Centrica acquires battery storage project that could "unlock North Sea wind energy potential"

Whooping crane migration near wind turbines shows strong avoidance of stopover habitat within 5 km, reshaping Great Plains siting decisions, reducing collision risk, and altering routes across croplands, grasslands, and wetlands.

Key Points

It examines cranes avoiding stopovers within 5 km of turbines, reshaping habitat use and routing across the Great Plains.

✅ Cranes 20x likelier to rest >5 km from turbines.

✅ About 5% of high-quality stopover habitat is impacted.

✅ Findings guide wind farm siting across Great Plains wetlands.

As gatherings to observe whooping cranes join the ranks of online-only events this year, a new study offers insight into how the endangered bird is faring on a landscape increasingly dotted with wind turbines across regions. The paper, published this week in Ecological Applications, reports that whooping cranes migrating through the U.S. Great Plains avoid “rest stop” sites that are within 5 km of wind-energy infrastructure.

Avoidance of wind turbines can decrease collision mortality for birds, but can also make it more difficult and time-consuming for migrating flocks to find safe and suitable rest and refueling locations. The study’s insights into migratory behavior could improve future siting decisions as wind energy infrastructure continues to expand, despite pandemic-related investment risks for developers.

“In the past, federal agencies had thought of impacts related to wind energy primarily associated with collision risks,” said Aaron Pearse, the paper’s first author and a research wildlife biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown, N.D. “I think this research changes that paradigm to a greater focus on potential impacts to important migration habitats.”

Some policymakers have also rejected false health claims about wind turbines and cancer in public debate, underscoring the need for evidence-based decisions.

The study tracked whooping cranes migrating across the Great Plains, a region that encompasses a mosaic of croplands, grasslands and wetlands. The region has seen a rapid proliferation of wind energy infrastructure in recent years: in 2010, there were 2,215 wind towers within the whooping crane migration corridor that the study focused on; by 2016, when the study ended, there were 7,622 wind towers within the same area.

Pearse and his colleagues found that whooping cranes migrating across the study area in 2010 and 2016 were 20 times more likely to select “rest stop” locations at least 5 km away from wind turbines than those closer to turbines, a pattern with implications for developers as solar incentive changes reshape wind market dynamics according to industry analyses.

The authors estimated that 5% of high-quality stopover habitat in the study area was affected by presence of wind towers. Siting wind infrastructure outside of whooping cranes’ migration corridor would reduce the risk of further habitat loss not only for whooping cranes, but also for millions of other birds that use the same land for breeding, migration, and wintering habitat, and real-world siting controversies, such as an Alberta wind farm cancellation, illustrate how local factors shape outcomes for wildlife.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California NEM-3 Tariff ushers a successor Net Energy Metering framework, revising export compensation, TOU rates, and non-bypassable charges to balance ratepayer impacts, rooftop solar growth, and energy storage adoption across diverse communities.

Key Points

The CPUC's successor NEM policy redefining export credits and rates to sustain customer-sited solar and storage.

✅ Sets export compensation methodology beyond NEM 2.0

✅ Aligns TOU rates and non-bypassable charges with costs

✅ Encourages solar-plus-storage adoption and equity access

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has officially commenced its “NEM-3” proceeding, which will establish the successor Net Energy Metering (NEM) tariff to the “NEM 2.0” program in California. This is a highly anticipated, high-stakes proceeding that will effectively modify the rules for the NEM tariff in California, amid ongoing electricity pricing changes that affect residential rooftop solar – arguably the single most important policy mechanism for customer-sited solar over the last decade.

The CPUC’s recent order instituting rule-making (OIR) filing stated that “the major focus of this proceeding will be on the development of a successor to existing NEM 2.0 tariffs. This successor will be a mechanism for providing customer-generators with credit or compensation for electricity generated by their renewable facilities that a) balances the costs and benefits of the renewable electrical generation facility and b) allows customer-sited renewable generation to grow sustainably among different types of customers and throughout California’s diverse communities.”

This successor tariff proceeding was initiated by Assembly Bill 327, which was signed into law in October of 2013. AB 327 is best known as the legislation that directed the CPUC to create the “NEM 2.0” successor tariff, which was adopted by the CPUC in January of 2016.

The original Net Energy Metering program in California (“NEM 1.0”) effectively enabled full-retail value net metering “allowing NEM customers to be compensated for the electricity generated by an eligible customer-sited renewable resource and fed back to the utility over an entire billing period.” Under the NEM 2.0 tariff, customers were required to pay charges that aligned them more closely with non-NEM customer costs than under the original structure. The main changes adopted when the NEM 2.0 was implemented were that NEM 2.0 customer-generators must: (i) pay a one-time interconnection fee; (ii) pay non-bypassable charges on each kilowatt-hour of electricity they consume from the grid; and (iii) customers were required to transfer to a time-of-use (TOU) rate, with potential changes to electric bills for many customers.

NEM 2.0

The commencement of the NEM-3 OIR was preceded by the publishing of a 318-page Net Energy Metering 2.0 Lookback Study, which was published by Itron, Verdant Associates, and Energy and Environmental Economics. The CPUC-commissioned study had been widely anticipated and was expected to act as the starting reference point for the successor tariff proceeding. Verdant also hosted a webinar, which summarized the study’s inputs, assumptions, draft findings and results.

The study utilized several different tests to study the impact of NEM 2.0. The cost effectiveness analysis tests, which estimate costs and benefits attributed to NEM 2.0 include: (i) total resource cost test, (ii) participant cost test, (iii) ratepayer impact measure test, and (iv) program administrator test. The evaluation also included a cost of service analysis, which estimates the marginal cost borne by the utility to serve a NEM 2.0 customer.

The opening paragraph of the report’s executive summary stated that “overall, we found that NEM 2.0 participants benefit from the structure, while ratepayers see increased rates.” In every test that the author’s conducted the results generally supported this conclusion for residential customers. There were some exceptions in their findings. For example, in the cost of service analysis the report stated that “residential customers that install customer-sited renewable resources on average pay lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them. On the other hand, nonresidential customers pay bills that are slightly higher than their cost of service after installing customer-sited renewable resources. This is largely due to nonresidential customer rates having demand charges (and other fixed fees), and the lower ratio of PV system size to customer load when compared to residential customers.”

Similar debates over solar rate design, including Massachusetts solar demand charges, highlight how demand charges and TOU decisions can affect customer economics.

NEM-3 timeline

Popular content
The preliminary schedule that the CPUC laid out in its OIR estimates that the proceeding will take roughly 15 months in total, starting with a November 2020 pre-hearing conference.

The real meat of the proceeding, where parties will present their proposals for what they believe the successor tariff should be, as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, and really show their hand will not begin until the Spring of 2021. So we’re still a little ways away from seeing the proposals that the key parties to this proceeding, like the Investor Owned Utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E), solar and storage advocates such as SEIA, CALSSA, Vote Solar, and ratepayer advocates like TURN) will submit.

While the outcome for the new successor NEM tariff is anyone’s guess at this point, some industry policy folks are starting to speculate. We think it is safe to assume that the value of exported energy will get reduced, with debates over income-based utility charges also influencing rate design. How much and the mechanism for how exports get valued remains to be seen. Based on the findings from the lookback study, it seems like the reduction in export value will be more severe than what happened when NEM 2.0 got implemented. In NEM 2.0, non-bypassable charges, which are volumetric charges that must be paid on all imported energy and cannot be netted-out by exports, only equated to roughly $0.02 to $0.03/kWh.

Given that the value of exports will almost certainly get reduced, we expect that to be bullish for energy storage as America goes electric and load shapes evolve. Energy storage attachment rates with solar are already steadily rising in California. By the time NEM-3 starts getting implemented, likely in 2022, we think storage attachment rates will likely escalate further.

We would not be surprised to see future storage attachment rates in California look like the Hawaiian market today, which are upwards of 80% for certain types of customers and applications. Two big questions on our mind are: (i) will the NEM 3.0 rules be different for different customer class: residential, CARE (e.g., low-income or disadvantaged communities), and commercial & industrial; (ii) will the CPUC introduce some sort of glidepath or phased in implementation approach?

The outcome of this proceeding will have far reaching implications on the future of customer-sited solar and energy storage in California. The NEM-3 outcome in California may likely serve as precedent for other states, as California exports its energy policies across the West, and utility territories that are expected to redesign their Net Energy Metering tariffs in the coming years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV charging anxiety reflects concerns beyond range anxiety, focusing on charging infrastructure, fast chargers, and network reliability during road trips, from Tesla Superchargers to Electrify America stations across highways in the United States.

Key Points

EV charging anxiety is worry about finding reliable fast chargers on public networks, not just limited range.

✅ Non-Tesla networks vary in uptime and plug-and-charge reliability.

✅ Charging deserts complicate route planning on long highway stretches.

✅ Sync stops: align rest breaks with fast chargers to save time.

With electric cars, people often talk about "range anxiety," and how cars with bigger batteries and longer driving ranges will alleviate that. I just drove an electric car from New York City to Atlanta, a distance of about 950 miles, and it taught me something important. The problem really isn't range anxiety. It's anxiety around finding a convenient and working chargers on America's still-challenged EV charging networks today.

Back in 2019, I drove a Tesla Model S Long Range from New York City to Atlanta. It was a mostly uneventful trip, thanks to Tesla's nicely organized and well maintained network of fast chargers that can fill the batteries with an 80% charge in a half hour or less. Since then, I've wanted to try that trip again with an electric car that wasn't a Tesla, one that wouldn't have Tesla's unified charging network to rely on.
I got my chance with a Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+, a car that is as close to a direct competitor to the Tesla Model S as any. And while I made it to Atlanta without major incident, I encountered glitchy chargers, called the charging network's customer service twice, and experienced some serious charging anxiety during a long stretch of the Carolinas.

Long range
The EPA estimated range for the Tesla I drove in 2019 was 370 miles, and Tesla's latest models can go even further.

The EQS 450+ is officially estimated to go 350 miles on a charge, but I beat that handily without even trying. When I got into the car, its internal displays showed a range estimate of 446 miles. On my trip, the car couldn't stretch its legs quite that far, because I was driving almost entirely on highways at fairly high speeds, but by my calculations, I could have gone between 370 and 390 miles on a charge.

I was going to drive over the George Washington Bridge then down through New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia then North Carolina and South Carolina. I figured three charging stops would be needed and, strictly speaking, that was correct. The driving route laid out by the car's navigation system included three charging stops, but the on-board computers tended push things to the limit. At each stop, the battery would be drained to a little over 10% or so. (I learned later this is a setting I could adjust to be more conservative if I'd wanted.)

But I've driven enough electric cars to have some concerns. I use public chargers fairly often, and I know they're imperfect, and we need to fix these problems to build confidence. Sometimes they aren't working as well as they should. Sometimes they're just plain broken. And even if the car's navigation system is telling you that a charger is "available," that can change at any moment. Someone else can pull into the charging spot just a few seconds before you get there.
I've learned to be flexible and not push things to the limit.

On the first day, when I planned to drive from New York to Richmond, Virginia, no charging stop was called for until Spotsylvania, Virginia, a distance of nearly 300 miles. By that point, I had 16% charge left in the car's batteries which, by the car's own calculation, would have taken me another 60 miles.

As I sat and worked inside the Spotsylvania Town Centre mall I realized I'd been dumb. I had already stopped twice, at rest stops in New Jersey and Delaware. The Delaware stop, at the Biden Welcome Center, had EV fast chargers, as the American EV boom accelerates nationwide. I could have used one even though the car's navigation didn't suggest it.

Stopping without charging was a lost opportunity and it cost me time. If I'm going to stop to recharge myself why not recharge the car, too?
But that's the thing, though. A car can be designed to go 350 miles or more before needing to park whereas human beings are not. Elementary school math will tell you that at highway speeds, that's nearly six hours of driving all at once. We need bathrooms, beverages, food, and to just get out and move around once in a while. Sure, it's physically possible to sit in a car for longer than that in one go, but most people in need of speed will take an airplane, and a driver of an EQS, with a starting price just north of $100,000, can almost certainly afford the ticket.

I stopped for a charge in Virginia but realized I could have stopped sooner. I encountered a lot of other electric cars on the trip, including this Hyundai Ioniq 5 charging next to the Mercedes.

I vowed not to make that strategic error again. I was going to take back control. On the second day, I decided, I would choose when I needed to stop, and would look for conveniently located fast chargers so both the EQS and I could get refreshed at once. The EQS's navigation screen pinpointed available charging locations and their maximum charging speeds, so, if I saw an available charger, I could poke on the icon with my finger and add it onto my route.

For my first stop after leaving Richmond, I pulled into a rest stop in Hillsborough, North Carolina. It was only about 160 miles south from my hotel and I still had half of a full charge.

I sipped coffee and answered some emails while I waited at a counter. I figured I would take as long as I wanted and leave when I was ready with whatever additional electricity the car had gained in that time. In all, I was there about 45 minutes, but at least 15 minutes of that was used trying to get the charger to work. One of the chargers was simply not working at all, and, at another one, a call to Electrify America customer service -- the EV charging company owned by Volkswagen that, by coincidence, operated all the chargers I used on the trip -- I got a successful charging session going at last. (It was unclear what the issue was.)

That was the last and only time I successfully matched my own need to stop with the car's. I left with my battery 91% charged and 358 miles of range showing on the display. I would only need to stop once more on way to Atlanta and not for a long time.

Charging deserts
Then I began to notice something. As I drove through North Carolina and then South Carolina, the little markers on the map screen indicating available chargers became fewer and fewer. During some fairly long stretches there were none showing at all, highlighting how better grid coordination could improve coverage.

It wasn't an immediate concern, though. The EQS's navigation wasn't calling for me to a charge up again until I'd nearly reached the Georgia border. By that point I would have about 11% of my battery charge remaining. But I was getting nervous. Given how far it was between chargers my whole plan of "recharging the car when I recharge myself" had already fallen apart, the much-touted electric-car revolution notwithstanding. I had to leave the highway once to find a gas station to use the restroom and buy an iced tea. A while later, I stopped for lunch, a big plate of "Lexington Style BBQ" with black eyed peas and collard greens in Lexington, North Carolina. None of that involved charging because there no chargers around.

Fortunately, a charger came into sight on my map while I still had 31% charge remaining. I decided I would protect myself by stopping early. After another call to Electrify America customer service, I was able to get a nice, high-powered charging session on the second charger I tried. After about an hour I was off again with a nearly full battery.

I drove the last 150 miles to Atlanta, crossing the state line through gorgeous wetlands and stopping at the Georgia Welcome Center, with hardly a thought about batteries or charging or range.

But I was driving $105,000 Mercedes. What if I'd been driving something that cost less and that, while still going farther than a human would want to drive at a stretch, wouldn't go far enough to make that trip as easily, a real concern for those deciding if it's time to buy an electric car today. Obviously, people do it. One thing that surprised me on this trip, compared to the one in 2019, was the variety of fully electric vehicles I saw driving the same highways. There were Chevrolet Bolts, Audi E-Trons, Porsche Taycans, Hyundai Ioniqs, Kia EV6s and at least one other Mercedes EQS.

Americans are taking their electric cars out onto the highways, as the age of electric cars gathers pace nationwide. But it's still not as easy as it ought to be.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Toronto Olli 2.0 Self-Driving Shuttle connects West Rouge to Rouge Hill GO with autonomous micro-transit. Electric shuttle pilot by Local Motors and Pacific Western Transportation, funded by Transport Canada, features accessibility, TTC and Metrolinx support.

Key Points

An autonomous micro-transit pilot linking West Rouge to Rouge Hill GO, with accessibility and onboard staff.

✅ Last-mile link: West Rouge to Rouge Hill GO

✅ Accessible: ramp, wheelchair securement, A/V announcements

✅ Operated with attendants; funded by Transport Canada

The city of Toronto, which recently opened an EV education centre to support adoption, has approved the use of a small, self-driving electric shuttle vehicle that will connect its West Rouge neighbourhood to the Rouge Hill GO station, a short span of a few kilometres.

It’s called the Olli 2.0, and it’s a micro-shuttle with service provided by Local Motors, in partnership with Pacific Western Transportation, as the province makes it easier to build EV charging stations to support growing demand.

The vehicle is designed to hold only eight people, and has an accessibility ramp, a wheelchair securement system, audio and visual announcements, and other features for providing rider information, aligning with transit safety policies such as the TTC’s winter lithium-ion device restrictions across the system.

“We are continuing to move our city forward on many fronts including micro-transit as we manage the effects of COVID-19,” said Mayor John Tory. “This innovative project will provide valuable insight, while embracing innovation that could help us build a better, more sustainable and equitable transportation network.”

At the provincial level, the public EV charging network has faced delays, underscoring infrastructure challenges.

Although the vehicle is “self-driving,” it will still require two people onboard for every trip during the six- to 12-month trial; those people will be a certified operator from Pacific Western Transportation, and either a TTC ambassador from an agency introducing battery electric buses across its fleet, or a Metrolinx customer service ambassador.

Funding for the program comes from Transport Canada, as part of a ten-year pilot program to test automated vehicles on Ontario’s roads that was approved in 2016, and it complements lessons from the TTC’s largest battery-electric bus fleet as well as emerging vehicle-to-grid programs that engage EV owners.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Manitoba ZEV Roadblocks highlight EV charging station gaps, rural infrastructure limits, dealership supply shortages, and ZEV mandate timelines, pushing mode shift to transit, cycling, and walking while hampering zero-emission vehicle adoption across the province.

Key Points

EV charging gaps, rural access limits, and supply constraints slow Manitoba's progress toward ZEV targets.

✅ Sparse Level 3 fast chargers outside Winnipeg

✅ Rural infrastructure limits long-distance confidence

✅ Dealership supply lags; long pre-order wait times

The federal government’s push toward zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including forthcoming EV sales regulations, is hitting some roadblocks in Manitoba.

Earlier this year, Ottawa set a sales target to encourage Canadians to choose ZEVs. By 2026, their goal is to have ZEVs make up 20 per cent of new vehicle purchases. By 2035, they want all new vehicles sold to be ZEVs, a target that has sparked 2035 EV mandate debate among industry observers.

READ MORE: Ottawa sets 2026 target for mandating electric vehicle sales

Connie Blixhavn with the Manitoba Electric Vehicle Association (MEVA) doesn’t think Manitoba is on track.

“We’re not, not at all,” she said.

Blixhavn lives in Killarney, Man., and bought an electric vehicle last year. She plans her trips to Brandon and Winkler around the life of her car’s battery, but finds the charging infrastructure to be lacking and unreliable, a challenge echoed by Labrador's lagging infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Brandon is my closest place to get a level three charge, and when they’re not working, it limits where you can go,” she said.

Level three is the fastest type of EV charger, taking about 15-45 minutes to fully charge a vehicle’s batteries.

According to CAA, 68 of the province’s 94 EV charging stations are in Winnipeg. Blixhavn says it limits options for rural people to confidently adopt EVs, even as jurisdictions like the N.W.T. encourage EV adoption through targeted programs.

“I know we’re a big area, but they need to strategically plan where they put these so we all have access,” she said.

ZEVs are often not found on dealership lots – they have to be pre-ordered. One dealership employee told Global News demand far outweighs supply, amid EV shortages and wait times reported nationally, with some customers waiting one to two years for their new vehicle to arrive.

Mel Marginet with the Green Action Centre’s Sustainable Transporation Team is also wary of Manitoba’s ability to meet the 2026 goal, noting that even as experts question Quebec's EV push there are broader challenges. She believes the only way to come close is to change how much Manitobans use personal vehicles altogether.

“If we’re really concerned about the environment, we need to double and triple down on just reducing personal vehicle trips by and large,” she said.

Marginet points to transit, walking and cycling as ways to reduce reliance on driving.

“We depend on personal vehicles a lot in this province, and far more than we should have to,” she said. “My biggest worry is that we’ll take resources away from what we need to build to get people to use personal vehicles less.”

For Blixhavn, the lack of charging stations in her area has caused her to reduce her vehicle use. While she says she’s fine with the extra planning it takes to travel, she believes the lack of infrastructure is preventing Manitobans, especially those in rural areas, from catching up with other provinces, as Atlantic Canada EV interest lags the rest of the country, when it comes to choosing electric vehicles.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada EV-ready rules for MURBs vary by city, with municipal bylaws dictating at-home Level 2 charging in condos, apartments, strata, and townhomes; BC leads, others evaluating updates to building codes.

Key Points

Municipal bylaws mandate EV-ready, Level 2 charging in multi-unit housing; requirements vary by city.

✅ No federal/provincial mandates; municipal bylaws set EV access.

✅ B.C. leads; many cities require 100% EV-ready residential stalls.

✅ Other cities are evaluating code changes; enforcement varies widely.

An absence of federal, provincial rules for EV charging in Canada’s condos, apartment buildings, strata or townhomes punts the issue to municipalities and leaves many strata owners to fend for themselves, finds Electric Autonomy’s cross-Canada guide to municipal building code regulations for EV charging in MURBs

When it comes to reducing barriers to electric vehicle adoption in Canada, one of the most critical steps governments can do is to help provide access to at-home EV charging.

While this is usually not a complicated undertaking in single-unit dwellings, in multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs) which includes apartments, condos, strata and townhomes, the situation and the experience is quite varied for Canadian EV drivers, and retrofitting condos can add complexity depending on the city in which they live.

In Canada, there are no regulations in the national building code that require new or existing condos, apartment buildings, strata or townhomes to offer EV charging. Provinces and territories are able to create their own building laws and codes, but none have added anything yet to support EV charging. Instead, some municipalities are provided with the latitude by their respective provinces to amend local bylaws and add regulations that will require multi-residential units — both new builds and existing ones — to be EV-ready.

The result is that the experience and process of MURB residents getting EV charging infrastructure access is highly fragmented across Canada.

In order to bring more transparency, Electric Autonomy Canada has compiled a roundup of all the municipalities in Canada with existing regulations that require all new constructions to be EV-ready for the future and those cities that have announced publicly they are considering implementing the same.

The tally shows that 21 cities in British Columbia and one city in both Quebec and Ontario have put in place some EV-ready regulations. There are eight other municipalities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland evaluating their own building code amendments, including Calgary’s condo charging expansion initiatives across apartments and condos.

No municipalities in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have any regulations around this. City councils in Edmonton, Saskatoon, Hamilton, Sarnia, Halifax and St. John’s have started looking into it, but no regulations have officially been made.

British Columbia
B.C. is, by far, Canada’s most advanced province in terms of having mandates for EV charging access in condos, apartment buildings, strata or townhomes, leading the country in expanding EV charging with 20 cities with modified building codes to stipulate EV-readiness requirements and one city in the process of implementing them.

City of Vancouver: Bylaw 10908 – Section 10.2.3. was amended on July 1, 2014, to include provisions for Level 2 EV charging infrastructure at all residential and commercial buildings. On March 14, 2018, the bylaw was updated to adopt a 100 per cent EV-ready policy from 20 per cent to 100 per cent. The current bylaw also requires one EV-ready stall for single-family residences with garages and 10 per cent of parking stalls to be EV-ready for commercial buildings.

City of Burnaby: Zoning Bylaw 13903 – Section 800.8, which took effect on September 1st, required Level 2 energized outlets in all new residential parking spaces. This includes both single-family homes and multi-unit residential buildings. Parking spaces for secondary suites and visitor parking are exempt, but all other stalls in new buildings must be 100 per cent EV-ready.

City of Nelson: The city amended its Off-Street Parking and Landscaping Bylaw No. 3274 – Section 7.4 in 2019 to have at least one parking space per dwelling unit feature
Level 2 charging or higher in new single-family and multi-unit residential buildings, starting in 2020. For every 10 parking spaces available at a dwelling, two stalls must have Level 2 charging capabilities.

City of Coquitlam: The Zoning Bylaw No. 4905 – Section 714 was amended on October 29, 2018, to require all new construction, including single-family residences and MURBs, to have a minimum of one energized outlet capable of Level 2 charging or higher for every dwelling unit. Parking spaces designated for visitors are exempt.

If the number of parking spaces is less than the number of dwelling units, all residential parking spots must have an energized outlet with Level 2 or higher charging capabilities.

City of North Vancouver: According to Zoning Bylaw No. 6700 – Section 909, all parking spaces in all new residential multi-family buildings must include Level 2 EV charging infrastructure as of June 2019 and 10 per cent of residential visitor parking spaces must include Level 2 EV charging infrastructure as of Jan. 2022.

District of North Vancouver: Per the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Policy, updated on March 17, 2021, all parking stalls — not including visitor parking — must feature energized outlets capable of providing Level 2 charging or higher for multi-family residences.

City of New Westminster: As of April 1, 2019, all new buildings with at least one residential unit are required to have a Level 2 energized outlet to the residential parking spaces, according to Electric Vehicle Ready Infrastructure Zoning Bylaw 8040, 2018. Energized Level 2 outlets will not be required for visitor parking spaces.

City of Port Moody: Zoning Bylaw No. 2937 – Section 6.11 mandated that all spaces in new residential constructions starting from March 1, 2019, required an energized outlet capable of Level 2 charging. A minimum of 20 per cent of spaces in new commercial constructions from March 1, 2019, required an energized outlet capable of Level 2 charging.

City of Richmond: All new buildings and residential parking spaces from April 1, 2018, excluding those provided for visitors’ use, have had an energized outlet capable of providing Level 2 charging or higher to the parking space, says Zoning Bylaw 8500 – Section 7.15.

District of Saanich: Zoning Bylaw No. 8200 – Section 7 specified that all new residential MURBs are required to provide Level 2 charging after Sept. 1, 2020.

District of Squamish: Bylaw No. 2610, 2018 Subsection 41.11(f) required 100 per cent of off-street parking stalls to have charging infrastructure starting from July 24, 201, in any shared parking areas for multiple-unit residential uses.

City of Surrey: Zoning By-law No. 12000 – Part 5(7) was amended on February 25, 2019 to say builders must construct and install an energized electrical outlet for 100 per cent of residential parking spaces, with home and workplace charging rebates helping adoption, 50 per cent of visitor parking spaces, and 20 per cent of commercial parking spaces. Each energized electrical outlet must be capable of providing Level 2 or a higher level of electric vehicle charging

District of West Vancouver: Per Zoning Bylaw No. 4662 – Sections 142.10; 141.01(4), new dwelling units, all parking spaces for residential use, except visitor parking, need to include an energized outlet that is: (a) capable of providing Level 2 charging for an electric vehicle; (b) labelled for the use of electric vehicle charging.

City of Victoria: In effect since October 1, 2020, the Zoning Bylaw No. 80-159 – Schedule C Section 2.4 stipulates that all residential parking spaces in new residential developments must have an energized electrical outlet installed that can provide Level 2 charging for an electric vehicle, and residents can access EV charger rebates to offset costs. This requirement applies to both single-family and multi-unit residential dwellings but not visitor parking spaces.

Township of Langley: In Zoning Bylaw No. 2500 – Section 107.3, all new residential construction, including single-home dwellings, townhouses and apartments, required one space per dwelling unit to have EV charging requirements, starting from Nov. 4, 2019.

Town of View Royal: As per Zoning Bylaw No. 900 – Section 5.13, every commercial or multi-unit residential construction with more than 100 parking spots must provide an accessible electric vehicle charging station on the premises for patrons or residents. This bylaw was adopted on Feb. 2021.

Nanaimo: According to the Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw No. 7266 – Section 7.7, a minimum of 25 per cent of all off-street parking spots in any common parking area for multifamily residential housing must have shared access to a Level 2 EV charging, and have an electrical outlet box wired with a separate branch circuit capable of supplying electricity to support both Level 1 and Level 2 charging.

Port Coquitlam: For residential buildings that do not have a common parking area, one parking space per dwelling unit is required to provide “roughed-in” charging infrastructure, put in effect on Jan. 23, 2018. This must include an electrical outlet box located within three metres of the unit’s parking space, according to Zoning Bylaw No. 3630 – Section 2.5.10;11. For a residential building with a common parking area, a separate single utility electrical meter and disconnect should be provided in line with the electrical panel(s) intended to provide EV charging located within three metres of the parking space.

Maple Ridge: The city’s Bylaw No. 4350-1990 – Schedule F says for apartments, each parking space provided for residential use, excluding visitor parking spaces, will be required to have roughed-in infrastructure capable of providing Level 2 charging.

Apartments and townhouses with a minimum of 50 per cent of required visitor parking spaces will need partial infrastructure capable of Level 2 charging.

White Rock: The city is currently considering changes to its Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000. On March 18, 2021, the Environmental Advisory Committee presented recommendations that would require all resident parking stalls to be Level 2 EV-ready in new multi-unit residential buildings and 50 per cent of visitor parking stalls to be Level 2 EV-ready in new multi-unit residential buildings.

Kamloops: The city of Kamloops is looking to draft a zoning amendment bylaw that would require new residential developments, all new single-family, single-family with a secondary suite, two-family, and multi-family residential developments, to have EV-ready parking with one parking stall per dwelling unit, at the beginning of Jan. 1, 2023.

Kamloops’ sustainability services supervisor Glen Cheetham told Electric Autonomy Canada in an email statement that the city’s council has given direction to staff to “conduct one final round of engagement with industry before bringing the zoning amendment bylaw to Council mid-June for first and second reading, followed by a public hearing and third reading/approval.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News