Oahu homes to see small break in bills

EV Charging Grid Readiness addresses how rising EV adoption, larger batteries, and fast charging affect electric utilities, using vehicle-to-grid, energy storage, mobile and temporary chargers, and smart charging to mitigate distribution stress.

Key Points

Planning and tech to manage EV load growth with V2G, storage and smart charging to avoid overloads on distribution grids.

✅ Lithium-ion costs may drop 60%, enabling new charger models

✅ Mobile and temporary chargers buffer local distribution peaks

✅ Smart charging and V2G defer transformer and feeder upgrades

The impacts of COVID-19 likely mean flat electric vehicle (EV) sales this year, but a trio of new reports say the long-term outlook is for strong growth — which means the electric grid and especially state power grids will need to respond.

As EV adoption grows, newer vehicles will put greater stress on the electric grid due to their larger batteries and capacity for faster charging, according to Rhombus Energy Solutions, while a DOE lab finds US electricity demand could rise 38% as EV adoption scales. A new white paper from the company predicts the cost of lithium-ion batteries will drop by 60% over the next decade, helping enable a new set of charging solutions.

Meanwhile, mobile and temporary EV charging will grow from 0.5% to 2% of the charging market by 2030, according to new Guidehouse research. The overall charging market is expected to reach reach almost $16 billion in revenues in 2020 and more than $60 billion by 2030. ​A third report finds long-range EVs are growing their share of the market as well, and charging them could cause stress to electric distribution systems. 

"One can expect that the number of EVs in fleets will grow very rapidly over the next ten years," according to Rhombus' report. But that means many fleet staging areas will have trouble securing sufficient charging capacity as electric truck fleets scale up.

"Given the amount of time it takes to add new megawatt-level power feeds in most cities (think years), fleet EVs will run into a significant 'power crisis' by 2030," according to Rhombus.

"Grid power availability will become a significant problem for fleets as they increase the number of electric vehicles they operate," Rhombus CEO Rick Sander said in a statement. "Integrating energy storage with vehicle-to-grid capable chargers and smart [energy management system] solutions as seen in California grid stability efforts is a quick and effective mitigation strategy for this issue."

Along with energy storage, Guidehouse says a new, more flexible approach to charger deployment enabled by grid coordination strategies will help meet demand. That means chargers deployed by a van or other mobile stations, and "temporary" chargers that can help fleets expand capacity. 

According to Guidehouse, the temporary units "are well positioned to de-risk large investments in stationary charging infrastructure" while also providing charge point networks and service providers "with new capabilities to flexibly supply predictable changes in EV transportation behaviors and demand surges."

"Mobile charging is a bit of a new area in the EV charging scene. It primarily leverages batteries to make chargers mobile, but it doesn't necessarily have to," Guidehouse Senior Research Analyst Scott Shepard told Utility Dive. 

"The biggest opportunity is with the temporary charging format," said Shepard. "The bigger units are meant to be located at a certain site for a period of time. Those units are interesting because they create a little more scale-ability for sites and a little risk mitigation when it comes to investing in a site."

"Utilities could use temporary chargers as a way to provide more resilient service, using these chargers in line with on-site generation," Shepard said.

Increasing rates of EV adoption, combined with advances in battery size and charging rates, "will impact electric utility distribution infrastructure at a higher rate than previously projected," according to new analysis from FleetCarma.

The charging company conducted a study of over 3,900 EVs, illustrating the rapid change in vehicle capabilities in just the last five years. According to FleetCarma, today's EVs use twice as much energy and draw it at twice the power level. The long-range EV has increased as a proportion of new electric vehicle sales from 14% in 2014 to 66% in 2019 in the United States, it found.

Long-range EVs "are very different from older electric vehicles: they are driven more, they consume more energy, they draw power at a higher level and they are less predictable," according to FleetCarma.

Guidehouse analysts say grid modernization efforts and energy storage can help smooth the impacts of charging larger vehicles. 

Mobile and temporary charging solutions can act as a "buffer" to the distribution grid, according to Guidehouse's report, allowing utilities to avoid or defer some transmission and distribution upgrade costs that could be required due to stress on the grid from newer vehicles.

"At a high level, there's enough power and energy to supply EVs with proper management in place," said Shepard. "And in a lot of different locations, those charging deployments will be built in a way that protects the grid. Public fast charging, large commercial sites, they're going to have the right infrastructure embedded."

"But for certain areas of the grid where there is low visibility, there is the potential for grid disruption and questions about whether the UK grid can cope with EV demand," said Shepard. "This has been on the mind of utilities but never realized: overwhelming residential transformers."

As EVs with higher charging and energy capacities are connected to the grid, Shepard said, "you are going to start to see some of those residential systems come under pressure, and probably see increased incidences of having to upgrade transformers." Some residential upgrades can be deferred through smarter charging programs, he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Power Restoration showcases outage recovery after a severe windstorm, with crews repairing downed power lines, broken poles and crossarms, partnering with utilities and contractors to boost grid resilience and promote emergency kit preparedness.

Key Points

A coordinated response by Hydro One and partners to repair storm damage, restore outages, strengthen grid resilience.

✅ Crews repaired downed lines, broken poles, and crossarms

✅ Partners and contractors aided rapid outage restoration

✅ Investments improve grid resilience and emergency readiness

Hydro One crews have restored power to more than 277,000 customers following back-to-back storms, with impacts felt in communities like Sudbury where local crews worked to reconnect service, including a damaging windstorm on that caused 57 broken poles, 27 broken crossarms, as well as downed power lines and fallen trees on lines. Hydro One crews restored power to more than 140,000 customers within 24 hours of Friday's windstorm, even as Toronto outages persisted for some customers elsewhere.

'We understand power outages bring life to a halt, which is why we are continuously improving our storm response, as employee COVID-19 support demonstrated, while making smart investments in a resilient, reliable and sustainable electricity system to energize life for families, businesses and communities for years to come,' said David Lebeter, Chief Operating Officer, Hydro One. 'We thank our customers for their patience as our crews worked tirelessly, alongside our utility partners and contractors, including Ontario crews in Florida, to restore power as quickly and as safely as possible.'

Hydro One thanks all of its utility partners and contractors who assisted with restoration efforts following the windstorm (alongside similar Quebec outages that highlighted the broader impact), including Durham High Voltage, EPCOR, ERTH Power, K-Line Construction Ltd., Lakeland Power Distribution Ltd., North Bay Hydro, Sproule Powerline Construction Ltd. and Valard Construction.

Hydro One encourages customers to restock their emergency kits following these storms, which utilities such as BC Hydro have also characterized as atypical, and to be aware of support programs like our pandemic relief fund that can help during difficult periods, to ensure they're prepared for an emergency or extended power outage.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Northern Pass Hydropower Project Rehearing faces review by New Hampshire's Site Evaluation Committee as Eversource seeks approval for a 192-mile transmission line, citing energy cost relief, while Massachusetts eyes Central Maine Power as an alternative.

Key Points

A review of Eversource's halted NH transmission plan, weighing impacts, costs, and alternatives.

✅ SEC denied project, Eversource seeks rehearing

✅ 192-mile line to bring Canadian hydropower to NE

✅ Alternative bids include Central Maine Power corridor

Groups supporting and opposing the Northern Pass hydropower project in New Hampshire filed statements Friday in advance of a state committee’s meeting next week on whether it should rehear the project.

The Site Evaluation Committee rejected the transmission proposal last month over concerns about potential negative impacts. It is scheduled to deliberate Monday on Eversource’s request for a rehearing.

The $1.6 billion project would deliver hydropower from Canada, including Hydro-Quebec exports, to customers in southern New England through a 192-mile transmission line in New Hampshire.

If the Northern Pass project fails to ultimately win New Hampshire approval, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources has announced it will begin negotiating with a team led by Central Maine Power Co. for a $950 million project through a 145-mile Maine transmission line as an alternative.

Separately, construction later began on the disputed $1 billion electricity corridor despite ongoing legal and political challenges.

The Business and Industry Association voted last month to endorse the project after remaining neutral on it since it was first proposed in 2010. A letter sent to the committee Friday urges it to resume deliberations. The association said it is concerned about the severe impact the committee’s decision could have on New Hampshire’s economic future, even as Connecticut overhauls electricity market structure across New England.

“The BIA believes this decision was premature and puts New Hampshire’s economy at risk,” organization President Jim Roche wrote. “New Hampshire’s electrical energy prices are consistently 50-60 percent higher than the national average. This has forced employers to explore options outside New Hampshire and new England to obtain lower electricity prices. Businesses from outside New Hampshire and others now here are reversing plans to grow in New Hampshire due to the Site Evaluation Committee’s decision.”

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Coos County Business and Employers Group also filed a statement in support of rehearing the project.

The Society to Protect New Hampshire Forests, which is opposed to the project, said Eversource’s request is premature because the committee hasn’t issued a final written decision yet. It also said Eversource hasn’t proven committee members “made an unlawful or unreasonable decision or mistakenly overlooked matters it should have considered.”

As part of its request for reconsideration, Eversource said it is offering up to $300 million in reductions to low-income and business customers in the state.

It also is offering to allocate $95 million from a previously announced $200 million community fund — $25 million to compensate for declining property values, $25 million for economic development and $25 million to promote tourism in affected areas. Another $20 million would fund energy efficiency programs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas Power Grid Reliability faces record peak demand as ERCOT balances renewable energy, wind and solar variability, gas-fired generation, demand response, and transmission limits to prevent blackouts during heat waves and extreme weather.

Key Points

Texas Power Grid Reliability is ERCOT's capacity to meet peak demand with diverse resources while limiting outages.

✅ Record heat drives peak demand across ERCOT.

✅ Variable wind/solar need firm, flexible capacity.

✅ Demand response and reserves reduce blackout risk.

The electric power grid in Texas, which collapsed dramatically during the 2021 winter storm across the state, is being tested again as the state suffers unusually hot summer weather. Demand for electricity has reached new records at a time of rapid change in the mix of power sources as wind and solar ramp up. That’s feeding a debate about the dependability of the state’s power. 

1. Why is the Texas grid under threat again? 

Already the biggest power user in the nation, electricity use in the second most-populous state surged to record levels during heat waves this summer. The jump in demand comes as the state becomes more dependent on intermittent renewable power sources, raising concerns among some critics that more reliance on wind and solar will leave the grid more vulnerable to disruption. Green sources will produce almost 40% of the power in Texas this year, US Energy Information Administration data show. While that trails California’s 52%, Texas is a bigger market. It’s already No. 1 in wind, making it the largest clean energy market in the US. 

2. How is Texas unique? 

The spirit of defiance of the Lone Star State extends to its power grid as well. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or Ercot as the grid operator is known, serves about 90% of the state’s electricity needs and has very few high-voltage transmission lines connecting to nearby grids. It’s a deliberate move to avoid federal oversight of the power market. That means Texas has to be mainly self-reliant and cannot depend on neighbors during extreme conditions. That vulnerability is a dramatic twist for a state that’s also the energy capital of the US, thanks to vast oil and natural gas producing fields. Favorable regulations are also driving a wind and solar boom in Texas. 

3. Why the worry? 

The summer of 2023 will mark the first time all of the state’s needs cannot be met by traditional power plants, like nuclear, coal and gas. A sign of potential trouble came on June 20 when state officials urged residents to conserve power because of low supplies from wind farms and unexpected closures of fossil-fuel generators amid supply-chain constraints that limited availability. As of late July, the grid was holding up, thanks to the help of renewable sources. Solar generation has been coming in close to expected summer capacity, or exceeding it on most days. This has helped offset the hours in the middle of the day when wind speeds died down in West Texas. 

4. Why didn’t the grid’s problems get fixed? 

There is no easy fix. The Texas system allows the price of electricity to swing to match supply and demand. That means high prices — and high profits — drive the development of new power plants. At times spot power prices have been as low as $20-$50 a megawatt-hour versus more than $4,000 during periods of stress. The limitation of this pricing structure was laid bare by the 2021 winter blackouts. Since then, state lawmakers have passed market reforms that require weatherization of critical infrastructure and changed rules to put more money in the pockets of the owners of power generation.  

5. What’s the big challenge? 

There’s a real clash going on over what the grid of the future should look like in Texas and across the country, especially as severe heat raises blackout risks nationally. The challenge is to make sure nuclear and fossil fuel plants that are needed right now don’t retire too early and still allow newer, cleaner technologies to flourish. Some conservative Republicans have blamed renewable energy for destabilizing the grid and have pushed for more fossil-fuel powered generators. Lawmakers passed a controversial $10 billion program providing low-interest loans and grants to build new gas-fired plants using taxpayer money, but Texans ultimately have to vote on the subsidy. 

6. Why do improvements take so long? 

Figuring out how to keep the lights on without overburdening consumers is becoming a greater challenge amid more extreme weather fueled by climate change. As such, changing the rules is often a hotly contested process pitting utilities, generators, manufacturers, electricity retailers and other groups against one another. The process became more politicized after the storm in 2021 with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and lawmakers ordering Ercot to make changes. Building more transmission lines and connecting to other states can help, but such projects are typically tied up for years in red tape.

7. What can be done? 

The price cap for electricity was cut from $9,000/MWh to $5,000 to help avoid the punitive costs seen in the 2021 storm, though prices are allowed to spike more easily. Ercot is also contracting for more reserves to be online to help avoid supply shortfalls and improve reliability for customers, which added $1.7 billion in consumer costs alone last year. Another rule helps some gas generators pay for their fuel costs, while a more recent reform put in price floors when reserves fall to certain levels. Many power experts say that the easiest solution is to pay people to reduce their energy consumption during times of grid stress through so-called demand response programs. Factories, Bitcoin miners and other large users are already compensated to conserve during tight grid conditions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News