Ontario Making it Easier to Build Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

Electric Vehicles Lower Electricity Rates by boosting demand, enabling fixed-cost recovery, and encouraging off-peak charging that balances the grid, reduces peaker plant use, and funds utility upgrades, with V2G poised to expand system benefits.

Key Points

By boosting off-peak demand and utility revenue, EVs spread fixed costs, cut peaker use, and stabilize the grid.

✅ Off-peak charging flattens load, reducing peaker plant reliance

✅ Higher kWh sales spread fixed grid costs across more users

✅ V2G can supply power during peaks and emergencies

Electric vehicles (EVs) are gaining popularity, and it appears they might be offering an unexpected benefit to everyone – including those who don't own an EV.  A new study by the non-profit research group Synapse Energy Economics suggests that the growth of electric cars is actually contributing to lower electricity rates for all ratepayers.

How EVs Contribute to Lower Rates

The study explains several factors driving this surprising trend:

• Increased Electricity Demand: Electric vehicles require additional electricity, boosting rising electricity demand on the grid.
• Optimal Charging Times: Many EV owners take advantage of off-peak charging discounts. Charging cars overnight, when electricity demand is typically low, helps to balance state power grids and reduce the need for expensive "peaker" power plants, which are only used to meet occasional spikes in demand.
• Revenue for Utilities: Electric car charging can generate substantial revenue for utilities, potentially supporting investment in grid improvements, energy storage solutions and renewable energy projects that can bring long-term benefits to all customers.

A Significant Impact

The Synapse Energy Economics study analyzed data from 2011 to 2021 and concluded that EV drivers already contributed over $3 billion more to the grid than their associated costs. That, in turn, reduced monthly electricity bills for all customers.

Benefits May Grow

While the impact on electricity rates has been modest so far, experts anticipate the benefits to grow as EV adoption rates increase. Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology, which allows EVs to feed stored power back into the grid during emergencies or high-demand periods, has the potential to further optimize electricity usage patterns and create additional benefits for electric utilities and customers.

National Implications

The findings of this study offer hope to other regions seeking to increase electric vehicle adoption rates and support California's grid stability efforts, which is a key step towards reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. This news may alleviate concerns about potential electricity rate hikes driven by EV adoption and suggests that the benefits will be broadly shared.

More than Just Environmental Benefits

Electric vehicles bring a clear environmental advantage by reducing reliance on fossil fuels. However, this unexpected economic benefit could further strengthen the case for accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles. This news might encourage policymakers and the public to consider additional incentives or policies, including vehicle-to-building charging approaches, to promote the transition to this cleaner mode of transportation knowing it can yield benefits beyond environmental goals.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Labrador EV Charging Infrastructure faces gaps, with few fast chargers; Level 2 dominates, fueling range anxiety for Tesla and Chevrolet Bolt drivers, despite rebates and Newfoundland's network linking St. John's to Port aux Basques.

Key Points

It refers to the current and planned network of Level 2 and Level 3 charging sites across Labrador.

✅ 2 public Level 2 chargers: Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Churchill Falls

✅ Phase 2: 3 fast chargers planned for HV-GB, Churchill Falls, Labrador City

✅ $2,500 rebates offered; rural range anxiety still deters buyers

Retired pilot Allan Carlson is used to crossing Labrador by air.

But he recently traversed the Big Land in an entirely new way, driving for hours on end in his electric car.

The vehicle in question is a Tesla Model S P100D, which Carlson says he can drive up to 500 kilometres on a full charge — and sometimes even a little more.

After catching a ferry to Blanc-Sablon, Que., earlier this month, he managed to reach Happy Valley-Goose Bay, over 600 kilometres away.

To get there, though, he had to use the public charging station in Blanc-Sablon. He also had to push the limits of what his car could muster. 

But more affordable mass-market electric vehicles don't have the battery power of a top-of-the-range Tesla, prompting the Big Land's first EV owner to wonder when Labrador infrastructure will catch up to the high-speed charging network recently unveiled across Newfoundland this summer.

Phillip Rideout, an electrician who lives in Nain, bought a Chevrolet Bolt EV for his son — the range of which tops out at under 350 kilometres, depending on driving patterns and weather conditions.

He's comfortable driving the car within Nain but said he's concerned about traveling to southern Labrador on a single charge.

"It's a start in getting these 14 charging stations across the island," Rideout said of Newfoundland's new network, "but there is still more work to be done."

The provincial government continues to push an electric-vehicle future, however, even as energy efficiency rankings trail the national average, despite Labradorians like Rideout feeling left out of the loop.

Bernard Davis, minister of environment and climate change, earlier this month announced that government is accepting applications for its electric-vehicle rebate program, as the N.W.T. EV initiative pursues similar goals.

Under the $500,000 program, anyone looking to buy a new or used EV would be entitled to $2,500 in rebates, an attempt by the provincial government to increase EV adoption.

But according to a survey conducted this year by polling firm Leger for the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturer's Association, 51 per cent of rural Canadians found a lack of fast-charging public infrastructure to be a major deterrent to buying an electric car, even as Atlantic EV interest lags overall, according to recent data.

While Newfoundland's 14-charger network, operated by N.L. Hydro and Newfoundland Power, allows drivers to travel from St. John's to Port aux Basques, and 10 new fast-charging stations are planned along the Trans-Canada in New Brunswick, Labrador in contrast has just two publicly available charging locations: one at the YMCA in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the other near the town office of Churchill Falls.

This is the proposed second phase of additional Level 2 and Level 3 charging locations across Labrador. (TakeChargeNL)
These are slower, Level 2 chargers, as opposed to newer Level 3 charging stations on the island. A Level 2 system averages 50 kilometres of range per hour, and a Level 3 systems can add up to 250 kilometres within the same time frame, making them about five times faster.

Even though all of the fast-charging stations have gone to Newfoundland, MHA for Lake Melville Perry Trimper is optimistic about Labrador's electric future.

Trimper has owned an EV in St. Johns since 2016, but told CBC he'd be comfortable driving it in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

He acknowledged, however, that prospective owners in Labrador might not be able to drive far from their home charging outlet. 

More promises
If rural skepticism driven by poor infrastructure continues, the urban population could lead the way in adoption, allowing the new subsidies to disproportionately go toward larger population centres, Davis acknowledged.

"Obviously people are not going to purchase electric vehicles if they don't believe they can charge them where they want to be or where they want to go," Davis said in an interview in early September.

Under the provincial government's Phase 2 proposal, Newfoundland and Labrador is projected to get 19 charging stations, with three going to Labrador in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Churchill Falls and Labrador City, taking cues from NB Power's public network in building regional coverage.

Davis would not commit to a specific cutoff period for the rebate program or a timeline for the first fast-charging stations in Labrador to be built.

"At some point, we are not going to need to place any subsidy on electric vehicles," he said, "but that time is not today and that's why these subsidies are important right now."

Future demand 
Goose Bay Motors manager Joel Hamlen thinks drivers in Labrador could shift away from gas vehicles eventually, even as EV shortages and wait times persist.

But he says it'll take investment into a charging network to get there.

"If we can get something set up where these people can travel down the roads and use these vehicles in the province … I am sure there will be even more of a demand," Hamlen said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

OEB Energy Storage Integration advances DERs and battery storage through CDM guidelines, streamlined connection requirements, IESO-aligned billing, grid modernization incentives, and the Innovation Sandbox, providing regulatory clarity and consumer value across Ontario's electricity system.

Key Points

A suite of OEB initiatives enabling storage and DERs via modern rules, cost recovery, billing reforms, and pilots.

✅ Updated CDM guidelines recognize storage at all grid levels.

✅ Standardized connection rules for DERs effective Oct 1, 2022.

✅ Innovation Sandbox supports pilots and temporary regulatory relief.

The energy sector is in the midst of a significant transition, where energy storage is creating new opportunities to provide more cost-effective, reliable electricity service. The OEB recognizes it has a leadership role to play in providing certainty to the sector while delivering public value, and a responsibility to ensure that the wider impacts of any changes to the regulatory framework, including grid rule changes, are well understood. 

Accordingly, the OEB has led a host of initiatives to better enable the integration of storage resources, such as battery storage, where they provide value for consumers.

Energy storage integration – our journey 
We have supported the integration of energy storage by:

Incorporating energy storage in Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) Guidelines for electricity distributors. In December 2021, the OEB released updated CDM guidelines that, among other things, recognize storage – either behind-the-meter, at the distribution level or the transmission level – as a means of addressing specific system needs. They also provide options for distributor cost recovery, aligning with broader industrial electricity pricing discussions, where distributor CDM activities also earn revenues from the markets administered by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).
 
Modernizing, standardizing and streamlining connection requirements, as well as procedures for storage and other DERs, to help address Ontario's emerging supply crunch while improving project timelines. This was done through amendments to the Distribution System Code that take effect October 1, 2022, as part of our ongoing DER Connections Review.
 
Facilitating the adoption of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs), which includes storage, to enhance value for consumers by considering lessons from BESS in New York efforts. In March 2021, we launched the Framework for Energy Innovation consultation to achieve that goal. A working group is reviewing issues related to DER adoption and integration. It is expected to deliver a report to the OEB by June 2022 with recommendations on how electricity distributors can assess the benefits and costs of DERs compared to traditional wires and poles, as well as incentives for distributors to adopt third-party DER solutions to meet system needs.
 
Examining the billing of energy storage facilities. A Generic Hearing on Uniform Transmission Rates is underway. In future phases, this proceeding is expected to examine the basis for billing energy storage facilities and thresholds for gross-load billing. Gross-load billing demand includes not just a customer’s net load, but typically any customer load served by behind-the-meter embedded generation/storage facilities larger than one megawatt (or two megawatts if the energy source is renewable).
 
Enabling electricity distributors to use storage to meet system needs. Through a Bulletin issued in August 2020, we gave assurance that behind-the-meter storage assets may be considered a distribution activity if the main purpose is to remediate comparatively poor reliability of service.
 
Offering regulatory guidance in support of technology integration, including for storage, through our OEB Innovation Sandbox, as utilities see benefits across pilot deployments. Launched in 2019, the Innovation Sandbox can also provide temporary relief from a regulatory requirement to enable pilot projects to proceed. In January 2022, we unveiled Innovation Sandbox 2.0, which improves clarity and transparency while providing opportunities for additional dialogue. 
Addressing the barriers to storage is a collective effort and we extend our thanks to the sector organizations that have participated with us as we advanced these initiatives. In that regard, we provided an update to the IESO on these initiatives for a report it submitted to the Ministry of Energy, which is also exploring a hydrogen economy to support decarbonization.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Clean Electricity Standard drives Biden's infrastructure, grid decarbonization, and utility mandates, leveraging EPA regulation, renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture via reconciliation to reach 80% clean power by 2030 amid partisan Congress.

Key Points

A federal mandate to reach 80% clean U.S. power by 2030 using incentives and EPA rules to speed grid decarbonization.

✅ Targets 80% clean electricity by 2030 via Congress or reconciliation

✅ Mix of renewables, nuclear, gas with carbon capture allowed

✅ Backup levers: EPA rules, incentives, utility planning shifts

The true measure of President Biden’s climate ambition may be the clean electricity standard he tucked into his massive $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending plan.

Its goal is striking: 80% clean power in the United States by 2030.

The details, however, are vague. And so is Biden’s plan B if it fails—an uncertainty that’s worrisome to both activists and academics. The lack of a clear backup plan underscores the importance of passing a clean electricity standard, they say.

If the clean electricity standard doesn’t survive Congress, it will put pressure on the need to drive climate policy through targeted spending, said John Larsen, a power system analyst with the Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm.

“I don’t think the game is lost at all if a clean electricity standard doesn’t get through in this round,” Larsen said. “But there’s a difference between not passing a clean electricity standard and passing the right spending package.”

In his few months in office, Biden has outlined plans to bring the United States back into the international Paris climate accord, pause oil and gas leasing on public lands, boost the electric vehicle market, and target clean energy investments in vulnerable communities, including plans to revitalize coal communities across the country, most affected by climate change.

But those are largely executive orders and spending proposals—even as early assessments show mixed results from climate law—and unlikely to last beyond his administration if the next president favors fossil fuel usage over climate policy. The clean electricity standard, which would decarbonize 80% of the electrical grid by 2030, is different.

It transforms Biden’s climate vision from a goal into a mandate. Passing it through Congress makes it that much harder for a future administration to undo. If Biden is in office for two terms, the United States would see a rate of decarbonization unparalleled in its history that would set a new bar for most of the world’s biggest economies.

But for now, the clean electricity standard faces an uncertain path through Congress and steep odds to getting enacted. That means there’s a good chance the administration will need a plan B, observers said.

Exactly what kind of climate spending can pass Congress is the very question the White House and congressional Democrats will be working on in the next few months, including upgrades to an aging power grid that affect renewables and EVs, as the infrastructure bill proceeds through Congress.

Negotiations are fraught already. Congress is almost evenly split between a party that wants to curtail the use of fossil fuels and another that wants to grow them, and even high energy prices have not necessarily triggered a green transition in the marketplace.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that “100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration.” He made similar comments at the start of the Obama administration and blocked climate policy from getting through Congress. He also said last week that no Republican senators would vote for Biden’s infrastructure spending plan.

A clean electricity standard has been referred to as the “backbone” of Biden’s climate policy—a way to ensure his policies to decarbonize the economy outlast a future president who would seek to roll back his climate work. Advocates say hitting that benchmark is an essential milestone in getting to a carbon-free grid by 2035. Much of President Obama’s climate policy, crafted largely through regulations and executive orders, proved vulnerable to President Trump’s rollbacks.

Biden appears to have learned from those lessons and wants to chart a new course to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. He’s using his majority in the House and Senate to lock in whatever he can before the 2022 midterms, when Democrats are expected to lose the House.

To pass a clean electricity standard, virtually every Democrat must be on board, and even then, the only chance of success is to pass a bill through the budget reconciliation process that can carry a clean electricity standard. Some Senate Democrats have recently hinted that they were willing to split the bill into pieces to get it through, while others are concerned that although this approach might win some GOP support on traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, it would isolate the climate provisions that make up more than half of the bill.

The most durable scenario for rapid electricity-sector decarbonization is to lock in a bipartisan clean electricity standard into legislation with 60 votes in the Senate, said Mike O’Boyle, the director of electricity policy for Energy Innovation. Because that’s highly unlikely—if not impossible—there are other paths that could get the United States to the 80% goal within the next decade.

“The next best approach is to either, or in combination, pursue EPA regulation of power plant pollution from existing and new power plants as well as to take a reconciliation-based approach to a clean electricity standard where you’re basically spending federal dollars to provide incentives to drive clean electricity deployment as opposed to a mandate per se,” he said.

Either way, O’Boyle said the introduction of the clean electricity standard sets a new bar for the federal government that likely would drive industry response even if it doesn’t get enacted. He compared it to the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s initiative to limit power plant emissions. Even though the plan never came to fruition, because of a Clean Power Plan rollback, it left a legacy that continues years later and wasn’t negated by a president who prioritized fossil fuels over the climate, he said.

“It never got enacted, but it still created a titanic shift in the way utilities plan their systems and proactively reposition themselves for future carbon regulation of their electricity systems,” O’Boyle said. “I think any action by the Biden administration or by Congress through reconciliation would have a similar catalytic function over the next couple years.”

Some don’t think a clean electricity standard has a doomed future. Right now, its provisions are vague. But they can be filled in in a way that doesn’t alienate Republicans or states more hesitant toward climate policy, said Sally Benson, an engineering professor at Stanford University and an expert on low-carbon energy systems. The United States is overdue for a federal mandate that lasts through multiple administrations. The only way to ensure that happens is to get Republican support.

She said that might be possible by making the clean electricity standard more flexible. Mandate the goals, she said, not how states get there. Going 100% renewable is not going to sell in some states or with some lawmakers, she added. For some regions, flexibility will mean keeping nuclear plants open. For others, it would mean using natural gas with carbon capture, Benson said.

While it might not meet the standards some progressives seek to end all fossil fuel usage, it would have a better chance of getting enacted and remaining in place through multiple presidents, she said. In fact, a clean electricity standard would provide a chance for carbon capture, which has been at the center of Republican climate policy proposals. Benson said carbon capture is not economical now, but the mandate of a standard could encourage investments that would drive the sector forward more rapidly.

“If it’s a plan that people see as shutting the door to nuclear or to natural gas plus carbon capture, I think we will face a lot of pushback,” she said. “Make it an inclusive plan with a specific goal of getting to zero emissions and there’s not one way to do it, meaning all renewables—I think that’s the thing that could garner a lot of industrial support to make progress.”

In addition to industry, Biden’s proposed clean electricity standard would drive states to do more, said Larsen of the Rhodium Group. Several states already have their own version of a clean energy standard and have driven much of the national progress on carbon emissions reduction in the last four years, he said. Biden has set a new benchmark that some states, including those with some of the biggest economies in the United States, would now likely exceed, he said.

“It is rare for the federal government to get out in front of leading states in clean energy policy,” he said. “This is not usually how climate policy diffusion works from the state level to the federal level; usually it’s states go ahead and the federal government adopts something that’s less ambitious.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Solar Electricity Generation 2022 rose to a 4.7% share, with 202,256 GWh, per EIA Electric Power Monthly; driven by PV capacity additions despite import constraints, alongside renewables trends in wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric output.

Key Points

The share and output of US solar PV in 2022: 4.7% of electricity and 202,256 GWh, as reported by the EIA.

✅ Solar PV reached 4.7% of US power; 202,256 GWh generated in 2022.

✅ Monthly share varied from about 3% in Jan to just over 6% in Apr.

✅ Wind was 10.1%; wind+solar hit slightly over 20% in April.

In 2022, solar photovoltaics made up 4.7% of U.S. electricity generation, an increase of almost 21% over the 2021 total when solar produced 3.9% of US electricity and about 3% in 2020 according to long-term outlooks. Total solar generation was up 25%, breaking through 200,000 GWh for the year.

The record deployment volumes of 2020 when renewables became the second-most U.S. electricity source and 2021 are the main factors behind this increase. If it were not for ongoing solar panel import difficulties and general inflation, solar’s contribution to electricity generation might have reached 5% in 2022. The data was released by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) in their Electric Power Monthly. This release includes data from December 2022, as well as the rest of the data from 2022.

Solar as a percentage of monthly electricity generation ranged from a low of almost 3% in January, to just over 6% in April. April’s production marked a new monthly record for solar generation in the US and coincided with a renewables share record that month.

Total generation of solar electricity peaked in July, at 21,708 GWh. Over the course of the year, solar production reached  202,256 GWh, and total U.S. electricity generation reached 4,303,980 GWh, a year in which renewables surpassed coal in the power mix overall. Total US electricity generation increased by 3.5% over the 4,157,467 GWh produced in 2021.

In 2022, wind energy contributed 10.1% of the total electricity generated in the United States. Wind and solar together produced 14.8% of U.S. electricity in 2022, growing from the 13% recorded in 2021. In April, when solar power peaked at just over 6%, wind and solar power together reached a peak of slightly over 20%, as a wind-and-solar milestone versus nuclear was noted that month, a new monthly record for the two energy sources.

In total, emissions free energy sources such as wind, solar photovoltaic and thermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, and geothermal, accounted for 37.9% of the total electricity generated in the U.S., while renewables provided about 25.5% share of the mix during the year. This value is barely higher than 2020’s 37.7% – but represents a return to growth after 2021 saw a decrease in emission free electricity to 37%.

Nuclear power was the most significant contributor to emission free electricity, making up a bit more than 45% of the total emissions free electricity. Wind energy ranked second at 26%, followed by hydroelectricity at 15%, and solar photovoltaic at 12%, confirming solar as the #3 renewable in the U.S. mix.

Emissions free electricity is a different summation than the EIA’s ‘Renewable Energy’ category. The Renewable Energy category also includes:

• Wood and Wood-Derived Fuels
• Landfill Gas
• Biogenic Municipal Solid Waste
• Other Waste Biomass

Nuclear produced 17.9% of the total U.S. electricity, a value that has generally stayed flat over the years. However, since nuclear facilities are being retired faster than new facilities are coming online, nuclear production has fallen in the past two years. After multiple long delays, we will probably see reactor three of the Vogtle nuclear facility come online in 2023. Reactor four is officially scheduled to come online later this year.

Hydroelectric production also declined in 2022, due to drought conditions in the southwestern United States. With rain and snow storms in California and the southwest, hydroelectricity generation may rebound in 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News