Back
The following commentary was written by Alli Gold Roberts, state policy director, and Zach Friedman, federal policy director, at Ceres. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
We are at a crucial period in the shift to electric vehicles. A growing number of companies are moving to electrify their corporate fleets to reduce costs on fuel and maintenance, and the auto industry is making significant investments into battery and vehicle production in the United States — recognizing they need to stay competitive in a changing global market toward clean cars and trucks.
Ambitious public policy — from federal tax credits to the clean vehicle standards adopted by a growing number of states — is helping to grow the market for electric vehicles. Still, there is more work to be done to create the strong, advanced domestic auto and trucking industries we need to meet the growing demand. Achieving that vision will require more collaboration, investments, and policy action. And much of that must go toward building out the infrastructure to support electric vehicles — the charging stations, the supply chains, the workforces, and more.
That is why Congress rightly included strategic investments in domestic electric vehicle and charging infrastructure manufacturing and deployment in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, a historic investment in U.S. competitiveness that was signed into law two years ago this week.
The law delivered on a generation of urgent calls to invest in U.S. infrastructure, and has already begun delivering billions upon billions of dollars to upgrade and modernize bridges, roads, tunnels, railways, airports, electric grids, water pipes, and much more. Widely supported by the public and private sectors alike, the bipartisan achievement is a testament to the virtue of good-faith collaboration to address a long-term challenge. And that includes building the infrastructure we need to create a more sustainable and forward-looking transportation system by supporting the growth of electric vehicles.
The law’s investments include programs designed to increase ease of electric vehicle charging. Most prominently is the creation of the first-ever national electric vehicle charging network, a $7.5 billion partnership between the federal and state governments. By helping to fund a half-million new chargers across the nation’s highways, the National Electric Vehicle Initiative will provide predictability to motorists that they will be able to charge up on the interstate system every 50 miles or so. Every state submitted a plan to participate in the program, with Ohio as the first to break ground at a charging station near Columbus in October and more states quickly following suit.
The package also brought a $7 billion investment to U.S. electric vehicle supply chains, helping to ensure the most crucial electric vehicle components are made, processed, and assembled here in the U.S. These programs will bolster U.S. energy security by reducing our dependency on international markets as electric vehicles grow in popularity.
And the law’s electric vehicle investments provide a robust foundation for the market to build upon. Manufacturers like Siemens, for example, have expanded their footprint in the U.S. to support the build-out of the charging network, including at a new manufacturing hub in Texas. And through their strike this fall, the United Auto Workers won union representation at battery plants that received investments under the bipartisan infrastructure law — including at Ultium Cells, a joint venture from General Motors that received a $2.5 billion Department of Energy loan for facilities in Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. This victory supports the creation of good-paying jobs and ensures workers and communities benefit from the clean vehicle transition.
At Ceres, the sustainability nonprofit where we each work with companies to support public policies that are good for the climate and the economy, we have seen firsthand as businesses increasingly prioritize technology and solutions that are good for the climate and for their bottom lines. That is why they are increasingly vocal advocates for public policies that help expand electric vehicle growth and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
In 2022, they pushed for passage of the nation’s largest-ever federal climate and clean energy investment, the Inflation Reduction Act and its tax credits designed to encourage both manufacturing and sales of electric vehicles in the U.S. — leading to even greater private investment in electric vehicle manufacturing and infrastructure. And this year, leading businesses are pushing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to finalize strong anti-pollution standards that would further accelerate the widespread adoption of electric and other clean vehicles, while also providing certainty for their investments, and strengthening the competitiveness of the U.S. auto and trucking industries.
Businesses have long been among the strongest champions of upgrades to the infrastructure the economy depends on, as seen in the strong corporate support for the 2021 infrastructure bill. And just like roads and bridges are key drivers of economic activity, electric vehicle growth and the ambitious policies to encourage it are only possible with the right infrastructure in place. Two years in, thanks to continued partnership between the public and private sectors, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is now beginning to deliver it.
This commentary was submitted by Holly Caggiano, Ph.D., assistant professor in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia, and Sara Constantino, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Psychology Department and the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
After paying our monthly utility bills, most of us take for granted the complex network of infrastructure and institutions that keep the lights on. This is changing. The average monthly electricity bill for residential customers nationally increased 13% from 2021 to 2022, rising from $121 to $137 a month, while climate change and aging and mismanaged electrical infrastructure have contributed to a string of disastrous wildfires. Confronted with rising costs of living and the urgent need to protect the environment, people across the country are taking a serious look at how their utilities are owned and operated.
Electric utilities, which can act as generators, distributors and/or service providers, play a key role in the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. For decades, a small number of for-profit, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) have powered most of the country. On November 7th, Maine challenged this model with Ballot Question 3, The Pine Tree Power initiative, proposing a transformation of the state’s two largest IOUs into a non-profit, democratically-managed public utility.
Before the vote, the Washington Post dubbed Maine the “epicenter” of the nation’s growing anger with electric utilities. Customer approval ratings of Central Maine Power (CMP) and Versant–the state’s two largest IOUs, owned by parent companies in Spain and Canada–are among the lowest in the country, but Maine is just one of an increasing number of states where people are raising concerns. Groups across the country have called for public takeover of IOUs, claiming investors prioritize profit over system maintenance, disregard consumer safety, and delay climate action.
While many IOUs have embraced climate action on paper, their actions say otherwise. One recent study found that electric utilities have pushed climate delay, doubt, and denial over multiple decades, promoting messaging explicitly designed to absolve inaction. Reporting also reveals widespread corruption and attempts to halt regulation to encourage clean energy and reduce ratepayer costs. Climate activism group 350.org labeled CMP one of the biggest anti-climate lobbyists in Maine.
IOUs have also been implicated in destructive and deadly wildfires. Hawaiian Electric Company recently acknowledged responsibility for the Maui wildfires—they failed to shut off power despite high winds and dry conditions. California’s PG&E narrowly avoided a trial on manslaughter charges for their role in the 2020 Zogg fire that killed four. IOUs know that the public is worried by their questionable safety records, responding with expensive PR campaigns. These tactics come from an old playbook. In The Big Myth, Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes describe 1920s propaganda campaigns to push privatization that ushered in higher rates for homeowners and bigger profits for corporations. A century later, we’re back to questioning this model.
Private utilities in Maine spent millions lobbying against the ballot initiative and the governor was vocally opposed. We ran a survey with the Climate and Community Project to learn more about how Mainers were feeling in the lead up to the vote. We found that Mainers are overwhelmingly concerned about keeping the lights on, with 88% of respondents very or somewhat worried about current and future energy costs. And despite the lobbying efforts of the private utilities, most respondents believe that their utilities should be locally owned and operated (55%) and not-for-profit (66%).
While these sentiments weren’t reflected in the election results, the reasons are nuanced. Our data suggests that many Mainers weren’t rejecting public-ownership itself, but were looking for a more fully realized plan, citing ambiguities about how the takeover would be financed, if costs would be passed to consumers, and if it would hold up in court—67% of our respondents thought it was somewhat or very likely that Pine Tree would face legal and regulatory challenges.
Despite investor-owned utilities pouring money into campaigns to oppose public power, there is growing momentum to reconsider how our power systems are owned and operated. One recent success is New York’s Build Public Renewables Act, which passed into law in May. After four years of organizing by Public Power NY, a coalition of more than twenty community organizations, the law authorizes the New York Power Authority to build renewable energy projects that help meet the state’s climate goals and include strong labor standards. Municipalization of utilities is also a hot topic in Western states, with ongoing organizing in California and Texas.
Some supporters of the Pine Tree Power campaign hoped that a win would fuel more initiatives across the country. In our poll, 41% of respondents thought it was somewhat or very likely that if passed, Pine Tree Power would spark a larger cross-state movement towards public ownership of energy resources. Despite Mainers choosing to stick with their current model for now, the ballot initiative brought national attention to the issue and has encouraged many to question the status quo. Rather than signaling the end of the road for public power in Maine, this vote could be the beginning of a sustained conversation about transforming our utilities. The research, organizing and discussions that went into the Pine Tree campaign provide a foundation for future efforts to improve the service, safety and sustainability of our energy infrastructure—and start to shift the energy narrative about what is possible, and desirable.
In Maine, we saw how the movement for public power united people across demographic and party lines. Rural or urban, Democrat or Republican, we all deserve access to clean, affordable, and reliable electricity. Climate change is forcing us to reconsider how we produce energy but it doesn’t need to stop there. This is an opportunity to reimagine who owns energy infrastructure and whose interests it serves.
Maine is drafting plans for its share of nearly $9 billion in home energy and efficiency rebate funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, with a straw proposal due out by the end of the year for input from contractors and other professionals who will be on the front lines of promoting new and expanded incentives to the public.
The landmark 2022 climate legislation known as the IRA included two programs focused on household rebates for weatherization, electrification and more, aiming to reduce energy use, costs and emissions for low-income families in particular.
Maine and other states are crafting applications to the U.S. Department of Energy that detail how they hope to use the funding on new and expanded incentives. States will have to balance offering larger rebates with ensuring more availability, while navigating overlaps with existing programs and considering new goals.
The IRA programs at issue include $4.3 billion across all states for “energy-saving retrofits” and another $4.5 billion across states and tribes for efficient electric appliances and equipment.
“It’s an unprecedented amount of money to be going to this particular thing of helping people make their homes more modern, cleaner, healthier and cheaper to operate,” said Kristin Eberhard, the senior director of state and local policy with the electrification advocacy group Rewiring America.
Maine, for its part, can get about $36 million from each program — and, under each, must direct a minimum of about $11.5 million to low-income households and another $2.8 million or more to low-income people who live in multifamily housing.
“It’s really transformative,” Eberhard said. “It’s going to have a much bigger impact than anything we’ve seen up to date on those harder-to-reach households.”
Maine energy officials say these groups are already a priority for growing the impact of existing rebates, and will be top of mind in their IRA plans.
“We’re trying to figure out where the gaps are and how we could deploy these funds to fill some of those gaps,” said Efficiency Maine Executive Director Michael Stoddard, whose quasi-governmental agency oversees state energy incentives.
Through rebates, loans, aggressive marketing and coordination throughout the supply chain, Maine has emerged as a national leader in deploying electric heat pumps, which provide high-efficiency space heating, cooling and water heating.
Buildings are an entrenched source of planet-warming carbon emissions in Maine, where a greater share of households rely on home heating oil than any other state. That dependence declined from 70% to 56% in 2022, the state reported on Nov. 9.
Maine has already met the initial 2025 heat pump target in its climate action plan, but lags behind on its goal for getting the technology into lower-income homes.
The state already offers hundreds of dollars off heat pumps for people of any income. Lower-income families can get $2,000 off their first unit. For those who qualify for government assistance, both equipment and installation may be free.
This 100% coverage is essential for the lowest-income families, Eberhard said — those who “can’t put up anything.” But Maine’s existing program “only has so much funding,” she said. “It can only reach so many households.”
“So some of that is where these rebates are going to come in and … give an infusion where they will be able to reach a lot more low-income households,” Eberhard said. “They know how to do it now. It’s just the money to do it.”
Efficiency Maine, working with MaineHousing and the Governor’s Energy Office — the federal designee for receiving this IRA money — is contemplating new income tiers to help make higher rebate amounts more accessible, according to Stoddard.
People with the lowest income might qualify for the highest rebates — $8,000 or 100% of project costs for heat pumps, under IRA rules. And the state might split the moderate-income category, which will receive lower rebates, into two tiers, offering more flexibility for people at different income levels than under current programs.
People in multifamily buildings are able to qualify alone or collectively, based on their income or the share of tenants in the building in each bracket. The IRA also includes rules that would allow renters to request rebates for their apartments.
Stoddard expects IRA funding will be especially useful for moderate-income households to move toward “whole-home” heat pump systems, which are a key part of Maine’s long-term electrification goals.
But just as important, he said, is what Maine doesn’t plan to do with its IRA funds.
“What these IRA rebate programs enable us to do is expand and extend the number of customers that we can serve — but it’s not likely that it’s going to dramatically change the amount of incentive on any individual project,” Stoddard said. “That may be true in other states … where they’ve had no programs until this money came along, but that’s not the case in Maine.”
Several kinds of heat pump hot water heaters, for example, are basically free under current incentives, so Stoddard doesn’t expect to emphasize those for IRA funding.
Likewise, he doesn’t expect Maine’s single-family home insulation rebates will change. He said the IRA’s rules for modeling energy savings for these rebates could be onerous or too costly for individual customers.
Instead, Stoddard expects Maine to focus this pool of money again on multifamily buildings, where the IRA’s requirements may be easier to accommodate in bulk.
These rebates come from the efficiency portion of IRA, and will vary depending on how much energy the user will save — hence the need for modeling. But weatherization isn’t the only allowable path to achieving those savings, Stoddard said, meaning that multifamily buildings could also use this money for heat pumps.
State applications for this IRA funding have to include consumer education and outreach plans and other strategies, including a “market transformation plan” on how the use of this money will help lead to ongoing home energy investments.
Eberhard said Maine has already set a standard for this kind of transformation with its approach to heat pumps — working “upstream” with suppliers, distributors, contractors and retailers to make savings and resources as accessible as possible.
“If we had that in every state in the country, where you walked into Lowe’s [and heat pumps were front and center], and your contractor knew how to do it, and your distributor could take care of the rebate — that’s a real game-changer,” she said.
There’s no hard deadline for states to apply for the IRA rebate funds, and the money is available through the fall of 2031. But Dan Burgess, who heads the Maine Governor’s Energy Office, said efforts like those that Maine has already established should make its IRA rollout easier.
“I think we’re in a good place to put these funds to good use and to hopefully be one of the early states moving forward with a rebate program,” he said.
Maine is considering new kinds of electric rates to encourage more widespread home adoption of electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps while easing the strain these technologies add to the power grid.
Central Maine Power, the larger of the state’s two investor-owned utilities, is working with regulators and advocacy groups on designs for time-of-use rates, which charge customers more for electricity use at times of day when demand on the grid is at its peak.
But these rates are only one piece of the puzzle, stakeholders say. They anticipate more planning work to come on complementary technologies that will make it easier for customers to change their energy use.
Time-of-use and related tools to limit and shift electricity demand are currently most common among larger commercial and industrial customers, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. But as home electrification accelerates, some utilities have begun trying out similar programs for residential ratepayers.
Central Maine Power is currently piloting seasonal heating and electrification-focused rates, and the smaller Maine utility, Versant Power, has its own time-of-use programs for heat pumps and electric vehicle charging already in place.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission is working to expand time-of-use rates on multiple fronts, including in one proceeding that was required as part of the June settlement in Central Maine Power’s latest rate case. The utility, which is owned by Connecticut-based Avangrid, is due to file a proposal on the issue Dec. 1.
“I personally believe that there’s a great opportunity here for all of our policy goals to be advanced,” said deputy Maine public advocate Drew Landry, whose office acts as an ombudsperson for residential utility customers. “But if we do it wrong, there’s a chance that we could undermine all of them.”
Transportation and buildings are Maine’s top sources of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. This underlies the state climate plan’s ambitious goals for expanding the use of electric vehicles and heat pumps, which use electricity for high-efficiency water and space heating as well as air conditioning.
Maine relies more than any other state on home heating oil but has made strong progress on switching to heat pumps, already meeting its initial target of installing 100,000 new units by 2025. The large, rural state is also hoping to accelerate its so-far slow progress on electric vehicle adoption.
The utilities commission’s goals for its ongoing time-of-use work with Central Maine Power and other stakeholders are to “incentivize customers to shift usage away from the summer peak,” encourage wintertime use of heat pumps and other efficient systems, and complement state rebate and discount programs for this kind of technology.
In its upcoming proposal, the utility must consider at least four alternative rate designs specific to electric vehicles and heat pumps and consider a rebate program for customers who successfully reduce their electricity usage at peak times. The utility is also asked to propose a “customer education and communication plan” on these initiatives, and will have to draft data-gathering plans to aid in future, similar rate design processes.
Rates in this particular proceeding would fit under the distribution charge on customers’ bills. A separate ongoing docket looks at tying similar rates to the supply charge, which is a larger part of ratepayers’ costs.
Landry, the deputy public advocate, said more use of heat pumps and electric vehicles is sure to drive up New England’s peak demand, which typically falls between 5 and 9 p.m. in summer and, increasingly, winter.
Absent large-scale energy storage, Landry said, this increased demand could exceed available renewable power supplies, potentially adding to emissions. New England’s grid remains largely reliant on natural gas and, in recent years’ cold snaps, has tended to burn oil and coal as its backup fuels.
Widespread electrification will require significant and costly investment in transmission and distribution infrastructure, stakeholders say, no matter how rates are designed.
But they see time-of-use as a way to moderate that impact. These rates, Landry said, send a price signal that encourages electricity use at “off-peak” times when it will be easier and cheaper on the grid — nudging people, for example, to wait to charge their cars until near bedtime as opposed to right after work.
The solution is less straightforward for heat pumps, but Landry said pre-heating with a smart thermostat or using an electric thermal storage system could help limit the need for intensive heating during peak hours.
Landry and others agreed that helping customers access technology to manage their electricity use — and making it extremely simple to navigate related rate changes — will be vital to success.
“There needs to be careful consideration and effective implementation of consumer protections to make sure that it doesn’t create financial hardships for customers who are either low-income and/or have high energy burdens, in this time of high electricity prices,” said Phelps Turner, a senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, which is an intervenor in the distribution-focused utilities commission proceeding.
Landry said he feels customers need “an action they can take in response to the price signal.” Otherwise, the rates “may simply penalize customers for using electricity when they have limited options,” he said, or “may be perceived as being burdensome,” creating a potential backlash.
Efficiency Maine, the quasi-governmental agency that runs energy rebate programs for the state, already offers a “load management” incentive of $50 upfront plus $50 a year for electric vehicle drivers who give the agency permission and electronic access to set their cars to charge automatically overnight by default.
“Study after study shows that the cost of our transition, very broadly — like the amount of generation, transmission, distribution that we need to fully electrify our economy — is dramatically lower the more load control you have associated with it,” said Ian Burnes, the agency’s director of strategic initiatives. He referenced a recently published draft study from ISO-New England, the regional grid manager, showing that transmission costs to accommodate increased load rise sharply with higher peak demand.
This means programs like Maine’s existing electric vehicle incentive will be important pairings to any future time-of-use rates, he said. “What we’re trying to build off of is to have devices that can respond to prices,” he said, “so the customer just has to say, ‘I’m just going to set this up once,’ and then the device does the work for them.”
With Central Maine Power’s initial time-of-use plans still in progress, there are open questions remaining around whether participation should be “opt-in,” and whether and how these rates might apply only to people who use relevant technologies or to all ratepayers.
Either way, customer education will be key, said the Conservation Law Foundation’s Turner — either ensuring that ratepayers understand the benefits of signing up if the rates are voluntary, or offering easy steps they can take to avoid penalties and achieve cost savings if the rates are automatically applied.
Burnes said he also hopes that more data-gathering by the utilities and agencies like his will help assess the “fairness” of current and future electrification-focused rates.
Smart meters will be one tool to achieve this, he said, with a goal of determining whether new rates only make power cheaper for some more than for others, or whether they create savings across the system.
Wisconsin will lose out on millions of federal dollars for electric vehicle charging infrastructure if the state does not pass legislation to allow stores or other owners of EV chargers to bill drivers for the amount of electricity they get when they plug in.
Billing by the kilowatt-hour is a requirement to participate in the federal National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, which has promised Wisconsin $78.6 million and the chance to apply for a pot of $2.5 billion in competitive funding if it meets the program requirements.
The goal of NEVI is to develop charging corridors along highways, with chargers available every 50 miles.
Advocates are hoping for legislation that would make the change needed for federal funding, by enshrining in law that billing for electricity at an EV charger is allowed and would not make the owner a public utility.
The legislature takes a break from Nov. 16 to January 16, hence advocates say time is of the essence to meet the March 2024 deadline for federal funding.
Legislation allowing billing by the kilowatt-hour was introduced in 2021 but didn’t pass. Advocates say they are expecting Republican state Sen. Howard Marklein to introduce a bill this fall. A spokesperson for Marklein’s office said they expect the bill to be circulated for co-sponsors next week.
“We have a sense of urgency we didn’t have last year,” said Francisco Sayu, director of emerging technology for RENEW Wisconsin. “That limitation on electric vehicle charging stations has slowed down the Wisconsin market. We don’t have as many EV charging providers in the state as we could.”
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has a plan for deploying charging stations in keeping with the NEVI requirements, but the law change is needed to receive the funds.
Currently in Wisconsin, entities from municipal governments to convenience stores that host chargers can only collect a parking fee or bill for the amount of time a vehicle is plugged in.
“We may be the only state left in jeopardy of losing federal funding for EV corridors,” said Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin (CUB).
The consulting firm EVAdoption reported that in fall 2021, there were 2,251 charging stations in Illinois, 1,226 in Minnesota and 881 in Wisconsin, including level one and two and fast-charging stations. There are 15,700 electric vehicles registered in Wisconsin, compared to 66,880 in Illinois and 24,330 in Minnesota, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Even adjusting for Illinois’ larger population, Wisconsin still lags on both fronts.
Electric vehicle advocates and owners say Wisconsin’s charging network is woefully lacking, making it harder to rely on an electric vehicle in the state.
Corey Singletary, utility analyst for CUB, testified before the Public Service Commission about a road trip he took with his family in their electric Ford 150 Lightning pickup, from Madison to Minneapolis along Interstate 94.
This heavily-traveled corridor proved difficult to traverse with an electric vehicle: at one Electrify America charging station, two out of four chargers were inoperable, there was a half-hour wait for the remaining chargers, and they delivered less power than expected. The family had a similar experience at a different charging station on the return journey.
Singletary’s testimony came in a rate case for Xcel Energy, which is seeking the commission’s permission for its subsidiary Northern States Power Company to operate two fast-charging hubs. Singletary said CUB is in favor of the move. Ideally, he said, the state needs more chargers operated both by utilities and by public and private entities.
“One of the questions is whether or not it’s appropriate for monopoly companies like the public utilities to own and operate EV charging stations,” Singletary said. “There is a concern or belief that utilities will be able to leverage their monopoly position to disadvantage other third parties.”
But since the EV charging market is so nascent, more utility participation could actually jumpstart private investment.
“If things can be provided more efficiently and effectively by a competitive provider, that’s great,” Singletary said. “But right now, there’s not really effective competition in the EV charging space, so the bar is very low. If you allow utilities like Xcel and MGE to kickstart this space and get some utility-owned chargers out there, and if they are all subject to regulation, you set a minimum bar for everyone else to clear, and that helps all consumers.”
In a rate case before the commission, MGE is proposing to change to billing by the kilowatt-hour. Utilities are allowed to bill by the kilowatt-hour without legislation but still need commission approval for changes.
MGE owns 53 EV chargers. That includes 13 DC Fast Chargers – eight of those at a fast-charging hub in downtown Madison – and 40 Level 2 chargers around the area. The utility charges $5 an hour for fast-chargers and $2 an hour for slow chargers.
In testimony before the Public Service Commission, MGE rates director Brian Pennington noted that in 2017 most chargers could deliver about 50 kilowatts, and now many deliver 350 kilowatts.
“This is a seven‐fold increase in power,” Pennington testified. “Likewise, auto manufacturers are increasingly rolling out EV models capable of charging at these higher DC currents. This equates to much more energy being transferred from the grid to the EV’s battery than was possible in previous EV models. Because the MGE public charging tariff has been based on the time spent charging instead of the energy delivered, newer and often more expensive models are able to take advantage of the existing billing structure.”
MGE spokesperson Steve Schultz said that the utility wants to make sure ratepayers who don’t have EVs are not paying unfair amounts to subsidize the utility’s investments in EV charging infrastructure. The current billing model allows vehicles to get a lot of energy for a small fee, and MGE ratepayers are picking up the slack.
“Energy-based public charging will better reflect the costs and benefits of the energy being delivered from the charger to the EV, and thereby reduce cost inequities among customers,” said Schultz.
The EV charging issue in Wisconsin has dovetailed with an ongoing larger debate related to utilities protecting their turf as the energy landscape shifts.
Wisconsin utilities have stridently opposed third-party ownership of solar installations, since — they argue — a company owning a solar installation and providing the energy to the homeowner, church, municipal agency or other entity means the developer is acting like a utility. Solar advocates have long asked the legislature, the Public Service Commission and the courts to provide clarity on the legality of third-party ownership of rooftop solar, so far to no avail.
Meanwhile a bill that would allow third-party ownership of community solar is pending in the legislature.
Utilities have similarly argued that a government or business charging by the kilowatt-hour at EV chargers means they are acting like a utility, selling electricity. That issue and the fact that charging a set fee is likely less lucrative makes it relatively unattractive for companies to develop EV chargers in the state.
“It’s a very risky proposition to come to Wisconsin and risk being labeled a public utility,” said Sayu. “If I was a private investor looking to get into EV charging, I wouldn’t want to run the risk of becoming a public utility. Basically we just want an exception for EV charging, that you can sell electricity to the public [through chargers] without being regulated as a public utility, and that’s it.”
Utilities still stand to benefit from privately-run EV chargers in their territory, since the entity running the charger ultimately needs to buy their electricity from the utility.
Previously, utilities pushed for proposed legislation to ban EV charging hubs powered by on-site renewable energy, since that could disconnect them completely from the utility. This provision was unpopular with clean energy advocates.
Sayu said that realistically an off-grid, renewable-powered EV charging station would not be a good financial proposition, and developers are unlikely to undertake such projects. Among other issues, NEVI funding requires that four vehicles be able to charge at once.
“In order to do that from an off-grid EV charging station you’d have to have a significant amount of solar or wind and a significant amount of storage,” Sayu said. “If you were to build one of those stations today attached to the grid, you’re looking at spending between $700,000 to a million dollars. If you did it off-grid, you’re looking at $15-17 million. No one would build that in a state that has less than 1% EVs.”
In other states, non-utility entities that operate charging stations generally can set their own prices.
“Companies like EVGo and Electrify America have moved away from postage stamp pricing where all rates are the same, making it more locational,” said Singletary. “There is a move in the EV charging industry to have rates more reflective of cost of providing electricity to a particular charging station.”
Such entities could theoretically charge different rates based on time of day too, to encourage charging at low-demand times, which could be seen as “economics 101,” Singletary said.
But “if you are using a DC fast charger on a road trip to Chicago or Minneapolis, you really don’t have a choice — you need to charge when you need to charge,” hence a time-of-day rate would not be an incentive.
“Now in the state of Wisconsin we don’t even have that opportunity to engage in that discussion,” Singletary said, “because everyone but public utilities is relegated to charging essentially a parking fee.”
Correction: Francisco Sayu of Renew Wisconsin estimated that building an off-grid electric vehicle charging station would cost between $15 million and $17 million. A previous version of this story misquoted the number.
This article was originally published by Stateline, an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Automakers are planning to put nearly 1 million new electric vehicles on American roads in 2022. Lawmakers are trying to make sure their states are ready.
“We will see a lot more emphasis on electric vehicles in 2022 and 2023,” said Dylan McDowell, deputy director of the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a collaborative forum for state lawmakers. “This is the start of a really big turning point.”
Across the country, legislatures in blue and red states are considering bills to bolster charging infrastructure, expand consumer incentives, electrify state fleets or mandate charging stations in new buildings. States also will be tasked with deploying billions in new federal funds for charging stations approved in the new infrastructure law, and some legislators say they plan to take an active role in that strategy.
“Every state is involved,” said Marc Geller, a board member and spokesperson for the Electric Vehicle Association, an advocacy group that promotes the adoption of such vehicles. “This is being taken seriously in a way it hasn’t been before, because the trajectory is very clear.”
In the United States, the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, making up nearly 30% of the national total. While many states have plans to switch to renewable electricity sources, reducing vehicle emissions — with millions of drivers making personal buying choices about their cars — is much more complicated. But as the private-sector market for electric vehicles matures, many lawmakers see an opportunity.
Electric vehicle sales in the United States doubled in 2021 compared with 2020, and car buyers in 2022 will have twice as many electric models from which to choose. As the market grows quickly, state lawmakers say they’re focused on making sure infrastructure keeps up, and — in what is perhaps the greater challenge — ensuring that electric vehicle benefits aren’t just enjoyed by their wealthiest residents.
State leaders of all political stripes say they want to ensure their states are ready for the electric vehicle transition. Democratic-led states have typically been more aggressive about that transition through government regulation and mandates, such as the stringent emissions standards set out in California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program. Many Republican states have invested in other efforts such as charging infrastructure and conversion of state vehicle fleets.
Still, some Republicans argue that market forces, rather than public investments or mandates, should be left to work. Some GOP-led states have introduced or passed bills to block their local governments from requiring charging stations in certain locations.
Hawaii ranks No. 2 in the nation behind California for electric vehicle adoption, and lawmakers there are especially active in pushing a suite of proposals to strengthen that transition.
“We’re just at the inflection point where we’re about to take off in a huge way,” said Hawaii state Sen. Chris Lee, the Democrat who chairs the Transportation Committee. “Our charging capacity has been greatly outstripped by the number of EVs out there. We need a lot more capacity, and quickly.”
Hawaii legislators are looking to build more charging stations for rental cars, which make up a significant portion of the tourism-heavy state’s electric vehicles. They’re planning to use federal funds to create charging hubs. Other proposals would put in place a requirement for charging stations in public parking lots and a new consumer rebate for electric vehicle purchases, with a focus on lower-income communities.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in both Indiana and Wisconsin are backing bills that would allow the owners of charging stations to sell electricity by the kilowatt-hour, rather than by the minute—an allowance previously reserved for regulated utilities. That would benefit drivers of slower-charging vehicles. Sponsors say the bills would allow businesses to play a greater role in providing charging infrastructure.
Democratic lawmakers in Vermont also are considering a broad swath of electric vehicle policies, packaged together in the Transportation Innovation Act. The proposal would increase funding for the state’s consumer incentive programs, create a grant program to fund electric school and transit buses, accelerate timelines for electrifying the state fleet, fund grants for charging stations and require large employers to provide charging stations for their workers.
“Our goal is to show our priorities, and we have a lot of different pieces around EVs,” said state Rep. Rebecca White, a Democrat who helped craft the measure. “It might feel like we’re throwing the kitchen sink at it.”
White said the bill’s 60 cosponsors offered it as their “opening salvo” on a transportation package ahead of negotiations with Republican Gov. Phil Scott. Scott’s office did not respond to an inquiry about his stance on the electric vehicle policies.
Many Democratic governors also have put forward electric vehicle proposals as key elements of their 2022 agenda.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, has proposed $100 million in funding for a rebate program to help drivers afford electric vehicles. The program would provide a $7,500 rebate for new vehicle purchases, with an additional $5,000 for low-income residents. Used vehicles would qualify for a $5,000 rebate. The program would be capped to exclude residents making more than $250,000, and it would not apply to expensive car models.
“A real focus for the governor is making sure we’re increasing access to electric vehicles and not just subsidizing purchases for people who were already inclined to buy electric vehicles,” said Anna Lising, Inslee’s senior energy adviser.
Inslee’s budget also proposes $23 million to build out charging infrastructure and $33 million to help transit agencies switch to “clean alternative fuel” buses.
“I haven’t seen as much engagement [on electric vehicle policies] as I have this year,” Lising said. “We’re starting to see it shift significantly.”
In California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing more than $6 billion in investments to speed up electric vehicle adoption. More than $250 million would be targeted to assist low-income consumers, with another $900 million to build chargers in underserved neighborhoods.
“The [state electric vehicle rebate program] has traditionally been more subscribed [to] by wealthier Californians,” Jared Blumenfeld, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, said in a press call. “In this clean transportation revolution, the next phase is making sure that low-income communities and communities of color are able to take advantage.”
Newsom’s budget also proposes nearly $4 billion to electrify heavy-duty trucks, transit and school buses.
Some Republican governors also are seeking to invest in electric vehicles. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, for example, has promoted investments in electric vehicles and charging stations. The state’s tax credit for electric vehicle purchases expired last year during the pandemic, and state leaders are considering incentive plans to replace it.
“We have to continue to dramatically accelerate the adoption of EVs,” said Ben Grumbles, the state secretary of the environment. “The focus right now is the range of incentives that we can put in place.”
Grumbles said the Hogan administration also is looking to speed up electrification of the state vehicle fleet, as well as school buses.
Maryland Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo, a Democrat, has long advocated for electric vehicle adoption, and he thinks his colleagues are increasingly on board.
“There’s a critical mass building of more and more EV bills,” he said.
Fraser-Hidalgo plans to introduce an incentive program, likely a tax credit, to encourage consumers to buy electric vehicles. Another bill would allow school districts to partner with utilities to acquire electric school buses.
“It’s not just climate change, it’s public health,” he said. “We’re taking our kids and sticking them in a cube and filling that cube with diesel fumes.”
Other Republican governors have made efforts to ready their states for the electric vehicle transition, but still think government should play a limited role.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, signed a bill in 2020 requiring the state to craft a master plan for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. In 2021, though, he signed legislation that blocks local governments from requiring their gas stations to add charging stations.
The federal infrastructure package Congress passed last year includes $7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations, with $5 billion given directly to the states. Some Republicans oppose the use of government funds to support electric vehicle adoption.
“The vast majority of this bill is brimming with wasteful spending that advances radical Green New Deal policies, including billions of dollars for carbon capture programs, federally subsidized electric vehicle charging stations, and zero-emission bus grants for intercity transit,” U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Georgia Republican, wrote in a news release after the bill passed in the House.
But the funding has gotten the attention of even conservative states that have otherwise shown little interest in climate policy.
Missouri, for instance, will receive $99 million to expand electric vehicle charging over five years from the package. Brian Quinn, a spokesperson for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, said the agency plans to collaborate with the Missouri Department of Transportation to deploy chargers along national highways. The state also plans to help schools apply for new federal funding for electric buses. States must provide a 20% match for the funds they receive under the federal charging program.
Michigan expects to receive $110 million of the charging funds.
“The federal resources mark a huge turning point for the state of Michigan,” Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, a Democrat, said in an interview. “This will get a lot of people over the hump in making the choice to have their next vehicle be an EV. This year is going to be the one that makes the difference.”
Lawmakers in Michigan voted last month to create a $1 billion incentive fund to attract economic investment, including the prospect of a battery plant for electric vehicles. The state has partnered with its Midwestern neighbors to form a coalition focused on a regional network of charging stations, and it also is investing in a workforce development plan to ready residents for jobs in the electric vehicles industry.
In New York, state officials expect to receive $175 million from the feds.
“As more EVs are on the road, the business case for installing charging stations gets better and better,” said Adam Ruder, assistant director for clean transportation with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. “We’re trying to get to that point where it becomes a self-sustaining market. This infrastructure money and the other investments we’re making can really help us get there.”
Some New York officials want mandates. State Sen. Liz Krueger, a Democrat, has sponsored a bill that would require newly constructed buildings to include wiring for electric vehicle chargers in a certain amount of their parking spaces.
“The sooner we start, the more affordable it’s going to be for everybody,” said Justin Flagg, Krueger’s director of environmental policy. “When we get ourselves to that big shift in the makeup of the vehicle fleet and suddenly realize we have to transition all these buildings, we’re going to have to figure something out.”
In Colorado, state Rep. Alex Valdez, a Democrat, is crafting similar legislation that would require a certain percentage of parking spaces in new buildings to be wired for chargers. Valdez, who lives in a Denver high-rise building and drives an electric car, said the bill is informed by his own experience.
“I found out firsthand that these buildings weren’t built with the idea that down the road cars would be powered by electricity,” he said. “This is an opportunity to make sure that we’re doing it right going forward.”
But some mandates have drawn pushback in other states.
Missouri state Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican, has proposed a bill that would block cities and counties from requiring their businesses or buildings to install charging stations. Murphy said St. Louis County’s mandate requires any business that wants to resurface its parking lot to spend thousands of dollars on charging stations. His bill would require that governments mandating chargers also provide funds to pay for them.
“There’s no feeling that we should stop the growth of EVs, that’s the future,” Murphy said. “But you can’t put it on the backs of small businesses and churches. If we’re going to make the little guy pay for it, I’m going to champion against it.”
Many states, including those that strongly promote electric vehicles, impose extra fees on the vehicles’ drivers, who don’t pay gasoline taxes. The fees are a way to ensure road funding stays intact as more drivers switch to electric. But electric vehicles advocates are wary of plans to adopt or increase those fees.
“We need to come up with really good policies to ensure we have the revenue to keep roads maintained,” said Geller with the Electric Vehicle Association. “But early in the [transition] process is not the time to impose such additional fees that only make a prospective purchaser think twice.”
Some states are exploring a vehicle-miles-traveled fee, which would charge drivers based on mileage rather than gas consumption. California expanded a pilot program on such fees last year. Other states, including Massachusetts and Minnesota, have bills pending that would create similar programs.
As states accelerate the pace of electric vehicle adoption, their gas tax revenues will start to dwindle, and lawmakers are still trying to determine how to replace that funding. The issue likely will take on greater urgency in future legislative sessions as the transition continues.
Burlington, Vermont’s municipal electric utility is expanding a program that gives apartment renters more access to electric vehicle charging.
Originally launched as a pilot in 2019, the program gives apartment building owners a financial incentive to install chargers and make them available to the public. The chargers use a software called EVmatch, which drivers can access through a smartphone app to reserve and pay for charging times.
“The primary focus here is to benefit customers of Burlington Electric who are renters or residents of a multifamily condo building,” said Darren Springer, the utility’s general manager. He said 60% or more of Burlington Electric’s residential customers rent apartments, and the utility wants to make it easier for them to drive electric vehicles.
Springer added that the program could benefit the broader public — not just Burlington residents but drivers who are passing through as well.
The new program is expected to roll out in the coming weeks. Building owners who install a smart charger compatible with EVmatch can get a $1,200 incentive to cover installation. If it’s a building that serves low-income residents, the owner can get an extra $250. And if they make the charger available to the public, they can get an extra $300.
The incentive will be available for each charger the building owner installs, covering up to 75% of the installation cost for each charger. Springer expects it will cover a little more than half the cost of the charger and installation in most cases.
Building owners can choose a charger that’s not compatible with EVmatch and just make it available for tenants to use at no additional cost, in which case they could get a $1,000 incentive toward installation and the extra $250 if they serve low-income residents.
Springer described the program as “a real success story for bringing these different seed stage energy companies to Vermont” through the DeltaClime accelerator program. DeltaClime each year provides funding and mentoring to new energy-focused companies, and the 2019 round led to the pilot that Burlington Electric launched with EVmatch.
Through EVmatch, a sort of Airbnb for electric vehicle charging, owners of compatible chargers can make them available for drivers to reserve. The owner of the charger sets the price — they can charge just for the electricity or make a profit by selecting a price markup.
The pilot in Burlington, which began with 14 chargers at apartment buildings, condos and other multifamily residences, was the first time EVmatch deployed a feature that lets owners allow different groups to use the charger at certain times and prices. In other words, a building owner could make the charger available at any hour to tenants and make it available to the public only during the daytime.
In the original pilot, building owners received a $500 incentive toward installation of a publicly available EVmatch-compatible charger. Ten chargers in the original program were made publicly available, leading officials to believe many chargers under the new program will likely be made publicly available.
Springer said officials are confident the program will be successful since the pilot demonstrated demand for chargers by building owners and drivers. “The EVmatch pilot demonstrated for Burlington Electric that the approach EVmatch offered in terms of software, billing and their app worked well for our customers and for participating multifamily, rental and condo buildings,” he said. “It gave us real-world data and experience with EVmatch’s technology.”
He added that the utility’s customers have expressed interest in expanding charging for the public, for low-income residents and for apartment renters. “This program is aimed at doing exactly that,” he said.
Funding for the new program comes through expanded flexibility for Vermont’s efficiency utilities (which includes Burlington Electric) to fund programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as from Burlington Electric’s “Tier III” budget. This segment of the budget requires electric utilities to use a certain percentage of sales for projects that reduce fossil fuel use. The program has been budgeted to support about 50 to 60 chargers over the next two years, but Springer added that the budget could be amended if there’s higher demand for chargers.
According to Heather Hochrein, EVmatch’s CEO, making the charger public can serve as a financial buffer for building owners who want to install chargers when their tenants don’t yet have the cars to use them. Conversely, once the chargers become available, tenants might be more willing to get an electric vehicle.
“We’re very excited about this new program,” Hochrein said. She said the pilot in Burlington demonstrated that chargers in multifamily buildings are being used by the public. The incentive Burlington Electric is offering building owners to install chargers is helpful to increase uptake of EVmatch, she added.
The California Energy Commission last year awarded a grant to the company toward the installation of 120 EVmatch-enabled chargers at multifamily buildings in the state. The chargers will be made publicly available using the same user group feature originally launched in Burlington.
Damon Lane, who owns a four-unit rental property in which he lives and rents out the other units, was one of the original participants in the program.
“My intention was always for it to be publicly available,” he said. Neither Lane nor any of the people living in his building own an electric vehicle. But since it’s located near Burlington’s downtown and in a residential area where many people rent apartments, he thought it could be useful for the public.
Through the pilot, Lane got an Enel X JuiceBox charger. The chargers were provided free through the program to owners of multifamily residences, but he paid $30 to get a higher-power charger than what was offered through the program. (It would have cost about $680.) He also received the $500 incentive toward a $910 installation for making it public.
These incentives helped him substantially, he said, because “unless I was going to charge an outrageous rate [on EVmatch], I was never going to recover the installation cost.” And with the EVmatch software to help with booking and billing, he said, “it is quite easy to provide this service to the community.”
Connecticut environmental officials are pushing for legislation that would grant condo owners and renters the right to install their own car chargers, part of a broader effort to dramatically expand the state’s electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
The so-called right-to-charge legislation would prevent condominium and homeowners’ associations, as well as landlords, from prohibiting or “unreasonably” restricting residents who have a designated parking space from installing charging equipment.
Individual residents would be responsible for paying all of the costs associated with the purchase and installation of a charger, which can easily exceed $1,000. But a new state incentive program launched in January could help defray the expense.
Homeowners can receive rebates of up to $500 for a Level 2 charger, as well as up to $500 for any electrical upgrades that might be needed. Various incentives are available for multi-unit rentals, either through the landlord or tenants. Participants can also receive additional credits for charging their vehicles in off-peak hours under demand response programs administered by Eversource and United Illuminating.
A right-to-charge law will help ensure that “the opportunities available to single-family home dwellers to own electric vehicles and participate in demand response programs are also available to those who live in multi-unit dwellings,” about 11% of Connecticut residents, said state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Commissioner Katie Dykes in testimony submitted to the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee.
At least eight states have similar laws in place: New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Virginia, Oregon, Maryland and Florida.
But at a recent public hearing on the Connecticut bill, organizations representing condominium associations and landlords opposed the measure, saying it is a “one size fits all” approach to housing developments that vary widely in size, layout, infrastructure and parking availability.
Andrea Dunn, a condominium association lawyer from North Haven, said installing individual chargers “may be impossible” in some communities due to challenges such as a lack of an electrical source close to parking areas, thereby requiring the digging up of land, sidewalks and other common elements.
“Even if the unit owner is paying for it, it affects other members of the community,” she said.
Karl Kuegler, Jr., director of community association management for Imagineers LLC, which manages about 200 common interest communities in Connecticut, said many of the standalone garages with multiple bays commonly found at these complexes “have barely enough electricity to supply the lighting and a couple of utility outlets within the building.”
Condominium lawyers had similar concerns when right-to-charge legislation came before New Jersey lawmakers in 2020, but they were able to amend the language to address those issues, said Matthew Earle, an attorney who chairs the legislative action committee for the state chapter of the Community Association Institute.
For example, “one big concern was that older complexes may not have the electrical infrastructure sufficient to handle more than a couple of chargers,” he said.
So the law includes a provision that says if charger installations are going to require infrastructure improvements to provide a sufficient supply of electricity, the association can assess that cost to the charger owners in a pro rata way.
Since its passage, Earle says he has not heard any reports of negative impacts. At the same time, he also hasn’t seen many car charger applications within the communities he works with. Instead, the trend is toward associations installing communal car chargers.
“They are taking advantage of a state program that will provide up to $30,000 to install one — it’s very popular right now,” Earle said. “It seems like a better way of doing it.”
In such cases, buildings partner with a third-party vendor that provides the software that regulates the station and charges vehicle owners for plugging in, he said.
Connecticut’s charger incentive program offers up to $20,000 for charging equipment installed at a multi-unit development, and up to $40,000 in underserved communities.
But communal chargers run by third-party vendors may not be the most equitable solution in buildings that house people of lower means, said Marc Geller, a co-founder of Plug In America, a national nonprofit advocacy group for electric vehicle drivers.
“The real problem with a third party doing it is that folks in multifamily housing end up paying more for electricity to charge their car than folks in a single-family home,” he said. “Solving this problem for multi-family homes is a major equity concern, and there is not just one solution.”
Right-to-charge laws “go some way to give folks the possibility of installing charging, but it can be quite expensive to do it,” he said.
Where possible, he said, he believes the best approach is to connect a parking space to an individual unit’s meter, so that the resident can simply charge on a regular 120-volt circuit. It’s slower than a Level 2 charger, but it allows the resident to charge at utility rates and without a lot of additional expense, he said.
Gannon Long, director of policy and public affairs at Operation Fuel, which provides energy assistance to low-income households in Connecticut, said she hasn’t heard that the right to charge is of any concern to the financially burdened residents of environmental justice communities.
“People aren’t worried about their right to charge — they’re worried about electricity and heating costs,” she said. “And most electric vehicles are way too expensive for most people to afford.”
Right-to-charge language is also included in Senate Bill 4, a comprehensive package that includes a host of measures to drive electric vehicle adoption, including expanding the state electric vehicle rebate program, and setting goals to electrify all school buses and state-owned vehicles. A public hearing is scheduled for Friday.
A bill progressing through the Wisconsin legislature was meant to spur the expansion of electric vehicle charging by confirming that private businesses can sell electricity to drivers at charging stations.
But amendments to the bill have turned electric vehicle proponents against it. The current version would ban government entities from owning or leasing charging stations and would only allow stations to charge for electricity that comes from utilities — not from on-site solar installations.
Clean energy proponents including Renew Wisconsin now say they want Gov. Tony Evers to veto the bill if it passes the legislature with those provisions intact. The Assembly version of the bill has passed committees and could be heard by the full House in coming days.
Scores of private businesses in Wisconsin currently own EV charging stations and bill customers for the energy. But advocates fear utility opposition could shut them down at any moment, especially if utilities decide to build their own charging networks, potentially earning a rate of return in the process.
As a shift to electric vehicles appears increasingly inevitable, the Wisconsin debate highlights the growing fight across the country over who will control and benefit most from that transition.
The situation has much in common with the state’s long-standing angst over third-party-owned solar installations. Utilities have argued such arrangements infringe on their exclusive rights to deliver power to customers, hence third-party solar is essentially impossible in Wisconsin even though no law bans it. A bill currently before lawmakers would clarify that third-party solar ownership is legal, and another bill would facilitate community solar with third-party ownership. The EV bill in the state Senate was introduced by Sen. Robert Cowles, a Republican who is also the lead sponsor of the third-party-solar bills.
“All three bills have this thread of the utility wants to make sure nobody can sell any kind of electricity in any form,” said Jim Boullion, government affairs director of Renew Wisconsin. He noted that at least 34 states have laws specifically differentiating EV charging from utility service. He said only five states — Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, South Carolina and Virginia — have adopted policies restricting EV charging station ownership beyond utilities.
“We’re talking about a different industry than the ‘obligation to serve’ that the utilities have — they’re now expanding into transportation fuels,” Boullion continued. “We think the regulatory system is good and we need it, but the way things are changing in the world, having these strict limits is really hampering the growth of this clean affordable energy source. There has to be some flexibility in the model we’ve had for 120 years to acknowledge this new technology.”
Companion bills SB573 and AB588 explicitly allow private entities to own EV charging stations and bill customers for connecting to them (or “parking near” them). The bills also specify that billing can be done by either time or amount of energy used. Clean energy advocates want to clarify that billing by kilowatt-hours is indeed legal, since billing by time disadvantages customers with cars that charge more slowly or customers charging in cold weather (which slows charging speed).
Legal clarity can further the spread of charging stations across the state, advocates argue, especially as the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act could mean up to $79 million over five years for EV charging in Wisconsin, according to Renew’s analysis. There are currently 379 public charging stations (level 2 or DC fast-charging) in Wisconsin, according to the Alternative Fuels Data Center. They are most heavily concentrated in the southeast and tourist-friendly Door County, with relatively few in the northern half of the state.
As eager as they are for clarification, advocates say the status quo is better than a law that bans sales from government-owned charging stations or charging stations powered by solar. (The bill would still allow both types if they don’t sell power.)
The bill would mean cities and towns could not build for-pay charging stations in municipal parking garages or along commercial strips, for example. The League of Wisconsin Municipalities representing almost 600 towns and cities notes in a letter to legislators that it will revoke its original support of the bill if the amendments remain intact.
League government affairs director Toni Herkert framed it as an issue of equity in her December 2021 letter:
“A complete prohibition against municipalities owning, operating, managing, leasing, or controlling EV charging facilities does not allow for all areas of the state to be reliably served with charging facilities. Limiting entities that can provide charging facilities will simply result in the most profitable areas, where the market dictates successful investment, to be reliably served. We do not want electric vehicle charging opportunities to mirror the lack of market incentives witnessed for broadband investment in rural areas, it will again be those smaller and more rural communities that will be most impacted and under or unserved.”
Flo, a company that develops EV chargers along roads, also opposes that provision. In a letter, Flo senior public affairs specialist Cory Bullis said that such curbside charging stations are often built by local governments to encourage patronage of local commerce.
“Businesses aren’t motivated to single-handedly spend their own money on an asset that will benefit their competitors on the same block, nor are they willing to take on liability of owning an asset that is permitted on public property,” wrote Bullis. “City governments can step up to provide this value to multiple businesses simultaneously, ensuring everyone benefits.”
Bullis noted that Montreal has almost 1,000 curbside chargers, while New York City has 120 and Los Angeles has 200.
“The EV charging industry is still young and quickly evolving; this provision picks winners and losers among EV charging business models by expressly locking us out of the state,” Bullis wrote.
Advocates worry the bill would exacerbate drivers’ “range anxiety,” since the ban on for-pay charging stations owned by the government or powered by solar would make it harder to locate stations in remote and rural areas.
“If I’m going to the state park up north and have solar plus storage [powering an EV charger], then I do not have to run high-power lines out there” to install a charger, said Boullion.
The bill also would prevent businesses with their own solar panels from receiving payment for EV charging, unless they install a separate meter to ensure that no power from the solar panels goes to the EV charger, Boullion explained.
This could be a disincentive for the proliferation of both solar installations and EV charging stations, and it would curb rather than encourage the ideal clean transportation solution: vehicles powered directly by solar energy.
Bergstrom Automotive, a company in Neenah, Wisconsin, has an on-site microgrid capable of generating and storing up to 23 megawatt-hours of solar annually, enough for almost 500 electric vehicle charge-ups. The development was done by EnTech, a Wisconsin-based company that has also installed solar-plus-storage EV charging at a Madison shopping mall.
Even if businesses or governments sell some behind-the-meter or off-grid solar power to electric vehicles, without utilities getting a cut, advocates argue that EV proliferation is bound to be a boon for utilities. Solar-plus-storage arrangements helping to power EVs can reduce demand spikes and stress on the grid, and even power emergency vehicles or provide extra energy during outages, Renew said in testimony submitted to the legislature.
And the more charging stations there are available, the more people will feel comfortable buying electric vehicles. In most cases, the entity charging for use of the charging stations will be first buying that electricity from the utility. Meanwhile, utilities should also see their demand increase as more and more cars are charged at home.
“The utilities will gain a lot of business out of this,” Boullion said. “They will sell a lot of extra energy.”
BJ Johnson and Julie Blumreiter have nothing against electric trucks.
But the duo think the rush to electrify heavy-duty transportation misses an important reality and leaves a yawning gap, which they hope to fill with the engine technology they developed as doctoral students at Stanford University.
Blumreiter and Johnson co-founded ClearFlame Engine Technologies to market engine technology that allows trucks, generators and other motors to run on a variety of low-emissions fuels like ethanol, methanol or liquid ammonia. While these fuels are not zero emissions, various studies have shown pure ethanol’s life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are roughly 40% to 50% less than petroleum-based fuel.
Johnson and Blumreiter argue that it will take years to electrify trucking in the U.S., not to mention other countries, hence an affordable, low-emissions diesel-type engine that can run on various fuels can be a boon to reducing transportation sector emissions. The U.S. Department of Energy, industry sources and major investors have taken interest.
In 2017, Johnson and Blumreiter were chosen among the first cohort in Argonne National Laboratory’s Chain Reaction Innovations fellowship program, providing mentorship and access to Argonne’s emissions testing and other equipment. Blumreiter and Johnson moved to the Chicago area for the fellowship, where the company has been based since. ClearFlame has raised close to $50 million in series A and B funding, has about 50 employees and pilot projects underway with major corporations.
John Wall, former chief technology officer for the global engine maker Cummins, has been an adviser since the Stanford days. He sees ethanol-fueled trucks with ClearFlame technology providing an important “bridge” to zero-emissions transportation.
“Too many people want to say everything will be battery electric, let’s forget about anything else,” said Wall, who also previously worked in diesel research for Chevron. “I’m quite optimistic about battery electric in a number of applications, but some will be hard. Long haul trucking is one of them, and power generation. You don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. If you can get 40% emissions reductions now, let’s do that and work on the rest.”
Johnson and Blumreiter emphasize that their technology is also well-suited to developing countries, where electrification of transportation is not on the horizon, but feedstock for ethanol — like corn or sugar cane — is available. And depending on the market, ethanol may be significantly more affordable than diesel.
“This is not just a California solution, this is a global solution to a global problem,” Blumreiter said. “Fundamentally our technology is that we can make the diesel engine design and everything that is good about it operate on any fuel. You can choose fuel based on cost and regional availability.”
Several pilot projects are underway with trucks on the roads using engines retrofitted with ClearFlame technology. Blumreiter said she could not name the companies doing the pilots, but they involve at least one major truck stop company and fleet managers who sit on the startup’s fleet advisory council.
ClearFlame markets the technology to allow ethanol or other fuels to be burned in the same type of engine that burns diesel, but at a hotter temperature, which is necessary for ethanol and other fuels to combust.
“If you get it hot enough, anything burns,” Johnson said. “We changed the plumbing on the engine so these fuels operate fine. At its heart, it is very simple. The devil is in the details.”
ClearFlame relies on U.S.-based manufacturers to build its technology, which can be retrofitted into diesel engines. Ultimately they hope original equipment manufacturers like Cummins will decide to build engines with the technology.
Wall said he sees that as a very real possibility, since it is “easy” for a manufacturer to incorporate ClearFlame’s technology into standard diesel engines.
“If a customer calls up and says, ‘I’d like to buy a thousand engines like this every six months for 10 years,’ then you get very interested,” he said. “Now BJ and Julie are working with some of the big fleets to have them understand the technology. the feedback I’ve heard so far is quite positive.”
Testing has shown that ClearFlame’s engine technology achieves equal or greater torque compared to traditional diesel engines, and it eliminates the need for filtering out particulate matter and other after-treatment for pollution.
It’s easier to add pure ethanol to existing fueling stations, ClearFlame supporters say, compared to the infrastructure upgrades necessary for electric charging, or alternative fuels like compressed natural gas or hydrogen. Wall added that trucking companies often run trucks on a major transportation corridor — like Interstate 65 — for about four years, then the trucks are sold to work in regional markets or local deliveries. So adding electric charging or hydrogen infrastructure to major corridors would not support the existing truck market structure, but fueling stations throughout the country could provide pure ethanol, and ClearFlame engines could also burn E85 fuel — with 85% ethanol — that is already widely available.
Johnson said ClearFlame technology could also be used in marine engines, locomotives and other heavy equipment. Mining giant RioTinto is an investor, as the engine technology could help mining companies power their huge machines while reducing emissions. Wind Ventures, an affiliate of major Latin American energy company Copec, is also an investor. Johnson noted that excess wind energy could be used onsite to produce liquid ammonia fuel for ClearFlame engines.
“Trucks are our beachhead,” Johnson said. “One of the beauties of diesel engines is they get used everywhere. A lot of pieces of equipment have a diesel engine-shaped hole in the middle.”
The company CK Power is piloting ClearFlame’s technology in its mobile gensets, generators targeted for use in utility infrastructure and electric vehicle charging stations. Solar is increasingly used by utilities and for EV charging. But Clayton Costello, CK Power vice president of corporate strategy, said there is “no technology yet on the marketplace” that can replace a mobile fuel-burning generator in many situations.
“As there’s more federal spending [on reducing emissions] and customers have more demand for lower-emissions technology, we see a need in many industries for these types of platforms,” Costello said.
Blumreiter and Johnson say they feel they are going against the grain in the clean energy startup world, where much attention is focused on zero-emissions and electrification as opposed to low-emissions technologies; and where software and advanced materials are more common focuses than relatively straightforward hardware.
They are also somewhat non-traditional cleantech startup founders. Blumreiter is one of relatively few women in the space; and Johnson is African American and a former national team member in swimming, having started the sport late and peaked in the pool at the same time he was developing the engine technology.
“Competing at a very high level [in swimming] puts the challenges now in perspective,” said Johnson, who was ranked second in the U.S. and ninth in the world in 2013. “It’s not the first time I’ve tried to do something hard.”
He became deeply interested in climate change around when the film “Inconvenient Truth” was released, “and it became clear climate change would be the issue of our generation.”
Blumreiter grew up in Wisconsin and always had a keen interest in volunteering. As an undergraduate at Stanford, she took a class in thermodynamics because it was at a convenient time, but realized “this is it! Intellectually I was captured — hook, line and sinker.”
She figured her professional and humanitarian interests would progress on parallel paths, but with ClearFlame she feels like she is pursuing her passion for technology innovation while also making the world a better place, she said.
“It’s no surprise that people who are doing something that’s completely different than the prevailing approach to decarbonization are two people who don’t look like your average founders,” Blumreiter said. “That leads to us taking a more global view and never losing sight of affordability and equity as ingredients in what solutions get to market.”
Semi-trucks frequently run on ethanol blends or “renewable diesel” or biodiesel, widely available at service stations. But conventional diesel engines can’t run on pure ethanol or methanol.
Renewable diesel and biodiesel have higher particulate matter emissions than ethanol, while also coming from feedstocks that are not always easily and widely accessible — like animal fats and used cooking oil.
“Ethanol is two carbons and an oxygen and some hydrogen; diesel are larger-chain hydrocarbons, so is renewable diesel — it’s the longer chains that tend to form soot,” Blumreiter said.
Wall said that as the aviation industry tries to reduce emissions, renewable diesel is likely to be increasingly used, diverting availability from the lower-value trucking industry. Meanwhile, as electric cars become more prevalent, demand for ethanol-blend gasoline may go down, lowering ethanol’s market price and making it an even more attractive option for truck fuel, he theorized.
Ethanol has been widely criticized as a false hope for climate mitigation, since growing corn involves significant greenhouse gas emissions and also uses land that might otherwise be growing food. There has been much debate about ethanol’s life cycle carbon emissions compared to fossil fuels, but proponents argue that when best practices are used, its life cycle emissions are significantly lower than traditional diesel or gasoline.
“We didn’t set out to make an engine that ran on ethanol,” Blumreiter said. “Ethanol is something [the U.S.] invested in decades ago for energy security reasons. It wasn’t necessarily cheap or clean then, but it is now.”
Clean energy incentives like California’s Low Carbon Fuels Standard and Inflation Reduction Act funds for alternative fuels and fueling infrastructure could help the deployment of ClearFlame’s technology. Johnson said that funds from the Volkswagen settlement and the federal Diesel Emissions Reduction Act could also be used for retrofitted ethanol-burning engines.
But Blumreiter said she feels the company’s success isn’t dependent on incentives; she thinks affordability and convenience will drive deployment, after more testing and pilot programs are completed.
Johnson likes to think of ClearFlame as the “Tesla of heavy duty.”
“Tesla was close to a trillion dollars [in valuation] before OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] took electric vehicles seriously,” Johnson said. “We’re on fundamentally the same path. You have to go to the market, and prove people want this.”
.svg)
