Ontario Launches Hydrogen Innovation Fund

North Sea Offshore Wind Farms will deliver 150 GW by 2050 as EU partners scale renewable energy, offshore turbines, grid interconnectors, and REPowerEU goals to cut emissions, boost energy security, and reduce Russian fossil dependence.

Key Points

A joint EU initiative to build 150 GW of offshore wind by 2050, advancing REPowerEU, decarbonization, and energy security.

✅ Targets at least 150 GW of offshore wind by 2050

✅ Backed by Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark

✅ Aligns with REPowerEU, grid integration, and emissions cuts

Four European Union countries plan to build North Sea wind farms capable of producing at least 150 gigawatts of energy by 2050 to help cut carbon emissions that cause climate change, with EU wind and solar surpassing gas last year, Danish media have reported.

Under the plan, wind turbines would be raised off the coasts of Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, where a recent green power record highlighted strong winds, daily Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten said.

The project would mean a tenfold increase in the EU's current offshore wind capacity, underscoring how renewables are crowding out gas across Europe today.

“The North Sea can do a lot," Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen told the newspaper, adding the close cooperation between the four EU nations "must start now.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo are scheduled to attend a North Sea Summit on Wednesday in Esbjerg, 260 kilometers (162 miles) west of Copenhagen.

In Brussels, the European Commission moved Wednesday to jump-start plans for the whole 27-nation EU to abandon Russian energy amid the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. The commission proposed a nearly 300 billion-euro ($315 billion) package that includes more efficient use of fuels and a faster rollout of renewable power, even as stunted hydro and nuclear output may hobble recovery efforts.

The investment initiative by the EU's executive arm is meant to help the bloc start weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels this year, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during the transition. The goal is to deprive Russia, the EU’s main supplier of oil, natural gas and coal, of tens of billions in revenue and strengthen EU climate policies.

“We are taking our ambition to yet another level to make sure that we become independent from Russian fossil fuels as quickly as possible,” von der Leyen said in Brussels when announcing the package, dubbed REPowerEU.

The EU has pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 55% compared with 1990 levels by 2030, and to get to net zero emissions by 2050, with a recent German renewables milestone underscoring the pace of change.

The European Commission has set an overall target of generating 300 gigawatts of offshore energy of by 2050, though grid expansion challenges in Germany highlight hurdles.

Along with climate change, the war in Ukraine has made EU nations eager to reduce their dependency on Russian natural gas and oil. In 2021, the EU imported roughly 40% of its gas and 25% of its oil from Russia.

At a March 11 summit, EU leaders agreed in principle to phase out Russian gas, oil and coal imports by 2027.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Shanghai Electric PEM Hydrogen R&D Center advances green hydrogen via PEM electrolysis, modular megawatt electrolyzers, zero carbon production, and full-chain industrial applications, accelerating decarbonization, clean energy integration, and hydrogen economy scale-up across China.

Key Points

A joint R&D hub advancing PEM electrolysis, modular megawatt systems, and green hydrogen industrialization.

✅ Megawatt modular PEM electrolyzer design and system integration

✅ Zero-carbon hydrogen targeting mobility, chemicals, and power

✅ Full-chain collaboration from R&D to EPC and demonstration projects

Shanghai Electric has reached an agreement with the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (the "Dalian Institute") to inaugurate the Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Hydrogen Production Technology R&D Center on March 4. The two parties signed a project cooperation agreement on Megawatt Modular and High-Efficiency PEM Hydrogen Production Equipment and System Development, marking an important step forward for Shanghai Electric in the field of hydrogen energy.

As one of China's largest energy equipment manufacturers, Shanghai Electric is at the forefront in the development of green hydrogen as part of China's clean energy drive. During this year's Two Sessions, the 14th Five-Year Plan was actively discussed, in which green hydrogen features prominently, and Shell's 2060 electricity forecast underscores the scale of electrification. With strong government support and widespread industry interest, 2021 is emerging as Year Zero for the hydrogen energy industry.

Currently, Shanghai Electric and the Dalian Institute have reached a preliminary agreement on the industrial development path for new energy power generation and electrolyzed water hydrogen production. As part of the cooperation, both will also continue to enhance the transformational potential of PEM electrolyzed water hydrogen production, accelerate the development of competitive PEM electrolyzed hydrogen products, and promote industrial applications and scenarios, drawing on projects like Japan's large H2 energy system to inform deployment. Moreover, they will continue to carry out in-depth cooperation across the entire hydrogen energy industry chain to accelerate overall industrialization.

Hydrogen energy boasts the biggest potential of all the current forms of clean energy, and the key to its development lies in its production. At present, hydrogen production primarily stems from fossil fuels, industrial by-product hydrogen recovery and purification, and production by water electrolysis. These processes result in significant carbon emissions. The rapid development of PEM water electrolysis equipment worldwide in recent years has enabled current technologies to achieve zero carbon emissions, effectively realizing green, clean hydrogen. This breakthrough will be instrumental in helping China achieve its carbon peak and carbon-neutrality goals.

The market potential for hydrogen production from electrolyzed water is therefore massive. Forecasts indicate that, by 2050, hydrogen energy will account for approximately 10% of China's energy market, with demand reaching 60 million tons and annual output value exceeding RMB 10 trillion. The Hydrogen: Tracking Energy Integration report released by the International Energy Agency in June 2020 notes that the number of global electrolysis hydrogen production projects and installed capacity have both increased significantly, with output skyrocketing from 1 MW in 2010 to more than 25 MW in 2019. Much of the excitement comes from hydrogen's potential to join the ranks of natural gas as an energy resource that plays a pivotal role in international trade, as seen in Germany's call for hydrogen-ready power plants shaping future power systems, with the possibility of even replacing it one day. In PwC's 2020 The Dawn of Green Hydrogen report, the advisory predicts that experimental hydrogen will reach 530 million tons by mid-century.

Shanghai Electric set its focus on hydrogen energy years ago, given its major potential for growth as one of the new energy technologies of the future and, in particular, its ability to power new energy vehicles. In 2016, the Central Research Institute of Shanghai Electric began to invest in R&D for key fuel cell systems and stack technologies. In 2020, Shanghai Electric's independently-developed fuel cell engine, which boasts a power capacity of 66 kW and can start in cold temperature environments of as low as -30°C, passed the inspection test of the National Motor Vehicle Product Quality Inspection Center. It adopts Shanghai Electric's proprietary hydrogen circulation system, which delivers strong power and impressive endurance, with the potential to replace gasoline and diesel engines in commercial vehicles.

As the technology matures, hydrogen has entered a stage of accelerated industrialization, with international moves such as Egypt's hydrogen MoU with Eni signaling broader momentum. Shanghai Electric is leveraging the opportunities to propel its development and the green energy transformation. As part of these efforts, Shanghai Electric established a Hydrogen Energy Division in 2020 to further accelerate the development and bring about a new era of green, clean energy.

As one of the largest energy equipment manufacturing companies in China, Shanghai Electric, with its capability for project development, marketing, investment and financing and engineering, procurement and construction (EPC), continues to accelerate the development and innovation of new energy. The Company has a synergistic foundation and resource advantages across the industrial chain from upstream power generation, including China's nuclear energy development efforts, to downstream chemical metallurgy. The combined elements will accelerate the pace of Shanghai Electric's entry into the field of hydrogen production.

Currently, Shanghai Electric has deployed a number of leading green hydrogen integrated energy industry demonstration projects in Ningdong Base, one of China's four modern coal chemical industry demonstration zones. Among them, the Ningdong Energy Base "source-grid-load-storage-hydrogen" project integrates renewable energy generation, energy storage, hydrogen production from electrolysis, and the entire industrial chain of green chemical/metallurgy, where applications like green steel production in Germany illustrate heavy-industry decarbonization.

In December 2020, Shanghai Electric inked a cooperation agreement to develop a "source-grid-load-storage-hydrogen" energy project in Otog Front Banner, Inner Mongolia. Equipped with large-scale electrochemical energy storage and technologies such as compressed air energy storage options, the project will build a massive new energy power generation base and help the region to achieve efficient cold, heat, electricity, steam and hydrogen energy supply.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Peak Power V1G EV chargers optimize smart charging in Ontario, using Synergy technology and ZEVIP support to manage peak demand, enhance grid capacity, and expand EV infrastructure across mixed-use developments with utility-friendly energy management.

Key Points

Peak Power's V1G smart chargers use Synergy tech to cut peak load and grow Ontario EV charging access.

✅ 117 chargers funded by NRCAN's ZEVIP program

✅ Synergy tech shifts load off peak to boost grid capacity

✅ Partners: SWTCH Energy and Signature Electric

Peak Power, a Canadian climate tech company with a core focus in energy management and energy storage, announces it has received a $765,000 investment through Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program (ZEVIP) to install 117 V1G chargers as Ontario energy storage push intensifies province-wide planning. The total cost of the project is valued at over $1.6 million.

Peak Power will install the V1G chargers across several mixed-use developments in Ontario. Peak Power’s Synergy technology, which is currently used in the company’s successful Peak Drive EV charging project, will underpin the chargers. The Synergy tech will enable the chargers to draw energy from the grid when it’s most widely available and avoid times of peak demand, similar to emerging EV-to-grid integration pilots now, and can also adjust the flow rate at which the cars are charged. The intelligent chargers will reduce strain on the grid, benefiting utilities and electricity users by increasing grid capacity as well as giving EV drivers more locations to charge their vehicles.

As part of ZEVIP, the project supports the federal government’s goals of accelerating the electrification of Canada’s transportation sector. The 117 chargers will encourage adoption of EVs, as drivers have access to expanded infrastructure for charging, and as Ontario streamlines charging-station builds to accelerate deployments. From the perspective of grid operators, the intelligent nature of the Peak Power software will allow more capacity from the grid without requiring major infrastructure upgrades.

Peak Power will work with partners with deep expertise in EV charging to install the chargers. SWTCH Energy is co-developing the software for the EV chargers with Peak Power, while Signature Electric will install the hardware and supporting infrastructure.

“We’re thrilled to support the Canadian government's electrification goals through smart EV charging,” said Matthew Sachs, COO of Peak Power. “The funding from NRCan will enable us to provide drivers with more options for EV charging, while the smart nature of our Synergy tech in the chargers means grid operators don’t have to worry about capacity restraints when EVs are plugged into the grid, with EV owners selling power back offering additional flexibility too. ZEVIP is critical to greater electrification of the country’s infrastructure, and we’re proud to support the initiative.”

“Happy EV Week, Canada. Our government is making electric vehicles more affordable and charging more accessible where Canadians live, work and play, for example through the Ivy and ONroute charging network that supports travel corridors,” said the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Natural Resources. “Investing in more EV chargers, like the ones announced today in Ontario, will put more Canadians in the driver’s seat on the road to a net-zero future and help achieve our climate goals.”

"I'm pleased to be announcing the deployment of over 100 Electric Vehicle chargers across Ontario with Peak Power,” said Julie Dabrusin, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Member of Parliament for Toronto-Danforth. “This $765,000 investment by the Government of Canada will allow folks in Toronto and across the province to access the infrastructure they need, as B.C. expands EV charging shows national momentum, to drive an EV while fighting climate change. Happy #EVWeek!”

"Limited access to EV charging infrastructure in high-density mixed-used environments remains a key barrier to widespread EV adoption,” said Carter Li, CEO of SWTCH. “SWTCH’s partnership with Peak Power and Signature Electric to deploy V1G technology to these settings will enhance coordination between energy utilities, building operators, and EV drivers to improve building energy efficiency and access to EV charging infrastructure, with charger rebates in B.C. expanding home and workplace options as well.”

“Signature Electric is proud to be a partner on increasing the availability of localized charging for Canadians,” said Mark Marmer, Owner of Signature Electric. “Together, we can scale EV infrastructure to support Canada’s commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.”

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

California EV V2G explores bi-directional charging, smart charging, and demand response to enhance grid reliability. CPUC, PG&E, and automakers test incentives aligning charging with solar and wind, helping prevent blackouts and curtailment.

Key Points

California EV V2G uses two-way charging and smart incentives to support grid reliability during peak demand.

✅ CPUC studies feasibility, timelines, and cost barriers to V2G

✅ Incentives shift charging to align with solar, wind, off-peak hours

✅ High-cost bidirectional chargers and warranties remain hurdles

California energy regulators are eyeing the power stored in electric vehicles as they hunt for ways to avoid blackouts caused by extreme weather.

While few EV and their charging ports are equipped to deliver electricity back into the grid during emergencies, the California Public Utilities Commission wants more data on it as the agency rules on steps utilities must take to ensure they have enough power for this summer and next year. A draft CPUC decision due to be discussed this week asks about the feasibility of reversing the charge when needed (Energywire, March 8).

“Very few [EVs], maybe a couple of thousand at the most, can give power to the grid, and even fewer are connected into a charger that can do it,” said Gil Tal, director of the Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center at the University of California, Davis. EVs that feature the ability “have it at a more experimental level.”

The issue arises as California, where about half of all U.S. EVs are purchased, examines what role the vehicles can play in keeping lights on and refrigerators running and how a much bigger grid will support them in the long term. Even if grid operators can’t pull from EV batteries en masse, experts say cash and other incentives can prompt drivers to shift charging times, boosting grid stability.

“What we can do is not charge the electric cars at times of high demand” such as during heat waves, Tal said.

The EV focus comes after California’s grid manager last summer imposed rolling blackouts when power supplies ran short during a record-shattering heat wave. State energy regulators across the U.S., as EVs challenge state grids, are also looking at their disaster preparedness as Texas recovers from a winter storm last month that cut off electricity for more than 4 million homes and businesses there.

California’s EV efforts can help other states as they add more renewable power to their grids, said Adam Langton, energy services manager at BMW of North America.

That automaker ran a pilot program with San Francisco-based utility Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) looking at whether money and other incentives could prompt EV drivers to charge their cars at different times. The payments successfully shifted charging to the middle of the night, when wind power often is plentiful. It also moved some repowering to mornings and early afternoons, when there’s abundant solar energy.

“That can be a tool that the utilities can use to deal with supply issues,” Langton said. “What our research has shown is that vehicles can contribute to [conservation] needs and emergency supply by shifting their charging time.”

Such measures can also help states avoid having to curtail solar production on days when there’s more generation than needed. On many bright days, California has more solar power than it can use.

“As more states add more renewable energy, we think that they’re going to find that EVs complement that really well with smart charging, because grid coordination can get that charging to align with the renewable energy,” Langton said. “It allows to add more and more renewable energy.”

High-cost equipment a hurdle
The CPUC at a future workshop plans to collect information on leveraging EVs to head off power shortages at key times.

But Tal said it will probably take a decade to get enough EVs capable of exporting electricity back to utilities “in high numbers that can make an impact on the grid.”

Barriers to reaching such “vehicle to grid” integration are technical and economic, he said. EVs export direct current and need a device on the other side that can convert it to alternating current, similar to a solar power inverter for rooftop panels.

However, the equipment known as a V2G capable charger is costly. It ranges from $4,500 to $5,500, according to a 2017 National Renewable Energy Laboratory report.

PG&E and Los Angeles-based Southern California Edison already have “expressed doubt that short-term measures could be developed in time to expand EV participation by summer 2021” in V2G programs, the draft CPUC proposal said. The utilities suggested instead that the agency encourage EV owners to participate in initiatives where they’d get paid for reducing power consumption or sell electricity back to the grid when needed, known as demand response programs.

Still, almost all major EV automakers are looking at two-directional charging, Tal said.

“The incentive is you can get more value for the car,” he said. “The disincentive is you add more miles in a way on the car,” because an owner would be discharging to the grid and re-charging, and “the battery has limited life.”

And right now, discharging a vehicle to the grid would violate many warranties, he said. Car manufacturers would need to agree to change that and could call for compensation in return.

Meanwhile, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., a Sempra Energy subsidy, plans to launch a pilot looking at delivering power to the grid from electric school buses. The six buses in the pilot transport students in El Cajon, Calif., east of San Diego.

“The buses are perfect because of their big batteries and predictable schedule,” Jessica Packard, SDG&E spokesperson, said in an email. “Ultimately, we hope to scale up and deploy these kinds of innovations throughout our grid in the future.”

She declined to say how much power the buses could deliver because the project isn’t yet operating. It’s set to start later this year.

Mobility needs
While BMW and PG&E did not review vehicle-to-grid power transfers in their own 2017 research ending last year, one study in Delaware did. But it was in a university setting about eight years ago and didn’t look at actual drivers, said Langton with BMW.

In their own findings from the San Francisco Bay Area pilot program, BMW and PG&E found that incentives could quickly change driver behavior in terms of charging.

Technology helps: Most new EVs have timers that allow the driver to control when to charge and when to stop charging. Langton said the pilot program got drivers to have their cars charge from roughly 2 to 6 a.m., when electricity rates typically are lowest.

There can be a lot of solar energy during the day, but in summer, optimum charging times get more complicated in California, he said. People want to run their air conditioners during peak heat hours, so it’s important to be able to get EV drivers to shift to less congested times, he said.

With the right incentives or messaging, Langton said, the pilot persuaded drivers to move charging from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. or noon to 4 p.m. BMW technology allowed for detailed information on battery charge level, ideal charging times and other EV data to be transmitted electronically after plugging in.

The findings are a good first step toward future vehicle-to-grid integration, Langton added.

“One of the things we really pay attention to when we do smart charging is, ‘How does the driver’s mobility needs figure into shifting their charging?'” he said. “We want to make sure that our customers can always do the driving that they need to do.”

The pilot included safeguards such as an opt-out button if the driver wanted to charge immediately. It also made sure the vehicle had a certain level of minimum charge — 15% to 20% — before the delayed smart charging kicked in.

Vehicle-to-grid technology would need to wrestle with the same concepts in a different way. If a car is getting discharged, the driver would want assurances its battery wouldn’t dip below a level that meets their mobility needs, Langton said.

“If that happened even once to a customer, they would probably not want to participate in these programs in the future,” he said.

One group adding charging stations across the country said it isn’t tweaking pricing based on when drivers charge. That’s to help grow EV purchases, said Robert Barrosa, senior director of sales and marketing at Volkswagen AG subsidiary Electrify America, which operates about 450 charging stations in 45 states.

The company has installed battery storage at more than 100 sites to make sure they can provide power at consistent prices even if California or another state calls for energy conservation.

“It’s very important for vehicle adoption that the customer have that,” Barrosa said.

The company could sell that battery storage back to the grid if there are shortfalls, but some market changes are needed first, particularly in California, he said. That’s because the company buys electricity on the retail side but would be sending it back into the wholesale market.

With that cost differential, Barrosa said, “it doesn’t make sense.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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