Electric car charging networks jostle for pole position amid Biden's push to electrify

NC WARN Solar Case tests third-party solar rights as North Carolina Supreme Court reviews Utilities Commission fines over a Greensboro church's rooftop power deal, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly, onsite electricity sales, and potential rate impacts.

Key Points

A North Carolina Supreme Court test of third-party solar could weaken Duke Energy's monopoly and change utility rules.

✅ NC Supreme Court weighs Utilities Commission penalty on NC WARN

✅ Case could permit onsite third-party solar sales statewide

✅ Outcome may pressure Duke Energy's monopoly and rates

North Carolina's highest court is taking up a case that could force new competition on the state's electricity monopolies.

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider the Utilities Commission's decision to fine clean-energy advocacy group NC WARN for putting solar panels on a Greensboro church's rooftop and then charging it below-market rates for power.

The commission told NC WARN that it was producing electricity illegally and fined the group $60,000. The group said it was acting privately and appealed to the high court.

If the group prevails, it could put new pressure on Duke Energy's monopoly, which has seen an oversubscribed solar solicitation in recent procurements. State regulators say a ruling for NC WARN would allow companies to install solar equipment and sell power on site, shaving away customers and forcing Duke Energy to raise rates on everyone else.

#google#

That's because if NC WARN's deal with Faith Community Church is allowed, the precedent could open the door for others to lure away from Duke Energy, as debates over how solar owners are paid continue, "the customers with the highest profit potential, such as commercial and industrial customers with large energy needs and ample rooftop space," attorney Robert Josey Jr. wrote in a court filing.

Losing those power sales would force the country's No. 2 electricity company to make it up by charging remaining customers more to cover the cost of all of its power plants, transmission lines and repair crews, a dynamic echoed in New England's grid upgrade debates as solar grows, wrote Josey, an attorney for the Public Staff, the state's official utilities consumer advocate.

The dispute is whether NC WARN is producing electricity "for the public," which would mean it's intruding on the territory of the publicly regulated monopoly utility, or whether the move was allowed because it was a private power deal with the church alone.

NC WARN installed the church's power panels in 2015 as part of what it described as a test case, amid wider debates like Nova Scotia's delayed solar charge for customers, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly position to generate and sell electricity.

North Carolina was one of nine states that as of last year explicitly disallowed residential customers from buying electricity generated by solar panels on their roof from a third party that owns the system, even as Maryland opens solar subscriptions more broadly, according to the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center. State law allows purchased or leased solar panels, but not payments simply for the power they generate.

NC WARN's goals included "reducing the effects of Duke Energy's monopoly control that has such negative impacts on power bills, clean air and water, and climate change," the church's pastor, Rev. Nelson Johnson, said in a statement the same day the clean-energy group asked state regulators to clear the plan.

Instead, the North Carolina Utilities Commission ruled the arrangement violated the state's system of legal electricity monopolies and hit the group with nearly $60,000 in fines, which would be suspended if the church's payments were refunded with interest and the solar equipment donated. The group has set aside the money and will donate the gear if it loses the Supreme Court case, NC WARN Executive Director Jim Warren said.

NC WARN's three-year agreement saw the group mount a rooftop solar array for which the church would pay about half the average retail electricity price, state officials said. The agreement states plainly that it is not a contract for the sale or lease of the $20,000 solar system, the church never owns the panels, and the low electricity price means its payback for the equipment would take 60 years, Josey wrote.

"Clearly, the only thing of value (the church) is obtaining for its payments under this agreement is the electricity created," he wrote.

In court filings, the group's attorneys have stuck to the argument that NC WARN isn't selling to the public because the deal involved a single customer only.

The deal "is not open to any other member of the public ... A private, bargained-for contract under which only one party receives electricity is not a sale of electricity 'to or for the public,' " attorney Matthew Quinn wrote to the court.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

IEA World Energy Outlook 2020 highlights solar power as the cheapest electricity, projects faster renewables growth, models net-zero pathways, assesses COVID-19 impacts, oil and gas demand, and policy scenarios including STEPS, SDS, and NZE2050.

Key Points

A flagship IEA report analyzing energy trends, COVID-19 impacts, renewables growth, and pathways to net-zero in 2050.

✅ Solar now the cheapest electricity in most major markets

✅ Scenarios: STEPS, SDS, NZE2050, plus delayed recovery case

✅ Oil and gas demand uncertain; CO2 peak needs stronger policy

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use and progress in the global energy transition over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables across markets. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

Despite a more rapid rise for renewables and a “structural” decline for coal, the IEA says it is too soon to declare a peak in global oil use, unless there is stronger climate action. Similarly, it says demand for gas could rise 30% by 2040, unless the policy response to global warming steps up.

This means that, while global CO2 emissions have effectively peaked flatlining in 2019 according to the IEA, they are “far from the immediate peak and decline” needed to stabilise the climate. The IEA says achieving net-zero emissions will require “unprecedented” efforts from every part of the global economy, not just the power sector.

For the first time, the IEA includes detailed modeling of a 1.5C pathway that reaches global net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. It says individual behaviour change, such as working from home “three days a week”, would play an “essential” role in reaching this new “net-zero emissions by 2050 case” (NZE2050).

Future scenarios
The IEA’s annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) arrives every autumn and contains some of the most detailed and heavily scrutinised analysis of the global energy system. Over hundreds of densely packed pages, it draws on thousands of datapoints and the IEA’s World Energy Model.

The outlook includes several different scenarios, to reflect uncertainty over the many decisions that will affect the future path of the global economy, as well as the route taken out of the coronavirus crisis during the “critical” next decade. The WEO also aims to inform policymakers by showing how their plans would need to change if they want to shift onto a more sustainable path, including creating the right clean electricity investment incentives to accelerate progress.

This year it omits the “current policies scenario” (CPS), which usually “provides a baseline…by outlining a future in which no new policies are added to those already in place”. This is because “[i]t is difficult to imagine this ‘business as-usual’ approach prevailing in today’s circumstances”.

Those circumstances are the unprecedented fallout from the coronavirus pandemic, which remains highly uncertain as to its depth and duration. The crisis is expected to cause a dramatic decline in global energy demand in 2020, with oil demand also dropping sharply as fossil fuels took the biggest hit.

The main WEO pathway is again the “stated policies scenario” (STEPS, formerly NPS). This shows the impact of government pledges to go beyond the current policy baseline. Crucially, however, the IEA makes its own assessment of whether governments are credibly following through on their targets.

The report explains:

“The STEPS is designed to take a detailed and dispassionate look at the policies that are either in place or announced in different parts of the energy sector. It takes into account long-term energy and climate targets only to the extent that they are backed up by specific policies and measures. In doing so, it holds up a mirror to the plans of today’s policy makers and illustrates their consequences, without second-guessing how these plans might change in future.”

The outlook then shows how plans would need to change to plot a more sustainable path, highlighting efforts to replace fossil fuels with electricity in time to meet climate goals. It says its “sustainable development scenario” (SDS) is “fully aligned” with the Paris target of holding warming “well-below 2C…and pursuing efforts to limit [it] to 1.5C”. (This interpretation is disputed.)

The SDS sees CO2 emissions reach net-zero by 2070 and gives a 50% chance of holding warming to 1.65C, with the potential to stay below 1.5C if negative emissions are used at scale.

The IEA has not previously set out a detailed pathway to staying below 1.5C with 50% probability, with last year’s outlook only offering background analysis and some broad paragraphs of narrative.

For the first time this year, the WEO has “detailed modelling” of a “net-zero emissions by 2050 case” (NZE2050). This shows what would need to happen for CO2 emissions to fall to 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 on the way to net-zero by 2050, with a 50% chance of meeting the 1.5C limit, with countries such as Canada's net-zero electricity needs in focus to get there.

The final pathway in this year’s outlook is a “delayed recovery scenario” (DRS), which shows what might happen if the coronavirus pandemic lingers and the global economy takes longer to recover, with knock-on reductions in the growth of GDP and energy demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Utility-Controlled EV Charging shapes who builds charging stations as utilities, regulators, and private networks compete over infrastructure, grid upgrades, and pricing, impacting ratepayers, competition, and EV adoption across states seeking cleaner transport.

Key Points

Utility-controlled EV charging is utilities building charging networks affecting rates, competition and grid costs.

✅ Regulated investment may raise rates before broader savings.

✅ Private firms warn monopolies stifle competition and innovation.

✅ Regulators balance access, equity, and grid upgrade needs.

Electric vehicles are widely seen as the automobile industry’s future, but a battle is unfolding in states across America over who should control the charging stations that could gradually replace fuel pumps.

From Exelon Corp. to Southern California Edison, utilities have sought regulatory approval to invest millions of dollars in upgrading their infrastructure as state power grids adapt to increased charging demand, and, in some cases, to own and operate chargers.

The proposals are sparking concerns from consumer advocates about higher electric rates and oil companies about subsidizing rivals. They are also drawing opposition from startups that say the successors to gas stations should be open to private-sector competition, not controlled by monopoly utilities.

That debate is playing out in regulatory commissions throughout the U.S. as states and utilities promote wider adoption of electric vehicles. At stake are charging infrastructure investments expected to total more than $13 billion over the next five years, as an American EV boom accelerates, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. That would cover roughly 3.2 million charging outlets.

Calvin Butler Jr., who leads Exelon’s utilities business, said many states have grown more open to the idea of utilities becoming bigger players in charging as electric vehicles have struggled to take off in the U.S., where they make up only around 2% of new car sales.

“When the utilities are engaged, there’s quicker adoption because the infrastructure is there,” he said.

Major auto makers including General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. are accelerating production of electric vehicles, and models like Tesla’s Model 3 are shaping utility planning, and a number of states have set ambitious EV goals—most recently California, which aims to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. But a patchy charging-station network remains a huge impediment to mass EV adoption.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has called for building more than 500,000 new public charging outlets in a decade as part of his plan to combat climate change, amid Biden’s push to electrify the transportation sector. But exactly how that would happen is unclear. The U.S. currently has fewer than 100,000 public outlets, according to the Energy Department. President Trump, who has weakened federal tailpipe emissions targets, hasn’t put forward an electric-vehicle charging plan, though he backed a 2019 transportation bill that would have provided $1 billion in grants to build alternative fueling infrastructure, including for electric vehicles.

Charging access currently varies widely by state, as does utility involvement, with many utilities bullish course on EV charging to support growth, which can range from providing rebates on home chargers to preparing sites for public charging—and even owning and operating the equipment needed to juice up electric vehicles.

As of September, regulators in 24 states had signed off on roughly $2.6 billion of utility investment in transportation electrification, according to Atlas Public Policy, a Washington, D.C., policy firm. More than half of that spending was authorized in California, where electric vehicle adoption is highest.

Nearly a decade ago, California blocked utilities from owning most charging equipment, citing concerns about potentially stifling competition. But the nation’s most populous state reversed course in 2014, seeking to spur electrification.

Regulators across the country have since been wrestling with similar questions, generating a patchwork of rules.

Maryland regulators signed off last year on a pilot program allowing subsidiaries of Exelon and FirstEnergy Corp. to own and operate public charging stations on government property, provided that the drivers who use them cover at least some of the costs.

Months later, the District of Columbia rejected an Exelon subsidiary’s request to own public chargers, saying independent charging companies had it covered.

Some charging firms argue utilities shouldn’t be given monopolies on car charging, though they might need to play a role in connecting rural customers and building stations where they would otherwise be uneconomical.

“Maybe the utility should be the supplier of last resort,” said Cathy Zoi, chief executive of charging network EVgo Services LLC, which operates more than 800 charging stations in 34 states.

Utility charging investments generally are expected to raise customers’ electricity bills, at least initially. California recently approved the largest charging program by a single utility to date: a $436 million initiative by Southern California Edison, an arm of Edison International, as the state also explores grid stability opportunities from EVs. The company said it expects the program to increase the average residential customer’s bill by around 50 cents a month.

But utilities and other advocates of electrification point to studies indicating greater EV adoption could help reduce electricity rates over time, by giving utilities more revenue to help cover system upgrades.

Proponents of having utilities build charging networks also argue that they have the scale to do so more quickly, which would lead to faster EV adoption and environmental improvements such as lower greenhouse gas emissions and cleaner air. While the investments most directly help EV owners, “they accrue immediate benefits for everyone,” said Jill Anderson, a Southern California Edison senior vice president.

Some consumer advocates are wary of approving extensive utility investment in charging, citing the cost to ratepayers.

“It’s like, ‘Pay me now, and maybe someday your rates will be less,’” said Stefanie Brand, who advocates on behalf of ratepayers for the state of New Jersey, where regulators have yet to sign off on any utility proposals to invest in electric vehicle charging. “I don’t think it makes sense to build it hoping that they will come.”

Groups representing oil-and-gas companies, which stand to lose market share as people embrace electric vehicles, also have criticized utility charging proposals.

“These utilities should not be able to use their monopoly power to use all of their customers’ resources to build investments that definitely won’t benefit everybody, and may or may not be economical at this point,” said Derrick Morgan, who leads federal and regulatory affairs at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a trade organization.

Utility executives said their companies have long been used to further government policy objectives deemed to be in the public interest, drawing on lessons from 2021 to guide next steps, such as improving energy efficiency.

“This isn’t just about letting market forces work,” said Mike Calviou, senior vice president for strategy and regulation at National Grid PLC’s U.S. division.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electric Vehicle Adoption Benefits include reduced air pollution, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and improved respiratory health, as regional studies show, with equity considerations for low-income communities and policy mandates accelerating zero-emission vehicles.

Key Points

The environmental and health gains from wider EV uptake, including cleaner air, lower emissions, and fewer asthma cases.

✅ Regional EV growth linked to lower NO2 and PM2.5 levels

✅ Fewer asthma ER visits in higher EV-adoption areas

✅ Address adoption gap to ensure equity in low-income communities

In an effort to mitigate the effects of climate change, countries across the globe are involving electric vehicles in their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, citing the EV climate and cost benefits highlighted by recent analyses.

A federal mandate in Canada, for instance, aims to ensure that one-fifth of all passenger cars, SUVs and trucks sold in Canada are electrically-powered by 2026, with Ottawa set to release EV sales regulations to guide industry. By 2035, if this mandate is carried out, every passenger vehicle sold in Canada will need to be electric, though some critics deem the 2035 target unrealistic based on current conditions.

But what will this shift to electric vehicles actually do for the environment, especially given that 18% of Canada's 2019 electricity came from fossil fuels which affects lifecycle emissions?

One team of researchers with the Keck School of Medicine of USC aimed to find out, conducting what it describes as one of the first studies to analyze the environmental and health impacts of electric vehicles on a regional scale. Their research linked the wider integration of zero-emission vehicles with lower levels of local air pollution and some respiratory problems, a pattern consistent with analyses showing EVs are greener across all 50 states in the U.S.

“When we think about the actions related to climate change, often it’s on a global level,” Erika Garcia, an assistant professor of population and public health at the Keck School of Medicine, said in a press release.

“But the idea that changes being made at the local level can improve the health of your own community could be a powerful message to the public and to policy makers.”

Using data that spanned from 2013 to 2019, Garcia and the team of researchers compared the registration of zero-emissions vehicles with air pollution levels and asthma-related emergency room visits in California. They found that in regions where more electric vehicles were adopted, emergency room visits dropped, along with with pollution levels.

Sandrah Eckel, an associate professor of population and public health sciences and the study’s senior author, said their findings offer hope among a reality of climate anxieties.

“We’re excited about shifting the conversation towards climate change mitigation and adaptation, and these results suggest that transitioning to [electric vehicles] is a key piece of that.”

Garcia added that the study also evaluated disadvantages faced by those living in lower-income communities, which often see higher pollution levels and related respiratory problems, underscoring that EVs are not a silver bullet in broader climate and health policy.

Researchers discovered that adoption of zero-emissions vehicles in low-resource neighbourhoods was slower compared to more affluent areas, amid ongoing debate over whether EV purchase subsidies are an effective tool for Canada.

The study attributes this disparity to what the researchers call an “adoption gap” – referring to groups of people that cannot afford newer vehicles that are electrically-powered.

According to the study, which was published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, the adoption gap “threatens the equitable distribution of possible co-benefits.”

“Should continuing research support our findings, we want to make sure that those communities that are overburdened with traffic-related air pollution are truly benefiting from this climate mitigation effort,” Garcia said in the release.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Electric School Bus Mandate 2035 sets zero-emission requirements, outlines funding, state reimbursement, fleet electrification, infrastructure, and cost estimates, highlighting exemptions for frontier districts and alignment with clean transportation and climate policy goals.

Key Points

California's 2035 policy requires all new school buses be zero-emission, with funding and limited rural exemptions.

✅ Mandates zero-emission purchases for new school buses from 2035

✅ Estimates $5B transition cost with state reimbursement support

✅ Frontier districts may apply for 5-year extensions

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a new legislation requiring that from 2035, all newly ordered or contracted school buses must be zero-emission, a move aligned with California's push for expanded EV grid capacity statewide.

The state estimates that switching to electric school buses will cost around five billion dollars over the next decade, a projection reflecting electric bus challenges seen globally. That is because a diesel equivalent costs about 200,000 dollars less than a battery-electric version, as highlighted by critical analyses of California policy. And “the California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.”

There are about 23,800 school buses on the road in California. About 500 are already electric, with conversion initiatives expected to expand the total, and 2,078 electric buses have been ordered.

There are – as always- exceptions to the rule. So-called “frontier districts,” which have less than 600 students or are in a county with a population density of less than ten persons per square mile, can file for a five-year extension, drawing on lessons from large electric bus fleets about route length and charging constraints. However, they must “reasonably demonstrate that a daily planned bus route for transporting pupils to and from school cannot be serviced through available zero-emission technology in 2035.”

Califonia is the fifth US state to mandate electric school buses, and jurisdictions like British Columbia are deploying electric school buses as well. Connecticut, Maryland, Maine, and New York implemented similar legislation, while California continues broader zero-emission freight adoption with Volvo VNR electric trucks entering service across the state.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Bioo Soil-Generated Electricity turns biological batteries and photosynthesis into renewable energy, powering IoT sensors for smart farming and lighting, using microbe-powered soil electrochemistry to cut battery waste, reduce costs, and scale sustainable agritech infrastructure.

Key Points

Bioo Soil-Generated Electricity powers IoT sensors and lighting using soil microbes, delivering clean renewable energy.

✅ Microbe-driven soil batteries replace disposable chemical cells

✅ Powers IoT agritech sensors for moisture, pH, and temperature

✅ Cuts maintenance and costs while enabling sustainable farming

SCENES shines a spotlight on youth around the world that are breaking down barriers and creating change. The character-driven short films will inspire and amaze, as these young change-makers tell their remarkable stories.

Pablo Vidarte is a born inventor. At the age of eight, he was programming video games. By 16, he was challenging NASA and competing with the Spanish army to enhance the efficiency of external combustion engines. "I wanted to perfect a system that NASA did in 2002 oriented to powering cars. I was able to increase that efficiency by 60 per cent, which was pretty cool," Pablo explained. Aged 18, he created his first company specialising in artificial intelligence. A year later, he founded Bioo, a revolutionary startup that generates electricity from plants' photosynthesis.

"Imagine, being in the middle of a park or a street and being able to touch a plant and turn on the lights of that specific area," Pablo told Scenes. "Imagine storing the memories of humanity itself in nature. Imagine storing voice messages in a library that is an open field where you can go and touch the plants and communicate and interact with them. That's what we do at Bioo," he added.

The creation of Bioo, however, was not a walk in the park. Pablo relied on nanotechnology engineers and biologists volunteering their time to turn his idea of biological batteries, inspired by biological design, into a reality. It took a year for a prototype to be created and an investor to come on board. Today, Bioo is turning plants into biological switches, generating renewable energy from nature, and transforming the environment.

"We realised that we were basically killing the planet, and then we invented things like solar panels and solutions like peer-to-peer energy that we're able to prevent things from getting worse, but the next step is to be able to reverse the whole equation to revive that planet that we're starting to lose," the 25-year-old explained.

Batteries creating electricity from soil
Bioo has designed biological batteries that generate electricity from the energy released when organic soil decomposes. Like traditional batteries, they have an anode and a cathode, but instead of using materials like lithium to power them, organic matter is used as fuel. When microorganisms break down the organic soil, electrons are released. These electrons are then transported from the anode to the cathode, and a current of electricity is created. The batteries come in the shape of a rectangular box and can be dug into any fertile soil. They produce up to 200Wh a year per square metre, and just as some tidal projects use underwater kites to harvest energy, these systems tap natural processes.

Bioo's batteries are limited to low-power applications, but they have grown in popularity and are set to transform the agriculture industry.

Cost savings for farmers
Farmers can monitor their crops using a large network of sensors. The sensors allow them to analyse growing conditions, such as soil moisture, PH levels and air temperature. Almost 90 per cent of the power used to run the sensors come from chemical batteries, which deplete, underscoring the renewable energy storage problem that new solutions target.

"The huge issue is that chemical batteries need to be replaced every single year. But the problem is that you literally need an army of people replacing batteries and recalibrating them," Pablo explains. "What we do, it's literally a solution that is hidden, and that's nourishing from the soil itself and has the same cost as using chemical batteries. So the investment is basically returned in the first year," Pablo added.

Bioo has partnered with Bayer, a leading agricultural producer, to trial their soil-powered sensors on 50 million hectares of agricultural land. If successful, the corporation could save €1.5 billion each year. Making it a game-changer for farmers around the world.

A BioTech World
In addition to agriculture, Bioo's batteries are now being installed in shopping centres, offices and hospitals to generate clean power for lighting, while other companies are using ocean and river power to diversify clean generation portfolios.

Pablo's goal is to create a more environmentally efficient world, so shares his technology with international tech companies as green hydrogen projects scale globally. "I wanted to do something that could really mean a change for our world. Our ambition right now is to create a biotech world, a world that is totally interconnected with nature," he said.

As Bioo continues to develop its technology, Pablo believes that soil-generated electricity will become a leader in the global energy market, aligning with progress toward cheap, abundant electricity becoming a reality worldwide.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News