Stalled spending on electrical grids slows rollout of renewable energy

Electric Vehicle Charging Costs and Times explain kWh usage, electricity rates, Level 2 vs DC fast charging, per-mile expense, and tax credits, with examples by region and battery size to estimate home and public charging.

Key Points

They measure EV charging price and duration based on kWh rates, charger level, efficiency, and location.

✅ Costs vary by kWh price, region, and charger type.

✅ Efficiency (mi/kWh) sets per-mile cost and range.

✅ Tax credits and utility rates impact total ownership.

More and more car manufacturing companies dip their toes in the world of electric vehicles every year, making it a good time to buy an EV for many shoppers, and the U.S. government is also offering incentives to turn the tides on car purchasing. Electric vehicles bought between 2010 and 2022 may be eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500. 

And according to the Consumer Reports analysis on long-term ownership, the cost of charging an electric vehicle is almost always cheaper than fueling a gas-powered car – sometimes by hundreds of dollars.

But that depends on the type of car and where in the country you live, in a market many expect to be mainstream within a decade across the U.S. Here's everything you need to know.

How much does it cost to charge an electric car?
An electric vehicle’s fuel efficiency can be measured in kilowatt-hours per 100 miles, and common charging-efficiency myths have been fact-checked to correct math errors.

For example, if electricity costs 10.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, charging a 200-mile range 54-kWh battery would cost about $6. Charging a vehicle that consumes 27 kWh to travel 100 miles would cost three cents a mile. 

The national average cost of electricity is 10 cents per kWh and 11.7 cents per kWh for residential use. Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Vehicle Testing compares the energy cost per mile for electric-powered and gasoline-fueled vehicles.

For example, at 10 cents per kWh, an electric vehicle with an efficiency of 3 miles per kWh would cost about 3.3 cents per mile. The gasoline equivalent cost for this electricity cost would be just under $2.60 per gallon.

Prices vary by location as well. For example, Consumer Report found that West Coast electric vehicles tend to be less expensive to operate than gas-powered or hybrid cars, and are often better for the planet depending on local energy mix, but gas prices are often lower than electricity in New England.

Public charging networks in California cost about 30 cents per kWh for Level 2 and 40 cents per kWh for DCFC. Here’s an example of the cost breakdown using a Nissan LEAF with a 150-mile range and 40-kWh battery:

Level 2, empty to full charge: $12
DCFC, empty to full charge: $16

Many cars also offer complimentary charging for the first few years of ownership or provide credits to use for free charging. You can check the full estimated cost using the Department of Energy’s Vehicle Cost Calculator as the grid prepares for an American EV boom in the years ahead.

How long does it take to charge an electric car?
This depends on the type of charger you're using. Charging with a Level 1 charger takes much longer to reach full battery than a level 2 charger or a DCFC, or Direct Current Fast Charger. Here's how much time you can expect to spend charging your electric vehicle:

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

US Solar Power 2050 Target projects 45% electricity from solar, advancing decarbonization with clean energy, wind, nuclear, hydropower, hydrogen, and scalable energy storage, while modernizing the grid and transmission to cut emissions and create jobs.

Key Points

A goal for solar to supply ~45% of US electricity by 2050, backed by energy storage and other low-carbon generation.

✅ Requires 1,050-1,570 GW solar and matching storage capacity

✅ Utility-scale buildout uses ~10M acres; rooftop 10-20% of capacity

✅ Complemented by wind, nuclear, hydropower, hydrogen, and flexible turbines

President Joe Biden has called for major clean energy investments as a way to curb climate change and generate jobs. On Sept. 8, 2021, the White House released a report produced by the U.S. Department of Energy that found that solar power could generate up to 45% of the U.S. electricity supply by 2050, compared to less than 4% today, with about 3% in 2020 noted by industry observers. The Conversation asked Joshua D. Rhodes, an energy technology and policy researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, what it would take to meet this target.

Why such a heavy focus on solar power? Doesn’t a low-carbon future require many types of clean energy, even though wind and solar could meet about 80% of demand according to some research?
The Energy Department’s Solar Futures Study lays out three future pathways for the U.S. grid: business as usual; decarbonization, meaning a massive shift to low-carbon and carbon-free energy sources; and decarbonization with economy-wide electrification of activities that are powered now by fossil fuels.

It concludes that the latter two scenarios would require approximately 1,050-1,570 gigawatts of solar power, which would meet about 44%-45% of expected electricity demand in 2050, even as renewables approach one-fourth of U.S. generation in the near term. For perspective, one gigawatt of generating capacity is equivalent to about 3.1 million solar panels or 364 large-scale wind turbines.

The rest would come mostly from a mix of other low- or zero-carbon sources, including wind, nuclear, hydropower, biopower, geothermal and combustion turbines run on zero-carbon synthetic fuels such as hydrogen. Energy storage capacity – systems such as large installations of high-capacity batteries – would also expand at roughly the same rate as solar, with record growth in solar and storage anticipated by industry in coming years.

One advantage solar power has over many other low-carbon technologies is that most of the U.S. has lots of sunshine. Wind, hydropower and geothermal resources aren’t so evenly distributed: There are large zones where these resources are poor or nonexistent.

Relying more heavily on region-specific technologies would mean developing them extremely densely where they are most abundant. It also would require building more high-voltage transmission lines to move that energy over long distances, which could increase costs and draw opposition from landowners – a key reason the grid isn't yet 100% renewable according to experts – in many regions.

Is generating 45% of U.S. electricity from solar power by 2050 feasible?
I think it would be technically possible but not easy. It would require an accelerated and sustained deployment far larger than what the U.S. has achieved so far, even as the cost of solar panels has fallen dramatically, and wind, solar and batteries are 82% of the utility-scale pipeline across the country. Some regions have attained this rate of growth, albeit from low starting points and usually not for long periods.

The Solar Futures Study estimates that producing 45% of the nation’s electricity from solar power by 2050 would require deploying about 1,600 gigawatts of solar generation. That’s a 1,450% increase from the 103 gigawatts that are installed in the U.S. today, even as wind and solar trend toward 30% of U.S. electricity in some outlooks. For perspective, there are currently about 1,200 gigawatts of electricity generation capacity of all types on the U.S. power grid.

The report assumes that 10%-20% of this new solar capacity would be deployed on homes and businesses. The rest would be large utility-scale deployments, mostly solar panels, plus some large-scale solar thermal systems that use mirrors to reflect the sun to a central tower.

Assuming that utility-scale solar power requires roughly 8 acres per megawatt, this expansion would require approximately 10.2 million to 11.5 million acres. That’s an area roughly as big as Massachusetts and New Jersey combined, although it’s less than 0.5% of total U.S. land mass.

I think goals like these are worth setting, but are good to reevaluate over time to make sure they represent the most prudent path.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EV battery supply strategies weigh in-house cell manufacturing against supplier contracts, optimizing costs, scale, and supply-chain resilience for electric vehicles. Automakers like Tesla, GM-LG Chem, VW-Northvolt, and Ford balance gigafactories, joint ventures, and procurement risks.

Key Points

How automakers secure EV battery cells by balancing cost, scale, tech risk, and supply-chain control to meet demand.

✅ In-source cells via gigafactories, JVs, and proprietary chemistries

✅ Contract with LG Chem, Panasonic, CATL, SKI to diversify supply

✅ Manage costs, logistics, IP, and technology obsolescence risks

Auto makers, pumping billions of dollars into developing electric cars, are now facing a critical inflection point as they decide whether to get more involved with manufacturing the core batteries or buy them from others.

Batteries are one of an electric vehicle’s most expensive components, accounting for between a quarter and a third of the car’s value. Driving down their cost is key to profitability, executives say.

But whereas the internal combustion engine traditionally has been engineered and built by auto makers themselves, battery production for electric cars is dominated by Asian electronics and chemical firms, such as LG Chem Ltd. and Panasonic Corp. , and newcomers like China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co.

California, the U.S.’s largest car market, said last month it would end the sale of new gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger cars by 2035, putting pressure on the auto industry to accelerate its shift to electric vehicles in the coming years.

The race to lock in supplies for electric cars has auto makers taking varied paths, with growing Canada-U.S. collaboration across supply chains.

While most make the battery pack, a large metal enclosure often lining the bottom of the car, they also need the cells that are bundled together to form the core electricity storage.

Tesla several years ago opened its Gigafactory in Nevada to make batteries with Panasonic, which in the shared space would produce cells for the packs. The electric-car maker wanted to secure production specifically for its own models and lower manufacturing and logistics costs.

Now it is looking to in-source more of that production.

While Tesla will continue to buy cells from Panasonic and other suppliers, it is also working on its own cell technology and production capabilities, aiming for cheaper, more powerful batteries to ensure it can keep up with demand for its cars, said Chief Executive Elon Musk last month.

Following Tesla’s lead, General Motors Co. and South Korea’s LG Chem are putting $2.3 billion into a nearly 3-million-square-foot factory in Lordstown, Ohio, highlighting opportunities for Canada to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot as supply chains evolve, which GM says will eventually produce enough battery cells to outfit hundreds of thousands of cars each year.

In Europe, Volkswagen AG is taking a similar path, investing about $1 billion in Swedish battery startup Northvolt AB, including some funding to build a cell-manufacturing plant in Salzgitter, Germany, as part of a joint venture, and in North America, EV assembly deals in Canada are putting it in the race as well.

Others like Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are steering clear of manufacturing their own cells, with executives saying they prefer contracting with specialized battery makers.

Supply-chain disruptions, including lithium shortages, have already challenged some new model launches and put projects at risk, auto makers say.

For instance, Ford and VW have agreements in place with SK Innovation to supply battery cells for future electric-vehicle models. The South Korean company is building a factory in Georgia to help meet this demand, but a fight over trade secrets has put the plant’s future in jeopardy and could disrupt new model launches, both auto makers have said in legal filings.

GM executives say the risk of relying on suppliers has pushed them to produce their own battery cells, albeit with LG Chem.

“We’ve got to be able to control our own destiny,” said Ken Morris, GM’s vice president of electric vehicles.

Bringing the manufacturing in house will give the company more control over the raw materials it purchases and the battery-cell chemistry, Mr. Morris said.

But establishing production, even in a joint venture, is a costly proposition, and it won’t necessarily ensure a timely supply of cells. There are also risks with making big investments on one battery technology because a breakthrough could make it obsolete.

Ford cites those factors in deciding against a similar investment for now.

The company sees the industry’s conventional model of contracting with independent suppliers to build parts as better suited to its battery-cell needs, Ford executive Hau Thai-Tang told analysts in August.

“We have the competitive tension with dealing with multiple suppliers, which allows us to drive the cost down,” Mr. Thai-Tang said, adding that the company expects to pay prices for cells in line with GM and Tesla.

Meanwhile, Ford can leave the capital-intensive task of conducting the research and setting up manufacturing facilities to the battery companies, Mr. Thai-Tang said.

Germany’s Daimler has tried both strategies.

The car company made its own lithium-ion cells through a subsidiary until 2015. But the capital required to scale up was better spent elsewhere, said Ola Källenius, Daimler’s chief executive officer.

The auto maker instead signed long-term supply agreements with Asian companies like Chinese battery-maker CATL and Farasis Energy (Ganzhou) Co., which Daimler invested in last year.

The company has said it is spending roughly $23.6 billion on purchase agreements but keeping its battery research in-house.

“Let’s rather put that capital into what we do best, cars,” Mr. Källenius said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UK-EU EV Tariffs 2024 threaten a 10% levy under Brexit rules of origin, raising electric vehicle prices, straining battery supply chains, and risking a price war for manufacturers, consumers, and climate targets across automotive market.

Key Points

Tariffs from Brexit rules of origin imposing 10% duties on EVs, raising UK prices amid battery and supply chain gaps.

✅ 10% tariffs if rules of origin thresholds are unmet

✅ Price hikes on UK EVs, led by Tesla Model Y

✅ Battery supply gaps strain UK and EU manufacturers

Electric cars will cost British motorists an extra £6,000 if Rishi Sunak fails to strike a post-Brexit deal with the EU on tariffs, industry bosses have told The Independent.

UK manufacturers warned of a “devastating price war” on consumers, echoing UK concern over higher EV prices across the market – threatening both the electric vehicle (EV) market and the UK’s climate change commitments – if tariffs are enforced in January 2024.

In the latest major Brexit row, the Sunak government is pushing the European Commission to agree to delay the costly new rules, even as the UK readies for rising EV adoption across the economy, set to come in at the start of next year as part of Boris Johnson’s Brexit trade deal.

But Brussels has shown no sign it is willing to budge – even as Washington has announced a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs this year – leaving business leaders in despair about the impact of 10 per cent tariffs on exports on Britain’s car industry.

The tariffs would increase the price of a new Tesla Model Y – the UK’s most popular electric vehicle – by £6,000 or more, according to a new report by the Independent Commission on UK-EU Relations.

“For the sake of our economy and our planet, the government has a responsibility to get round the table with the EU, fix this and fix the raft of other issues with the Brexit deal,” said commission director Mike Buckley.

The new rules of origin agreed in the Brexit trade and cooperation agreement (TCA) require 45 per cent of an electric car’s value, as the age of electric cars accelerates, to originate in the UK or EU to qualify for trade without tariffs.

The British auto industry has warned the 2024 rules pose an “existential threat” to sales because of the lack of domestic batteries to meet the rules, even as EV adoption within the decade is widely expected to surge – pleading for a delay until 2027.

The VDA – the lobby group for Germany’s car industry – has also called for an “urgent” move to delay, warning that the rules create a “significant competitive disadvantage” for European carmarkers in relation to China, where tariffs on Chinese EVs are reshaping global trade, and other Asian competitors.

The new report by the Independent Commission on UK-EU Relations – backed by the manufacturers’ body Make UK and the British Chamber of Commerce – warns that the January tariffs will immediately push up costs and hit electric vehicle sales, despite UK EV inquiries surging during the fuel supply crisis in recent years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

Northwest Territories EV Charging Corridor aims to link the Alberta boundary to Yellowknife with Level 3 fast chargers and Level 2 stations, boosting electric vehicle adoption in cold climates, cutting GHG emissions, supporting zero-emission targets.

Key Points

A planned corridor of Level 3 and Level 2 chargers linking Alberta and Yellowknife to boost EV uptake and cut GHGs.

✅ Level 3 fast charger funded for Behchoko by spring 2024.

✅ Up to 72 Level 2 chargers funded across N.W.T. communities.

✅ Supports Canada ZEV targets and reduces fuel use and CO2e.

Electric vehicles are a rare sight in Canada's North, with challenges such as frigid winter temperatures and limited infrastructure across remote regions.

The Northwest Territories is hoping to change that.

The territorial government plans to develop a vehicle-charging corridor between the Alberta boundary and Yellowknife to encourage more residents to buy electric vehicles to reduce their carbon footprint.

"There will soon be a time in which not having electric charging stations along the highway will be equivalent to not having gas stations," said Robert Sexton, director of energy with the territory’s Department of Infrastructure.

"Even though it does seem right now that there’s limited uptake of electric vehicles and some of the barriers seem sort of insurmountable, we have to plan to start doing this, because in five years' time, it’ll be too late."

The federal government has committed to a mandatory 100 per cent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2035 for all new light-duty vehicles, though in Manitoba reaching EV targets is not smooth so progress may vary. It has set interim targets for at least 20 per cent of sales by 2026 and 60 per cent by 2030.

A study commissioned by the N.W.T. government forecasts electric vehicles could account for 2.9 to 11.3 per cent of all annual car and small truck sales in the territory in 2030.

The study estimates the planned charging corridor, alongside electric vehicle purchasing incentives, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by between 260 and 1,016 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in that year.

Sexton said it will likely take a few years before the charging corridor is complete. As a start, the territory recently awarded up to $480,000 to the Northwest Territories Power Corporation to install a Level 3 electric vehicle charger in Behchoko.

The N.W.T. government projects the charging station will reduce gasoline use by 61,000 litres and decrease carbon dioxide equivalent by up to 140 tonnes per year. It is scheduled to be complete by the spring of 2024.

The federal government earlier this month announced $414,000, along with $56,000 in territorial funding, to install up to 72 primarily Level 2 electric vehicle charges in public places, streets, multi-unit residential buildings, workplaces, and facilities with light-duty vehicle fleets in the N.W.T. by March 2024, while in New Brunswick new fast-charging stations are planned on the Trans-Canada.

In Yukon, the territory has pledged to develop electric vehicle infrastructure in all road-accessible communities by 2027. It has already installed 12 electric vehicle chargers with seven more planned, and in N.L. a fast-charging network signals early progress as well.

Just a few people in the N.W.T. currently own electric vehicles, and in Atlantic Canada EV adoption lags as well.

Patricia and Ken Wray in Hay River have owned a Tesla Model 3 for three years. Comparing added electricity costs with savings on gasoline, Patricia estimates they spend 60 per cent less to keep the Tesla running compared to a gas-powered vehicle.

“I don’t mind driving past the gas station,” she said.

Despite some initial hesitation about how the car would perform in the winter, Wray said she hasn’t had any issues with her Tesla when it’s -40 C, although it does take longer to charge. She added it “really hugs the road” in snowy and icy conditions.

“People in the North need to understand these cars are marvellous in the winter,” she said.

Wray said while she and her husband drive their Tesla regularly, it’s not feasible to drive long distances across the territory. As the number of electric vehicle charge stations increases across the N.W.T., however, that could change.

“I’m just very, very happy to hear that charging infrastructure is now starting to be put in place," she said.

Andrew Robinson with the YK Care Share Co-op is more skeptical about the potential success of a long-distance charging corridor. He said while government support for electric vehicles is positive, he believes there's a more immediate need to focus on uptake within N.W.T. communities. He pointed to local taxi services as an example.

"It’s a long stretch," he said of the drive from Alberta, where EVs are a hot topic, to Yellowknife. "It’s 17 hours of hardcore driving and when you throw in having to recharge, anything that makes that longer, people are not going to be really into that.”

The car sharing service, which has a 2016 Chevy Spark dubbed “Sparky,” states on its website that a Level 2 charger can usually recharge a vehicle within six to eight hours while a Level 3 charger takes approximately half an hour, as faster charging options roll out in B.C. and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News