies

“We estimate a big share of the surplus has been used up and so the honeymoon period is over.”

Based on his group’s research, Yu believed the tariffs would increase by one or two per cent.

Economist and fellow committee member Billy Mak Sui-choi said the expansion of the power companies’ fixed asset bases, such as building new gas-fired units and offshore liquefied natural gas terminals, a pattern reflected in Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike recently approved by regulators, would also cause tariffs to rise.

To fight climate change and improve air quality, the government has pledged to cut carbon intensity by between 50 and 60 per cent by 2020. Officials set a target of boosting the use of natural gas for electricity generation to half the total fuel mix from 2020.

Both power companies are privately owned and monitored by the government through a mutually agreed scheme of control agreements, akin to oversight seen under the UK energy price cap in other jurisdictions. These require the firms to seek government approval for their development plans, including their projected basic tariff levels.

At present, the permitted rate of return on their net fixed assets is 9.99 per cent. The deals are due to expire late next year.

Earlier this year, officials reached a deal with the two companies on the post-2018 scheme, settling on a 15-year term. The new agreements slash their permitted rate of return to 8 per cent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario-Quebec Electricity Deal explores hydro imports, terawatt hours, electricity costs, greenhouse gas cuts, and baseload impacts, amid debates on Pickering nuclear operations and competitive procurement in Ontario's long-term energy planning.

Key Points

A proposed hydro import deal from Quebec, balancing costs, emissions, and reliability for Ontario electricity customers.

✅ Draft 20-year, 8 TWh offer reported by La Presse disputed

✅ Ontario seeks lower costs and GHG cuts versus alternatives

✅ Not a baseload replacement; Pickering closure not planned

Ontario is negotiating a possible energy swap agreement to buy electricity from Quebec, but the government is disputing a published report that it is preparing to sign a deal for enough electricity to power a city the size of Ottawa.

La Presse reported Tuesday that it obtained a copy of a draft, 20-year deal that says Ontario would buy eight terawatt hours a year from Quebec – about 6 per cent of Ontario’s consumption – whether the electricity is consumed or not.

Ontario Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault’s office said the province is in discussions to build on an agreement signed last year for Ontario to import up to two terawatt hours of electricity a year from Quebec.

But his office released a letter dated late last month to his Quebec counterpart, in which Mr. Thibeault said the offer extended in June was unacceptable because it would increase the average residential electricity bill by $30 a year.

“I am hopeful that your continued support and efforts will help to further discussions between our jurisdictions that could lead to an agreement that is in the best interest of both Ontario and Quebec,” Mr. Thibeault wrote July 27 to Pierre Arcand.

Ontario would prepare a “term sheet” for the next stage of discussions ahead of the two ministers meeting at the Energy and Mines Ministers Conference later this month in New Brunswick, Mr. Thibeault wrote.

Any future agreements with Quebec will have to provide a reduction in Ontario electricity rates compared with other alternatives and demonstrate measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, he wrote.

Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown said Ontario doesn’t need eight terawatt hours of additional power and suggested it means the Liberal government is considering closing power facilities such as the Pickering nuclear plant early.

A senior Energy Ministry official said that is not on the table. The government has said it intends to keep operating two units at Pickering until 2022, and the other four units until 2024.

Even if the Quebec offer had been accepted, the energy official said, that power wouldn’t have replaced any of Ontario’s baseload power because it couldn’t have been counted on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The Society of Energy Professionals said Mr. Thibeault was right to reject the deal, but called on him to release the Long-Term Energy Plan – which was supposed to be out this spring – before continuing negotiations.

Some commentators have argued for broader reforms to address Ontario's hydro system challenges, urging policymakers to review all options as negotiations proceed.

The Ontario Energy Association said the reported deal would run counter to the government’s stated energy objectives amid concerns over electricity prices in the province.

“Ontarians will not get the benefit of competition to ensure it is the best of all possible options for the province, and companies who have invested in Ontario and have employees here will not get the opportunity to provide alternatives,” president and chief executive Vince Brescia said in a statement. “Competitive processes should be used for any new significant system capacity in Ontario.”

The Association of Power Producers of Ontario said it is concerned the government is even considering deals that would “threaten to undercut a competitive marketplace and long-term planning.”

“Ontario already has a surplus of energy, so it’s very difficult to see how this deal or any other sole-source deal with Quebec could benefit the province and its ratepayers,” association president and CEO David Butters said in a statement.

The Ontario Waterpower Association also said such a deal with Quebec would “present a significant challenge to continued investment in waterpower in Ontario.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Electricity Demand Stagnation reflects decoupling from GDP as TVA's IRP revises outlook, with energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and cheap natural gas undercutting coal, reshaping utility business models and accelerating grid modernization.

Key Points

US electricity demand stagnation is flat load growth driven by efficiency, DG, and decoupling from GDP.

✅ Flat sales pressure IOU profits and legacy baseload investments.

✅ Efficiency and rooftop solar reduce load growth and capacity needs.

✅ Utilities must pivot to services, DER orchestration, and grid software.

The US electricity sector is in a period of unprecedented change and turmoil, with emerging utility trends reshaping strategies across the industry today. Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy. Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge. Coal, the golden child of the current administration, is headed down the tubes.

In all that bedlam, it’s easy to lose sight of an equally important (if less sexy) trend: Demand for electricity is stagnant.

Thanks to a combination of greater energy efficiency, outsourcing of heavy industry, and customers generating their own power on site, demand for utility power has been flat for 10 years, with COVID-19 electricity demand underscoring recent variability and long-run stagnation, and most forecasts expect it to stay that way. The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became “decoupled”:

This historic shift has wreaked havoc in the utility industry in ways large and small, visible and obscure. Some of that havoc is high-profile and headline-making, as in the recent requests from utilities (and attempts by the Trump administration) to bail out large coal and nuclear plants amid coal and nuclear industry disruptions affecting power markets and reliability.

Some of it, however, is unfolding in more obscure quarters. A great example recently popped up in Tennessee, where one utility is finding its 20-year forecasts rendered archaic almost as soon as they are released.

Falling demand has TVA moving up its planning process

Every five years, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) — the federally owned regional planning agency that, among other things, supplies electricity to Tennessee and parts of surrounding states — develops an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) meant to assess what it requires to meet customer needs for the next 20 years.

The last IRP, completed in 2015, anticipated that there would be no need for major new investment in baseload (coal, nuclear, and hydro) power plants; it foresaw that energy efficiency and distributed (customer-owned) energy generation would hold down demand.

Even so, TVA underestimated. Just three years later, the Times Free Press reports, “TVA now expects to sell 13 percent less power in 2027 than it did two decades earlier — the first sustained reversal in the growth of electricity usage in the 85-year history of TVA.”

TVA will sell less electricity in 10 years than it did 10 years ago. That is bonkers.

This startling shift in prospects has prompted the company to accelerate its schedule. It will now develop its next IRP a year early, in 2019.

Think for a moment about why a big utility like TVA (serving 9 million customers in seven states, with more than $11 billion in revenue) sets out to plan 20 years ahead. It is investing in extremely large and capital-intensive infrastructure like power plants and transmission lines, which cost billions of dollars and last for decades. These are not decisions to make lightly; the utility wants to be sure that they will still be needed, and will still pay off, for many years to come.

Now think for a moment about what it means for the electricity sector to be changing so fast that TVA’s projections are out of date three years after its last IRP, so much so that it needs to plunge back into the multimillion-dollar, year-long process of developing a new plan.

TVA wanted a plan for 20 years; the plan lasted three.

The utility business model is headed for a reckoning

TVA, as a government-owned, fully regulated utility, has only the goals of “low cost, informed risk, environmental responsibility, reliability, diversity of power and flexibility to meet changing market conditions,” as its planning manager told the Times Free Press. (Yes, that’s already a lot of goals!)

But investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which administer electricity for well over half of Americans, face another imperative: to make money for investors. They can’t make money selling electricity; monopoly regulations forbid it, raising questions about utility revenue models as marginal energy costs fall. Instead, they make money by earning a rate of return on investments in electrical power plants and infrastructure.

The problem is, with demand stagnant, there’s not much need for new hardware. And a drop in investment means a drop in profit. Unable to continue the steady growth that their investors have always counted on, IOUs are treading water, watching as revenues dry up

Utilities have been frantically adjusting to this new normal. The generation utilities that sell into wholesale electricity markets (also under pressure from falling power prices; thanks to natural gas and renewables, wholesale power prices are down 70 percent from 2007) have reacted by cutting costs and merging. The regulated utilities that administer local distribution grids have responded by increasing investments in those grids, including efforts to improve electricity reliability and resilience at lower cost.

But these are temporary, limited responses, not enough to stay in business in the face of long-term decline in demand. Ultimately, deeper reforms will be necessary.

As I have explained at length, the US utility sector was built around the presumption of perpetual growth. Utilities were envisioned as entities that would build the electricity infrastructure to safely and affordably meet ever-rising demand, which was seen as a fixed, external factor, outside utility control.

But demand is no longer rising. What the US needs now are utilities that can manage and accelerate that decline in demand, increasing efficiency as they shift to cleaner generation. The new electricity paradigm is to match flexible, diverse, low-carbon supply with (increasingly controllable) demand, through sophisticated real-time sensing and software.

That’s simply a different model than current utilities are designed for. To adapt, the utility business model must change. Utilities need newly defined responsibilities and new ways to make money, through services rather than new hardware. That kind of reform will require regulators, politicians, and risky experiments. Very few states — New York, California, Massachusetts, a few others — have consciously set off down that path.

Flat or declining demand is going to force the issue

Even if natural gas and renewables weren’t roiling the sector, the end of demand growth would eventually force utility reform.

To be clear: For both economic and environmental reasons, it is good that US power demand has decoupled from GDP growth. As long as we’re getting the energy services we need, we want overall demand to decline. It saves money, reduces pollution, and avoids the need for expensive infrastructure.

But the way we’ve set up utilities, they must fight that trend. Every time they are forced to invest in energy efficiency or make some allowance for distributed generation (and they must always be forced), demand for their product declines, and with it their justification to make new investments.

Only when the utility model fundamentally changes — when utilities begin to see themselves primarily as architects and managers of high-efficiency, low-emissions, multidirectional electricity systems rather than just investors in infrastructure growth — can utilities turn in earnest to the kind planning they need to be doing.

In a climate-aligned world, utilities would view the decoupling of power demand from GDP growth as cause for celebration, a sign of success. They would throw themselves into accelerating the trend.

Instead, utilities find themselves constantly surprised, caught flat-footed again and again by a trend they desperately want to believe is temporary. Unless we can collectively reorient utilities to pursue rather than fear current trends in electricity, they are headed for a grim reckoning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire explores halting strikes on power plants, safeguarding energy infrastructure and grids, easing humanitarian crises, stabilizing European markets, and advancing diplomatic talks on security, resilience, and critical infrastructure protection.

Key Points

A proposed pact to halt strikes on power plants, protect energy infrastructure, and stabilize grids and security.

✅ Shields power plants and grid infrastructure from attacks

✅ Eases humanitarian strain and improves winter resilience

✅ Supports European energy security and market stability

In a significant diplomatic development amid ongoing conflict, Russia and Ukraine are reportedly exploring the possibility of reaching an agreement to halt attacks on each other’s power plants. This potential cessation of hostilities could have far-reaching implications for the energy security and stability of both nations, as well as for the broader European energy landscape.

The Context of Energy Warfare

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has escalated into what many analysts term "energy warfare," where both sides have targeted each other’s energy infrastructure. Such actions not only aim to undermine the adversary’s military capabilities but also have profound effects on civilian populations, leading to widespread power outages and humanitarian crises. Energy infrastructure has become a focal point in the conflict, with power plants and grids frequently damaged or destroyed.

The ongoing hostilities have raised concerns about energy security in Europe, with some warning of an energy nightmare if disruptions escalate, especially as many countries in the region rely on energy supplies from Russia. The attacks on power facilities exacerbate vulnerabilities in the energy supply chain, prompting calls for a ceasefire that encompasses energy infrastructure.

The Humanitarian Implications

The humanitarian impact of the conflict has been staggering, with millions of civilians affected by power outages, heating shortages, and disrupted access to essential services. The winter months, in particular, pose a grave challenge, as Ukraine prepares for winter amid ongoing energy constraints for vulnerable populations. A potential agreement to cease attacks on power plants could provide much-needed relief and stability for civilians caught in the crossfire.

International organizations, including the United Nations and various humanitarian NGOs, have been vocal in urging both parties to prioritize civilian safety and to protect critical infrastructure. Any agreement reached could facilitate aid efforts and enhance the overall humanitarian situation in affected areas.

Diplomatic Efforts and Negotiations

Reports indicate that diplomatic channels are being utilized to explore this potential agreement. While the specifics of the negotiations remain unclear, the idea of protecting energy infrastructure has been gaining traction among international diplomats. Key players, including European nations and the United States, with debates over U.S. energy security shaping positions, may play a pivotal role in mediating discussions.

Negotiating a ceasefire concerning energy infrastructure could serve as a preliminary step toward broader peace talks. By demonstrating goodwill through a tangible agreement, both parties might foster an environment conducive to further negotiations on other contentious issues in the conflict.

The Broader European Energy Landscape

The ramifications of an agreement between Russia and Ukraine extend beyond their borders. The stability of energy supplies in Europe is inextricably linked to the dynamics of the conflict, and the posture of certain EU states, such as Hungary's energy alliance with Russia, also shapes outcomes across the region. Many European nations have been grappling with rising energy prices and supply uncertainties, particularly in light of reduced gas supplies from Russia.

A halt to attacks on power plants could alleviate some of the strain on energy markets, which have experienced price hikes and instability in recent months, helping to stabilize prices and improve energy security for neighboring countries. Furthermore, it could pave the way for increased cooperation on energy issues, such as joint projects for renewable energy development or grid interconnections.

Future Considerations

While the prospect of an agreement is encouraging, skepticism remains about the willingness of both parties to adhere to such terms. The historical context of mistrust and previous violations of ceasefires, as both sides have accused each other of violations in recent months, raises questions about the durability of any potential pact. Continued dialogue and monitoring by international entities will be essential to ensure compliance and to build confidence between the parties.

Moreover, as discussions progress, it will be crucial to consider the long-term implications for energy policy in both Russia and Ukraine. The conflict has already prompted Ukraine to seek alternative energy sources and reduce its dependence on Russian gas, turning to electricity imports to keep the lights on, while Russia is exploring new markets for its energy exports.

The potential agreement between Russia and Ukraine to stop targeting each other’s power plants represents a glimmer of hope in a protracted conflict characterized by violence and humanitarian suffering. As both nations explore this diplomatic avenue, the implications for energy security, civilian safety, and the broader European energy landscape could be profound. Continued international support and monitoring will be vital to ensure that any agreement reached translates into real-world benefits for affected populations and contributes to a more stable energy future for the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Massachusetts Solar Net Metering faces new demand charges and elimination of residential time-of-use rates under an MDPU order, as Eversource cites grid cost fairness while clean energy advocates warn of impacts on distributed solar growth.

Key Points

Policy letting solar customers net out usage with exports; MDPU now adds demand charges and ends TOU rates.

✅ New residential solar demand charges start Dec 31, 2018.

✅ Optional residential TOU rates eliminated by MDPU order.

✅ Eversource cites grid cost fairness; advocates warn slower solar.

A recent Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities' rate case order changes the way solar net metering works and eliminates optional residential time-of-use rates, stirring controversy between clean energy advocates and utility Eversource and potential consumer backlash over rate design.

"There is a lot of room to talk about what net-energy metering should look like, but a demand charge is an unfair way to charge customers," Mark LeBel, staff attorney at non-profit clean energy advocacy organization Acadia Center, said in a Tuesday phone call. Acadia Center is an intervenor in the rate case and opposed the changes.

The Friday MDPU order implements demand charges for new residential solar projects starting on December 31, 2018. Such charges are based on the highest peak hourly consumption over the course of a month, regardless of what time the power is consumed.

Eversource contends the demand charge will more fairly distribute the costs of maintaining the local power grid, echoing minimum charge proposals aimed at low-usage customers. Net metering is often criticized for not evenly distributing those costs, which are effectively subsidized by non-net-metered customers.

"What the demand charge will do is eliminate, to the extent possible, the unfair cross subsidization by non-net-metered customers that currently exists with rates that only have kilowatt-hour charges and no kilowatt demand, Mike Durand, Eversource spokesman, said in a Tuesday email. 

"For net metered facilities that use little kilowatt-hours, a demand charge is a way to charge them for their fair share of the cost of the significant maintenance and upgrade work we do on the local grid every day," Durand said. "Currently, their neighbors are paying more than their share of those costs."

It will not affect existing facilities, Durand said, only those installed after December 31, 2018.

Solar advocates are not enthusiastic about the change and see it slowing the growth of solar power, particularly residential rooftop solar, in the state.

"This is a terrible outcome for the future of solar in Massachusetts," Nathan Phelps, program manager of distributed generation and regulatory policy at solar power advocacy group Vote Solar, said in a Tuesday phone call.

"It's very inconsistent with DPU precedent and numerous pieces of legislation passed in the last 10 years," Phelps said. "The commonwealth has passed several pieces of legislation that are supportive of renewable energy and solar power. I don't know what the DPU was thinking."

 

TIME-OF-USE PRICING ELIMINATED

It does not matter when during the month peak demand occurs -- which could be during the week in the evening -- customers will be charged the same as they would on a hot summer day, LeBel said. Because an individual customer's peak usage does not necessarily correspond to peak demand across the utility's system, consumers are not being provided incentives to reduce energy usage in a way that could benefit the power system, Acadia Center said in a Tuesday statement.

However, Eversource maintains that residential customer distribution peaks based on customer load profiles do not align with basic service peak periods, which are based on Independent System Operator New England's peaks that reflect market-based pricing, even as a Connecticut market overhaul advances in the region, according to the MDPU order.

"The residential Time of Use rates we're eliminating are obsolete, having been designed decades ago when we were responsible for both the generation and the delivery of electricity," Eversource's Durand said.

"We are no longer in the generation business, having divested of our generation assets in Massachusetts in compliance with the law that restructured of our industry back in the late 1990s. Time Varying pricing is best used with generation rates, where the price for electricity changes based on time of day and electricity demand and can significantly alter electric bills for households," he said.

Additionally, only 0.02% of residential customers take service on Eversource's TOU rates and it would be difficult for residential customers to avoid peak period rates because they do not have the ability to shift or reduce load, according to the order.

"The Department allowed the Companies' proposal to eliminate their optional residential TOU rates in order to consolidate and align their residential rates and tariffs to better achieve the rate structure goal of simplicity," the MDPU said in the order.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Charging Infrastructure Incentives are expanding as utilities fund public chargers, Level 2 networks, DC fast charging, grid-managed off-peak programs, and equitable access across Ohio, New Jersey, and Florida to accelerate clean transportation.

Key Points

Utility-backed programs funding Level 2 and DC fast chargers, managing grid demand, and expanding EV equity.

✅ Incentives for Level 2 and DC fast public charging stations.

✅ Grid-friendly off-peak charging to balance demand.

✅ Equity targets place chargers in low-income communities.

Electric providers in Florida, Ohio and New Jersey recently announced plans to expand electric vehicle charging networks and infrastructure through various incentive programs that could add thousands of new public chargers in the next several years.

Elsewhere, utilities are advancing similar efforts, with Michigan EV programs proposing more than $20 million for charging infrastructure to accelerate adoption.

American Electric Power in Ohio will offer nearly $10 million in incentives toward the build out of 375 EV charging stations throughout the company's service territory, which largely includes Columbus.

Meanwhile, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), an electric utility provider in New Jersey, has proposed a six-year plan to support the development of nearly 40,000 electric vehicle chargers across a wide range of customers and sectors, said Francis Sullivan, a spokesperson for PSE&G.

And Duke Energy in Florida is installing up to 530 EV charging stations across its service area, as part of its Park and Plug pilot program, which will be making the charging ports available in multifamily housing complexes, workplaces and other high traffic areas.

"We are bringing cleaner energy to Florida through 700 megawatts of new universal solar, and we are helping our customers to bring clean transportation to the state as well," Catherine Stempien, Duke Energy Florida president, said in a statement. "We are committed to providing smarter, cleaner energy alternatives for all our customers."

The project in Ohio is making incentive funding available to government organizations, multifamily housing developments and workplaces, covering from 50 percent to all of the costs. The plan, to be rolled out in the next four years, aims to incentivize the development of 300 level-two chargers and 75 "fast chargers" capable of charging a car's battery in minutes rather than hours.

"I think what's interesting about what we're seeing now in the industry is that electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging are expanding beyond California, and like other Pacific Coast states," said Scott Fisher, vice president of marketing at Greenlots, maker of car chargers and software. Greenlots has been selected as one of the companies to provide the chargers for the AEP project.

California has occupied the lion's share of the electric vehicle market, making up about 5 percent of the cars on the state's highways. The U.S. market sits at about 1.5 percent. However, indications show the EV boom may be set to take off as more models are being rolled out, and prices are making the electric cars more competitive with their gas-powered counterparts. The group Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) announced the one-millionth electric vehicle is on course to be sold in the United States this month.

In a statement, Ben Prochazka, vice president of the Electrification Coalition, an EV advocacy group, called this "a major milestone and brings us one step closer to reducing our transportation system's dependence on oil. This is a direct result of the tireless efforts by communities and advocates throughout the 'EV ecosystem.'"

In New Jersey, PSE&G's efforts -- which are part of the company's proposed Clean Energy Future program -- will not only focus on building out the charging infrastructure, but structure car recharging to control charging and encourage residents to charge their cars during off-peak times.

"For now, with a modest number of charging stations in the market, it's not a huge problem. But over time, as you're putting in many thousands of these stations, what you want to make sure is that those stations are operating in sync with state power grids, where you don't have people all charging at the same time at like 5 p.m. on a hot summer day," said Fisher.

PSE&G also plans to offer incentives to encourage the development of level-two chargers and DC fast-chargers, as well as "provide grants and incentives for 100 electric school buses and EV charging infrastructure at school districts in PSE&G's service territory," said Sullivan.

"PSE&G will also help fund electrification projects at customer locations such as ports, airports and transit facilities," Sullivan added, via email.

Utilities and transportation planners are also keeping the concept of equity in mind -- to ensure EVs are adopted by more than just the Tesla owner -- and will also focus on placing infrastructure in low-income areas.

"Ten percent of the stations will be in low income areas, defined by census blocks," said Scott Blake, a communications consultant at AEP in Columbus.

Duke Energy also announced 10 percent of the chargers it is installing in Florida will be in "income-qualified communities," according to a company press release.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News