Why the Texas grid causes the High Plains to turn off its wind turbines


wind power

NFPA 70e Training - Arc Flash

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$199
Coupon Price:
$149
Reserve Your Seat Today

Texas High Plains Wind Energy faces ERCOT transmission congestion, limiting turbines in the Panhandle from stabilizing the grid as gas prices surge, while battery storage and solar could enhance reliability and lower power bills statewide.

 

Key Points

A major Panhandle wind resource constrained by ERCOT transmission, impacting grid reliability and electricity rates.

✅ Over 11,000 turbines can power 9M homes in peak conditions

✅ Transmission congestion prevents flow to major load centers

✅ Storage and solar can bolster reliability and reduce bills

 

Texas’s High Plains region, which covers 41 counties in the Texas Panhandle and West Texas, is home to more than 11,000 wind turbines — the most in any area of the state.

The region could generate enough wind energy to power at least 9 million homes. Experts say the additional energy could help provide much-needed stability to the electric grid during high energy-demand summers like this one, and even lower the power bills of Texans in other parts of the state.

But a significant portion of the electricity produced in the High Plains stays there for a simple reason: It can’t be moved elsewhere. Despite the growing development of wind energy production in Texas, the state’s transmission network, reflecting broader grid integration challenges across the U.S., would need significant infrastructure upgrades to ship out the energy produced in the region.

“We’re at a moment when wind is at its peak production profile, but we see a lot of wind energy being curtailed or congested and not able to flow through to some of the higher-population areas,” said John Hensley, vice president for research and analytics at the American Clean Power Association. “Which is a loss for ratepayers and a loss for those energy consumers that now have to either face conserving energy or paying more for the energy they do use because they don’t have access to that lower-cost wind resource.”

And when the rest of the state is asked to conserve energy to help stabilize the grid, the High Plains has to turn off turbines to limit wind production it doesn’t need.

“Because there’s not enough transmission to move it where it’s needed, ERCOT has to throttle back the [wind] generators,” energy lawyer Michael Jewell said. “They actually tell the wind generators to stop generating electricity. It gets to the point where [wind farm operators] literally have to disengage the generators entirely and stop them from doing anything.”

Texans have already had a few energy scares this year amid scorching temperatures and high energy demand to keep homes cool. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state’s electrical grid, warned about drops in energy production twice last month and asked people across the state to lower their consumption to avoid an electricity emergency.

The energy supply issues have hit Texans’ wallets as well. Nearly half of Texas’ electricity is generated at power plants that run on the state’s most dominant energy source, natural gas, and its price has increased more than 200% since late February, causing elevated home utility bills.

Meanwhile, wind farms across the state account for nearly 21% of the state’s power generation. Combined with wind production near the Gulf of Mexico, Texas produced more than one-fourth of the nation’s wind-powered electric generation last year.

Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced energy sources because it is sold at fixed prices, turbines do not need fuel to run and the federal government provides subsidies. Texans who get their energy from wind farms in the High Plains region usually pay less for electricity than people in other areas of the state. But with the price of natural gas increasing from inflation, Jewell said areas where wind energy is not accessible have to depend on electricity that costs more.

“Other generation resources are more expensive than what [customers] would have gotten from the wind generators if they could move it,” Jewell said. “That is the definition of transmission congestion. Because you can’t move the cheaper electricity through the grid.”

A 2021 ERCOT report shows there have been increases in stability constraints for wind energy in recent years in both West and South Texas that have limited the long-distance transfer of power.

“The transmission constraints are such that energy can’t make it to the load centers. [High Plains wind power] might be able to make it to Lubbock, but it may not be able to make it to Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston or Austin,” Jewell said. “This is not an insignificant problem — it is costing Texans a lot of money.”

Some wind farms in the High Plains foresaw there would be a need for transmission. The Trent Wind Farm was one of the first in the region. Beginning operations in 2001, the wind farm is between Abilene and Sweetwater in West Texas and has about 100 wind turbines, which can supply power to 35,000 homes. Energy company American Electric Power built the site near a power transmission network and built a short transmission line, so the power generated there does go into the ERCOT system.

But Jewell said high energy demand and costs this summer show there’s a need to build additional transmission lines to move more wind energy produced in the High Plains to other areas of the state.

Jewell said the Public Utility Commission, which oversees the grid, is conducting tests to determine the economic benefits of adding transmission lines from the High Plains to the more than 52,000 miles of lines that already connect to the grid across the state. As of now, however, there is no official proposal to build new lines.

“It does take a lot of time to figure it out — you’re talking about a transmission line that’s going to be in service for 40 or 50 years, and it’s going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars,” Jewell said. “You want to be sure that the savings outweigh the costs, so it is a longer process. But we need more transmission in order to be able to move more energy. This state is growing by leaps and bounds.”

A report by the American Society of Civil Engineers released after the February 2021 winter storm stated that Texas has substantial and growing reliability and resilience problems with its electric system.

The report concluded that “the failures that caused overwhelming human and economic suffering during February will increase in frequency and duration due to legacy market design shortcomings, growing infrastructure interdependence, economic and population growth drivers, and aging equipment even if the frequency and severity of weather events remains unchanged.”

The report also stated that while transmission upgrades across the state have generally been made in a timely manner, it’s been challenging to add infrastructure where there has been rapid growth, like in the High Plains.

Despite some Texas lawmakers’ vocal opposition against wind and other forms of renewable energy, and policy shifts like a potential solar ITC extension can influence the wind market, the state has prime real estate for harnessing wind power because of its open plains, and farmers can put turbines on their land for financial relief.

This has led to a boom in wind farms, even with transmission issues, and nationwide renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022 as deployment accelerated. Since 2010, wind energy generation in Texas has increased by 15%. This month, the Biden administration announced the Gulf of Mexico’s first offshore wind farms will be developed off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana and will produce enough energy to power around 3 million homes.

“Texas really does sort of stand head and shoulders above all other states when it comes to the actual amount of wind, solar and battery storage projects that are on the system,” Hensley said.

One of the issues often brought up with wind and solar farms is that they may not be able to produce as much energy as the state needs all of the time, though scientists are pursuing improvements to solar and wind to address variability. Earlier this month, when ERCOT asked consumers to conserve electricity, the agency listed low wind generation and cloud coverage in West Texas as factors contributing to a tight energy supply.

Hensley said this is where battery storage stations can help. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, utility-scale batteries tripled in capacity in 2021 and can now store up to 4.6 gigawatts of energy. Texas has been quickly developing storage projects, spurred by cheaper solar batteries, and in 2011, Texas had only 5 megawatts of battery storage capacity; by 2020, that had ballooned to 323.1 megawatts.

“Storage is the real game-changer because it can really help to mediate and control a lot of the intermittency issues that a lot of folks worry about when they think about wind and solar technology,” Hensley said. “So being able to capture a lot of that solar that comes right around noon to [1 p.m.] and move it to those evening periods when demand is at its highest, or even move strong wind resources from overnight to the early morning or afternoon hours.”

Storage technology can help, but Hensley said transmission is still the big factor to consider.

Solar is another resource that could help stabilize the grid. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, Texas has about 13,947 megawatts of solar installed and more than 161,000 installations. That’s enough to power more than 1.6 million homes.

This month, the PUC formed a task force to develop a pilot program next year that would create a pathway for solar panels and batteries on small-scale systems, like homes and businesses, to add that energy to the grid, similar to a recent virtual power plant in Texas rollout. The program would make solar and batteries more accessible and affordable for customers, and it would pay customers to share their stored energy to the grid as well.

Hensley said Texas has the most clean-energy projects in the works that will likely continue to put the region above the rest when it comes to wind generation.

“So they’re already ahead, and it looks like they’re going to be even farther ahead six months or a year down the road,” he said.

Related News

N.W.T. will encourage more residents to drive electric vehicles

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

View more

Enabling storage in Ontario's electricity system

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

View more

California introduces new net metering regime

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

View more

Asset Management Firm to Finance Clean Coal Technologies Inc.

Clean Coal Technologies Pristine Funding secures investment from a New York asset manager via Black Diamond, advancing commercialization, Tulsa testing, Wyoming relocation, PRB coal enhancement, and cleaner energy innovation to support global coal exports.

 

Key Points

Capital from a New York asset manager backs Pristine commercialization, testing, and Wyoming relocation to boost PRB coal.

✅ Investment via Black Diamond funds Tulsa test operations.

✅ Permanent relocation planned near a Wyoming mine site.

✅ First Pristine M module to enhance PRB coal quality.

 

Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., an emerging cleaner-energy company utilizing patented and proven technology to convert untreated coal into a cleaner burning and more efficient fuel, announced today that the company has secured funding for their Pristine technology through commercialization, a move reminiscent of Bruce C project funding activity, from a major New York-based Asset Management company. This investment will be made through Black Diamond with all funds earmarked for test procedures at the plant near Tulsa, OK, at a time when rare new coal plants are appearing, and the plant's move to a permanent location in Wyoming. The first tranche is being paid immediately.

"Securing this investment will confidently carry us through to the construction of our first commercial module enabling management to focus on the additional tests that have been requested from multiple parties, even as US coal demand faces headwinds across the market," stated CEO of Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., Robin Eves. "At this time we have begun scheduling plant visits with both US government agency and coal industry officials along with key international energy consortiums that are monitoring transitions such as Alberta's coal phaseout policies."

"We're now able to finalize our negotiations in Wyoming where the permitting process has begun and where we will permanently relocate the test facility later this year following completion of the aforementioned tests," added CCTI COO/CFO, Aiden Neary. "This event also paves the way forward to commence the process of constructing the first commercial Pristine M facility. That plant is planned to be in Wyoming near an operating mine where our process can be used to enhance the quality of PRB coal to make it more competitive globally, even as regions like western Europe see coal-to-renewables conversions at legacy plants, and help restore the US coal export market."

 

 

Related News

View more

0 to 180 km in 10 minutes: B.C. Hydro rolls out faster electric vehicle charging

B.C. Hydro fast EV charging stations roll out 180 kW DC fast chargers, power sharing, and rural network expansion in Surrey, Manning Park, Mackenzie, and Tumbler Ridge to ease range anxiety across northern B.C.

 

Key Points

180 kW DC chargers with power sharing, expanding B.C.'s rural EV network to cut range anxiety and speed up recharging.

✅ 180 kW DC fast charging: ~180 km added in about 10 minutes

✅ Power sharing enables two vehicles to use one unit simultaneously

✅ Expands rural charging coverage to cut range anxiety for northern B.C.

 

B.C. Hydro has unveiled plans to install new charging stations it says can add as much as 180 kilometres worth of range to the average electric vehicle in 10 minutes.

The utility says the new 180-kilowatt units will be added to its network, expanding stations in southern B.C. as soon as this fall, with even more scheduled to arrive in 2024.

The first communities to get the new faster-charge stations are Surrey, Manning Park and, north of Prince George, Mackenzie and Tumbler Ridge, while the Lillooet fast-charging site is already operational.

B.C. Hydro president Chris O'Riley says both current and prospective electric vehicle owners have said they want improved coverage in more rural parts of the province in order to address range anxiety, as the utility has warned of a potential EV charging bottleneck if demand outpaces infrastructure.

"We are listening to feedback from our customers," he said.

The new stations will also be the first from B.C. Hydro to offer power sharing, which lets two different vehicles use the same unit to charge at the same time.

The adoption of electric vehicles in B.C. is much higher in southern urban areas than rural, northern ones, according to statistics from the provincial government made available in 2022, as the province leads the country in going electric according to recent reports.

The figures showed about one in every 45 people owns a zero-emission vehicle in the southwest regions of the province, but that number drops to one in 232 in the Kootenays, where the region makes electric cars a priority through local initiatives, and one in 414 in northern B.C.

The number of public charging stations closely corresponds to the number of zero-emission vehicles in various regions.

The Vancouver area has more than 500 fast-charging ports, according to ChargeHub, a website that tracks charging stations in North America. 

In contrast, the route from Prince George to Fort Nelson via Dawson Creek along Highway 97, part of the B.C. Electric Highway network connecting the region — a distance of more than 800 kilometres — has just three locations where a vehicle can be charged to 80 per cent power in an hour or less, creating challenges for people hoping to travel the route.

The disparity is also clear in a just-published analysis from the non-profit Community Energy Association, which acts as an advisory group to government associations. 

It found that while there is roughly one charging port every three square kilometres in Metro Vancouver, the number drops to one every 250 square kilometres in the Regional District of East Kootenay and one every 3,500 square kilometres in the Peace River Regional District, in the province's northeast.

"The more infrastructure we can get across the region ... the more the adoption of electric vehicles will increase," said the association's director of transportation initiatives, Danielle Weiss.

"We are excited to hear that B.C. Hydro is also viewing rural areas as a key focus for their new, enhanced charging technology."

B.C. Hydro says it currently has 153 charging units at 84 locations across the province with plans to add an additional 3,000 ports over the next 10 years, with provincial EV charger rebates supporting home and workplace installations as well.

 

Related News

View more

Electric Cars Have Hit an Inflection Point

U.S. EV Manufacturing Expansion accelerates decarbonization as Ford and SK Innovation invest in lithium-ion batteries and truck assembly in Tennessee and Kentucky, building new factories, jobs, and supply chain infrastructure in right-to-work states.

 

Key Points

A rapid scale-up of U.S. electric vehicle production, battery plants, and assembly lines fueled by major investments.

✅ Ford and SK build battery and truck plants by 2025

✅ $11.4B investment, 11,000 jobs in TN and KY

✅ Right-to-work context reshapes union dynamics

 

One theme of this newsletter is that the world’s physical infrastructure will have to massively change if we want to decarbonize the economy by 2050, which the United Nations has said is necessary to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis. This won’t be as simple as passing a carbon tax or a clean-electricity mandate: Wires will have to be strung as the power grid expands; solar farms will have to be erected; industries will have to be remade. And although that kind of change can be orchestrated only by the government (hence the importance of the infrastructure bills in Congress), consumers and companies will ultimately do most of the work to make it happen.

Take electric cars, for instance. An electric car is an expensive, highly specialized piece of technology, but building one takes even more expensive, specialized technology—tools that tend to be custom-made, large and heavy, and spread across a factory or the world. And if you want those tools to produce a car in a few years, you have to start planning now, as the EV timeline accelerates ahead.

That’s exactly what Ford is doing: Last night, the automaker and SK Innovation, a South Korean battery manufacturer, announced that they were spending $11.4 billion to build two new multi-factory centers in Tennessee and Kentucky that are scheduled to begin production in 2025. The facilities, which will hire a combined 11,000 employees, will manufacture EV batteries and assemble electric F-series pickup trucks. While Ford already has several factories in Kentucky, this will be its first plant in Tennessee in six decades. The 3,600-acre Tennessee facility, located an hour outside Memphis, will be Ford’s largest campus ever—and its first new American vehicle-assembly plant in decades.

The politics of this announcement are worth dwelling on. Ford and SK Innovation were lured to Tennessee with $500 million in incentives; Kentucky gave them $300 million and more than 1,500 acres of free land. Ford’s workers in Detroit have historically been unionized—and, indeed, a source of power in the national labor movement. But with these new factories, Ford is edging into a more anti-union environment: Both Tennessee and Kentucky are right-to-work states, meaning that local laws prevent unions from requiring that only unionized employees work in a certain facility. In an interview, Jim Farley, Ford’s CEO, played coy about whether either factory will be unionized. (Last week, the company announced that it was investing $250 million, a comparative pittance, to expand EV production at its unionized Michigan facilities.)

That news might depress those on the left who hope that old-school unions, such as the United Auto Workers, can enjoy the benefits of electrification. But you can see the outline of a potential political bargain here. Climate-concerned Democrats get to see EV production expand in the U.S., creating opportunities for Canada to capitalize as supply chains shift, while climate-wary Republicans get to add jobs in their home states. (And unions get shafted.) Whether that bargain can successfully grow support for more federal climate policy, further accelerating the financial-political-technological feedback loop that I’ve dubbed “the green vortex,” remains to be seen.

Read: How the U.S. made progress on climate change without ever passing a bill

More important than the announcement is what it portends. In the past, environmentalists have complained that even when the law has required that automakers make climate-friendly cars, they haven’t treated them as a major product. It’s easy to tune out climate-friendly announcements as so much corporate greenwashing, amid recurring EV hype, but Ford’s two new factories represent real money: The automaker’s share of the investment exceeds its 2019 annual earnings. This investment is sufficiently large that Ford will treat EVs as a serious business line.

And if you look around globally, you’ll see that Ford isn’t alone. EVs are no longer the neglected stepchild of the global car industry. Here are some recent headlines:

Nine percent of new cars sold globally this year will be EVs or plug-in hybrids, according to S&P Global. That’s up from 3 percent two years ago, a staggering, iPhone-like rise.

GM, Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota, BMW, and the parent company of Fiat-Chrysler have all pledged that by 2030, at least 40 percent of their new cars worldwide will run on a non-gasoline source, and there is scope for Canada-U.S. collaboration as companies turn to electric cars. A few years ago, the standard forecast was that half of new cars sold in the U.S. would be electric by 2050. That timeline has moved up significantly not only in America, but around the world. (In fact, counter to its high-tech self-image, America is the laggard in this global transition. The two largest markets for EVs worldwide are China and the European Union.)

More remarkably (and importantly), automakers are spending like they actually believe that goal: The auto industry as a whole will pump more than $500 billion into EV investment by 2030, and new assembly deals are putting Canada in the race. Ford’s investment in these two plants represents less than a third of its planned total $30 billion investment in EV production by 2025, and that’s relatively small compared with its peers’. Volkswagen has announced more than $60 billion in investment. Honda has committed $46 billion.

Norway could phase out gas cars ahead of schedule. The country has one of the world’s most robust pro-EV policies, and it is still outperforming its own mandates. In the most recent accounting period, eight out of 10 cars had some sort of electric drivetrain. If the current trend holds, Norway would sell its last gas car in April of next year—and while I doubt the demise will be that steep, consumer preferences are running well ahead of its schedule to ban new gas-car sales by 2025.

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified