Opinion | Why Electric Mail Trucks Are the Way of the Future

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

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

Key Points

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

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

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

✅ High-cost bidirectional chargers and warranties remain hurdles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

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

UCS EV emissions study shows electric vehicles produce lower life-cycle emissions than gasoline cars across all states, factoring tailpipe, grid mix, power plant sources, and renewable energy, delivering mpg-equivalent advantages nationwide.

Key Points

UCS study comparing EV and gas life-cycle emissions, finding EVs cleaner than new gas cars in every U.S. region.

✅ Average EV equals 93 mpg gas car on emissions.

✅ Cleaner than 50 mpg gas cars in 97% of U.S.

✅ Regional grid mix included: tailpipe to power plant.

One of the cautions cited by electric vehicle (EV) naysayers is that they merely shift emissions from the tailpipe to the local grid’s power source, implicating state power grids as a whole, and some charging efficiency claims get the math wrong, too. And while there is a kernel of truth to this notion—they’re indeed more benign to the environment in states where renewable energy resources are prevalent—the average EV is cleaner to run than the average new gasoline vehicle in all 50 states. 

That’s according to a just-released study conducted the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which determined that global warming emissions related to EVs has fallen by 15 percent since 2018. For 97 percent of the U.S., driving an electric car is equivalent or better for the planet than a gasoline-powered model that gets 50 mpg. 

In fact, the organization says the average EV currently on the market is now on a par, environmentally, with an internal combustion vehicle that’s rated at 93 mpg. The most efficient gas-driven model sold in the U.S. gets 59 mpg, and EV sales still trail gas cars despite such comparisons, with the average new petrol-powered car at 31 mpg.

For a gasoline car, the UCS considers a vehicle’s tailpipe emissions, as well as the effects of pumping crude oil from the ground, transporting it to a refinery, creating gasoline, and transporting it to filling stations. For electric vehicles, the UCS’ environmental estimates include both emissions from the power plants themselves, along with those created by the production of coal, natural gas or other fossil fuels used to generate electricity, and they are often mischaracterized by claims about battery manufacturing emissions that don’t hold up. 

Of course the degree to which an EV ultimately affects the atmosphere still varies from one part of the country to another, depending on the local power source. In some parts of the country, driving the average new gasoline car will produce four to eight times the emissions of the average EV, a fact worth noting for those wondering if it’s the time to buy an electric car today. The UCS says the average EV driven in upstate New York produces total emissions that would be equivalent to a gasoline car that gets an impossible 255-mpg. In even the dirtiest areas for generating electricity, EVs are responsible for as much emissions as a conventionally powered car that gets over 40 mpg.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

IEA Grid Expansion Warning highlights stalled investment in power lines and transmission infrastructure, risking renewable energy rollout for solar, wind, EVs, and heat pumps, and jeopardizing climate targets under the Paris Agreement amid connection bottlenecks.

Key Points

IEA alert urging grid investment to expand transmission, connect renewables, and keep 1.5 C climate goals on track.

✅ 80 million km of lines needed by 2040, per IEA

✅ Investment must double to $600B annually by 2030

✅ Permitting delays stall major cross-border projects

Stalled spending on electrical grids worldwide is slowing the rollout of renewable energy and could put efforts to limit climate change at risk if millions of miles of power lines are not added or refurbished in the next few years, the International Energy Agency said.

The Paris-based organization said in the report Tuesday that the capacity to connect to and transmit electricity is not keeping pace with the rapid growth of clean energy technologies such as solar and wind power, electric cars and heat pumps being deployed to move away from fossil fuels, a gap reflected in why the U.S. grid isn't 100% renewable today.

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol told The Associated Press in an interview that there is a long line of renewable projects waiting for the green light to connect to the grid, including UK renewable backlog worth billions. The stalled projects could generate 1,500 gigawatts of power, or five times the amount of solar and wind capacity that was added worldwide last year, he said.

“It’s like you are manufacturing a very efficient, very speedy, very handsome car — but you forget to build the roads for it,” Birol said.

If spending on grids stayed at current levels, the chance of holding the global increase in average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — the goal set by the 2015 Paris climate accords — “is going to be diminished substantially,” he said.

The IEA assessment of electricity grids around the globe found that achieving the climate goals set by the world’s governments would require adding or refurbishing 80 million kilometers (50 million miles) of power lines by 2040 — an amount equal to the existing global grid in less than two decades.

Annual investment has been stagnant but needs to double to more than $600 billion a year by 2030, the agency said, with U.S. grid overhaul efforts aiming to accelerate upgrades.

It’s not uncommon for a single high-voltage overhead power line to take five to 13 years to get approved through bureaucracy in advanced economies, while lead times are significantly shorter in China and India, according to the IEA, though a new federal rule seeks to boost transmission planning.

The report cited the South Link transmission project to carry wind power from northern to southern Germany. First planned in 2014, it was delayed after political opposition to an overhead line meant it was buried instead, while more pylons in Scotland are being urged to keep the lights on, industry says. Completion is expected in 2028 instead of 2022.

Other important projects that have been held up: the 400-kilometer (250-mile) Bay of Biscay connector between Spain and France, now expected for 2028 instead of 2025, and the SunZia high-voltage line to bring wind power from New Mexico to Arizona and California, while Pacific Northwest goals are hindered by grid limits. Construction started only last month after years of delays.

On the East Coast, the Avangrid line to bring hydropower from Canada to New England was interrupted in 2021 following a referendum in Maine, as New England's solar growth is also creating tension over who pays for grid upgrades. A court overturned the statewide vote rejecting the project in April.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ukraine Wind Energy Resilience shields the grid with wind power along the Black Sea, dispersing turbines to withstand missile attacks, accelerate clean energy transition, aid EU integration, and strengthen energy security and rapid recovery.

Key Points

A strategy in Ukraine using wind farms to harden the grid, ensure clean power, and speed recovery from missile strikes.

✅ Distributed turbines reduce single-point-of-failure risk

✅ Faster repair of substations and lines than power plants

✅ Supports EU-aligned clean energy and grid security goals

The giants catch the wind with their huge arms, helping to keep the lights on in Ukraine — newly built windmills, on plains along the Black Sea.

In 15 months of war, Russia has launched countless missiles and exploding drones at power plants, hydroelectric dams and substations, trying to black out as much of Ukraine as it can, as often as it can, even amid talk of limiting attacks on energy sites that has surfaced, in its campaign to pound the country into submission.

The new Tyligulska wind farm stands only a few dozen miles from Russian artillery, but Ukrainians say it has a crucial advantage over most of the country’s grid, helping stabilize the system even as electricity exports have occasionally resumed under fire.

A single, well-placed missile can damage a power plant severely enough to take it out of action, but Ukrainian officials say that doing the same to a set of windmills — each one tens of meters apart from any other — would require dozens of missiles. A wind farm can be temporarily disabled by striking a transformer substation or transmission lines, but these are much easier to repair than power plants.

“It is our response to Russians,” said Maksym Timchenko, CEO of DTEK Group, the company that built the turbines in the southern Mykolaiv region — the first phase of what is planned as Eastern Europe’s largest wind farm. “It is the most profitable and, as we know now, most secure form of energy.”

Ukraine has had laws in place since 2014 to promote a transition to renewable energy, both to lower dependence on Russian energy imports, with periods when electricity exports resumed to neighbors, and because it was profitable. But that transition still has a long way to go, and the war makes its prospects, like everything else about Ukraine’s future, murky.

In 2020, 12% of Ukraine’s electricity came from renewable sources — barely half the percentage for the European Union. Plans for the Tyligulska project call for 85 turbines producing up to 500 megawatts of electricity. That’s enough for 500,000 apartments — an impressive output for a wind farm, but less than 1% of the country’s prewar generating capacity.

After the Kremlin began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the need for new power sources became acute, prompting deliveries such as a mobile gas turbine power plant to bolster capacity. Russia has bombarded Ukraine’s power plants and cut off delivery of the natural gas that fueled some of them.

Russian occupation forces have seized a large part of the country’s power supply, and Russia has built power lines to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant in occupied territory, ensuring that its output does not reach territory still held by Ukraine. They hold the single largest generator, the 5,700-megawatt Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which has been damaged repeatedly in fighting and has stopped transmitting energy to the grid, with UN inspectors warning of mines at the site during recent visits. They also control 90% of Ukraine’s renewable energy plants, which are concentrated in the southeast.

The postwar recovery plans Ukraine has presented to supporters including the European Union, which it hopes to join, feature a major new commitment to clean energy, even as a controversial proposal on Ukraine’s nuclear plants continues to stir debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News