Mass. outlines new strategy for getting customers and utilities off of natural gas

As Massachusetts works to zero-out planet warming emission by 2050, one big question has been how the state will wean itself off of natural gas and heat the majority of homes and buildings with electricity instead. One big obstacle has been gas utilities, which make money off of maintaining existing pipelines and building new infrastructure.

Now, after more than three years of considering the future of the natural gas industry in Massachusetts and what role it can play in the state’s efforts to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, the Department of Public Utilities issued an order Wednesday meant to signal to gas utilities that it won’t be business as usual going forward.

“I really do think that this is potentially the most transformative climate decision in Massachusetts history,” said Kyle Murray, a senior Massachusetts advocate with Acadia Center, a climate advocacy and research group. “The department really looked at everything and delivered a decision that is well thought out [and follows] the science and data and the available information.”

To read the full article from wbur, click here.

Acadia Center Applauds the Massachusetts D.P.U. for a Groundbreaking, Science-Backed Gas Utility Transition Order

Download the Press Release here: Acadia Center – MA DPU Gas Utility Order 20-80 Press Release

For Immediate Release
December 6, 2023
Media Contacts
Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.106

BOSTON — Today, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) issued a groundbreaking Order in Docket 20-80-B, focused on the role of gas utilities as the Commonwealth sets out to achieve its overarching climate target of net zero emissions by 2050. After more than three years of activity in the docket, including extensive participation and comments from Acadia Center and other stakeholders, today’s Order is a resounding victory for customers, the climate, and the Commonwealth at large. The DPU’s decision represents a pivot point in the Commonwealth’s strategy for decarbonizing the buildings sector and transitioning away from the natural gas distribution system that utilities operate today. Acadia Center applauds the DPU and its Commissioners and Staff for the leadership demonstrated in shepherding this impactful Order to issuance. Through this Order, as well as recent promising clean heating actions rejecting renewable natural gas (RNG) and hydrogen as viable gas system decarbonization measures, the Healey-Driscoll Administration is signaling a steadfast commitment to the vision of an efficient, electrified building stock enabled by sound, science-backed policy pathways.

Acadia Center stands ready and willing to work with the DPU and other stakeholders to make good on the promise of this Order and implement the DPU’s directives, with an emphasis on protecting those who may be most affected by this transition. This includes low-income and environmental justice communities, as well as the Commonwealth’s important union gas workforce, all of whom deserve a just and equitable transition through the subsequent steps that will now unfold. With these protections identified and prioritized, Acadia Center believes that Order can and should spur other states in the region to follow suit and add momentum to the Commonwealth’s leadership in this key area.

Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation at Acadia Center, said, “The Order today from the DPU has the potential to be one of the most transformative decisions in Massachusetts climate history. The Department took a hard look at all the options and delivered a decision that is well thought-out in both the macro and micro context. Best of all, the Department simply did what advocates have long been asking for: follow the science and data. For example, they reject adding renewable natural gas (RNG) into regular gas supply, not because of ideological reasons, but for reasons of cost, availability, and questionable greenhouse gas reductions. The Order also includes other major Acadia Center priorities, such as coordinated gas/electric system planning, as well as a strong endorsement of the central role for efficient, electric heating and cooling technologies such as heat pumps. This is a major win for Acadia Center and our allies, who spent countless hours over the past two years pushing for a just outcome in the 20-80 proceeding.”

Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs at Acadia Center, said, “Acadia Center congratulates Chair Van Nostrand, fellow Commissioners, and the DPU Staff for today’s landmark ruling, and we applaud the Healey-Driscoll Administration for tackling one of the climate and energy transition’s thorniest challenges – the future of the gas system – head-on. Implementation and follow-through will be incredibly important, as always. But with the foundation laid by this Order, thoughtful planning can now ensure positive outcomes in key areas such as customer affordability, low income protections and conversion prioritization, a just transition for union gas workers, and holistic infrastructure planning and management. Today’s outcome will undoubtedly herald the start of a new chapter for building decarbonization in the Commonwealth.”

From the inception of Docket 20-80, the Department sought to develop a regulatory and policy framework to guide the evolution of the gas distribution industry in the context of a clean energy transition, which it recognized would require the consideration of new policies and structures to protect ratepayers as the Commonwealth reduces its reliance on natural gas. Between its launch in October of 2020 and today, the proceeding saw voluminous public comments and stakeholder participation. Acadia Center, both on its own and through a coalition of ‘Clean Energy Stakeholder’ advocates, submitted multiple rounds of comments outlining a wide range of policy arguments for and against proposals offered in the proceeding. As has been the case in many states across the U.S., these pathways and proposals varied widely from those rooted in energy efficiency and electrification to those that sought a major role for renewable natural gas (RNG) and significant continued reliance on the Commonwealth’s sprawling natural gas distribution system.

In today’s Order, the Department offered many noteworthy conclusions, observations, and directives that will now shape the Commonwealth’s building decarbonization strategy, including the following highlights:
• Focus on Electrification: While acknowledging differing contexts across distinct gas utility service territories, the DPU affirmed that the Commonwealth’s dominant building decarbonization strategy is electrification, as noted in the 2025/2030 Clean Energy and Climate Plan (CECP).
• Coordinated Electric and Gas System Planning: DPU makes it clear that the building decarbonization transition will require coordinating planning between gas and electric utilities and notes that “evaluation of any proposed investments will have to take place in the context of joint electric and gas system planning.”
• Renewable Natural Gas & Hydrogen Present Too Much Risk: The DPU further rejected the recommendation to change its current gas supply procurement policy to support the addition of RNG and gas utility supply portfolios due to concerns regarding the costs and availability of RNG as well as its uncertain status as zero emissions fuel and potential triggering of system upgrades. The DPU goes on to state that hydrogen “has not yet been proven to result in a net reduction in GHG emissions” and that any infrastructure upgrades needed to accommodate hydrogen pilot programs “would be the sole responsibility of utility shareholders and not their customers.”
• Large-scale Decommissioning of the Gas System: The DPU envisions that the long-term use of the natural gas distribution system generally will be limited to strategic circumstances where electrification is not feasible for
all natural gas applications, such as process heat applications for some commercial and industrial (C&I) customers.
• Spotlight on Broad Participation by Affected Constituencies: The DPU found, “These exceedingly complex issues can be addressed effectively only with the broad participation of all the constituencies affected by this
transition.” Acadia Center will be following these developments closely in implementation to ensure all important communities have a seat at the table and their voice heard, including environmental justice communities, low-income ratepayers, gas workers, and more.
• Disincentivize Expansion of the Gas System: While the DPU states that it is not clear if they have statutory authority to prohibit the addition of new gas customers, they point out that there is an “opportunity to….disincentivize further customer expansion” of the gas system by changes to the procedure by which the cost-effectiveness of gas system expansion is evaluated.
• Sprawling Gas System Not Needed for Backup Heat: The Department was not persuaded that pursuit of a broad hybrid heating strategy that would necessitate maintenance of the natural gas system to support backup
heating systems is a viable path forward, citing improvements in cold climate heat pump technology that will generally eliminate the need for backup heating systems.
• Minimizing Stranded Gas Assets: As an initial step on the issue of depreciation, the DPU directed all gas utilities to conduct a forecast of the potential magnitude of stranded investments, and to identify the impacts of accelerated depreciation proposals, as well as potential alternatives to accelerated depreciation. Minimizing additional investments in pipeline and distribution mains is a core tenant of DPU’s ‘beyond gas’ future.
• Gas Utilities Must Consider “Non-gas Pipeline Alternatives” (NPAs): The DPU found that consideration of NPAs (including electrification, energy efficiency, and demand response) is necessary to minimize investments in the gas system and stranded assets. The gas utilities will bear the burden of demonstrating that NPAs were adequately considered and found to be non-viable or cost prohibitive in order to receive full cost recovery.
• Performance-based Ratemaking (PBR) Reform: The DPU recommends amending the existing PBR framework to establish incentives and disincentives reflecting the gas utilities’ progress towards compliance with the Climate Act mandates and directs the gas utilities to develop “climate compliance performance metrics” in their next PBR filings.
• Progressive Solutions to Customer Affordability on the Table: The DPU acknowledges that, given current rate structures, the decarbonization of the natural gas industry may result in higher costs being imposed on some ratepayers. As a result, the DPU will commence a separate proceeding later this year to examine innovative solutions to address customer affordability issues, such as “capping energy bills by percentage income or offering varying levels of low-income discounts.”

In terms of next steps, the Order represents not a conclusion of work, but rather an initiation of multiple significant new workstreams in which utilities, stakeholders, and the Department will now engage. The Order therefore serves as an important midpoint and mile-marker in a broader process that will span many years if not decades, with the decision now setting off other key dominos, such as the following steps:
• Evaluation of the magnitude of gas utility stranded asset risks;
• Revisions to gas utility revenue decoupling mechanisms;
• Systematic consideration and adoption of non-gas pipeline alternatives (NPAs);
• A new DPU proceeding dedicated to innovative solutions to address energy burdens and affordability;
• Reassessment of gas utility tariffs, policies, and practices on new and existing customer connections;
• Individual gas utility Climate Compliance Plans every five years; and
• Coordinated planning between gas utilities and electric distribution companies.

Acadia Center looks ahead with excitement to the opportunity to carry this important work forward and implement the directives of today’s landmark Order in line with the imperatives of climate, affordability, equity, safety and reliability, and beyond. We thank the DPU again for its leadership in this important proceeding.

For more information:
Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation, kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.106
Ben Butterworth, Director: Climate, Energy, and Equity Analysis, bbutterworth@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.111

Op-Ed: Canada must co-operate more with U.S. in developing electricity grids

Frédéric Côté is the general manager of Nergica. Daniel Sosland is the president of Acadia Center.

In the halls of power where the future of the electrical grid is planned and billions of ratepayer dollars are on the table, there is an elephant in the room – and it isn’t happy.

This paper’s editorial board was spot on when it said the topic of clean power should be “top of the list” for provincial leaders, and we applaud the federal government’s repeated promise to deliver clean electricity investment tax credits in its recent fall economic statement. But Canadians are missing a much wider and significant context emerging in North America: The United States is planning a continental grid, and much greater cross-border co-operation is needed for both countries to succeed in building it.

Grid modernization is essential to meet climate targets and position the continental Northeast to take advantage of clean energy opportunities. Done correctly, it will also improve service reliability and help control costs. Provinces, however, continue to plan their power grids in virtual isolation of one another – and with little discussion with their American neighbours. This isolationism is not in the long-term interest of both countries and cuts against a consensus that such interregional planning – as it is known in electric industry circles – is imperative to our collective energy security.

Why consider co-ordinating efforts? Well, first of all, American states are seeking it! In June, the six New England states, New York and New Jersey wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) calling for a new approach to interregional planning between the jurisdictions, proposing that appropriate Canadian jurisdictions should take part as well. The DOE and federally regulated regional transmission organizations of the U.S. Northeast have voiced support for this new model and are co-operating to develop strategies. To date, Canadian provinces are missing from the table.

A co-operative dialogue between the provinces and states offers improved public interest outcomes: consumer energy savings, increased system reliability, greater technical efficiency, more equitable distribution of benefits and the intentional inclusion of local concerns on matters such as project siting and mitigating community impacts. The latter is imperative in earning public support for infrastructure build-out to fight climate change.

Complex problems related to the future of our electricity supply in a carbon-constrained world are unlikely to be solved at a political negotiating table. Rather, they require patiently thought-out solutions achieved through inclusive discussion. These solutions will require analysis derived from regulators, developers, utilities, researchers and market design experts from various jurisdictions. The inputs of consumers, communities, Indigenous leaders and other stakeholders who pay for and are directly affected by decisions made about the grid must also be prioritized.

The ratepayer and voter should be very concerned that provinces and states are not collaborating to pursue these benefits. Interjurisdictional co-operation has been limited to narrow issues around specific, often controversial transmission projects, not on the broader and critical issue of how our shared electricity system can improve the lives and pocketbooks of all residents. Simply put, the clean energy transition cannot maximize consumer, system and equity benefits if provinces treat their grids as closed markets except to promote electricity exports.

The United States is focusing increased attention on power infrastructure and market co-operation. The Inflation Reduction Act, emerging federal regulations and state policies are all pushing electrification forward on a new footing. Canadian grid planners need to align with that effort.

Various scholars, trade associations and utility planners from both sides of the border have been calling for interregional planning in the Northeast for more than a generation. It is seen as an economic imperative. Given the right interregional mandate, regulators and planners from across the Northeast will enable greater investment in infrastructure and technology, from onshore and offshore wind and rooftop solar to district energy plants and energy efficiency measures, elevating community concerns as a top-level consideration, not an afterthought, as is often the case now.

To read the op-ed on the Globe and Mail, click here.

Partisanship, Oil Interests Kill Life-Saving Clean Cars and Trucks Standards by Politicizing Bipartisan Regulatory Process

Hartford — Tomorrow, the Lamont administration is expected to announce that the proposed Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII), Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), and Heavy-Duty Omnibus (HDO) programs will be withdrawn from consideration by the state’s Regulation Review Committee.

By setting gradually increasing sales targets for low- and zero-emissions vehicles, and requiring heavy-duty vehicles to emit less toxic nitrous oxides (NOx), these regulations would have saved consumers money at the pump while protecting public health against the dangerous effects of air pollution. Rates of air pollution-linked death are higher in Connecticut than in any other New England state.

“In a state with immense vehicle miles traveled from passenger and heavy-duty vehicles, Connecticut now falls farther behind in its clean transportation goals without adopting the full suite of proposed vehicle emissions standards,” said Jayson Velazquez, Climate and Energy Justice Policy Associate at Acadia Center. “Connecticut should be the solidifying piece in the Tri-State Area critical to the regional auto market and transportation corridor. For existing and future generations of Connecticut residents, clean air, climate, health, and equity are deferred. Unfortunately, disinformation campaigns stifled opportunities for innovation, equitable outreach, engagement, workforce opportunities, education, and the economy. Connecticut now misses the mark in joining regional leaders and partners as the sole outlier in the clean vehicle transition that is underway.”

To read the full press release from Clean Car States, click here.

Dem governor withdraws electric vehicle mandate in stunning blow to environmentalists

Democratic Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont is withdrawing his plan to mandate future electric vehicle (EV) purchases after the proposal received bipartisan pushback from lawmakers on a key legislative panel.

Lamont ultimately pulled the proposal just four months after unveiling it and characterizing it as “decisive action to meet our climate pollution reduction targets.” In July, Lamont unveiled the proposal, tethering Connecticut’s emissions standards to those set in California, which mandates that every passenger vehicle sold is electric by 2035, the most aggressive target of its kind nationwide.

The Sierra Club Connecticut, Conservation Law Foundation, Acadia Center, Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Environment Connecticut and Connecticut League of Conservation Voters also ripped Lamont’s action Tuesday.

To read the full article from Fox News, click here.

Climate advocates call on New Jersey leaders to pass legislation to deliver economic, health and climate benefits of clean energy

Trenton, NJ —- Today members of Clean Energy Action Now (CLEAN) came together to support legislation to increase affordability, deliver cleaner air, and accelerate the Garden State’s climate goals. The Clean Energy Act of 2023 (S2978), sponsored by Sen. Bob Smith, would accelerate New Jersey’s clean energy transition by ensuring New Jersey utilities deliver 100% clean electricity by 2035 with minimal impacts to New Jersey energy bills, further reducing the state’s reliance on fossil fuels in the next decade.

Ben Butterworth, Director: Climate, Energy & Equity Analysis, Acadia Center:

“New Jerseyans have already paid dearly for the cost of climate change, from hotter, more deadly summers to more frequent, more intense natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy that damaged hundreds of thousands of homes across the state. Today’s legislation to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2035 takes a massive step toward reducing New Jersey’s climate-warming emissions, but more must be done to ensure that residents can access the health, economic, and climate benefits of pollution-free homes.”

To read the full press release on Insider NJ, click here.

RIDOT presents revised Carbon Reduction Strategy plan

On Nov. 15, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation submitted a revised version of its Carbon Reduction Strategy to the Federal Highway Administration. If the plan is approved, RIDOT is eligible to receive an estimated $35.7 million from the federal government to spend on carbon reduction projects over four years.

While representatives from both the Acadia Center, a non-profit dedicated to climate solutions, and Grow Smart R.I., an organization focused on “neighborhood revitalization, environmental stewardship and economic opportunity,” believe the new plan is more effective, they still share concerns about its ability to help the state meet the goals outlined in the 2021 R.I. Act on Climate.

“Overall, I’m glad to see that RIDOT responded to the public’s demand for more investment in non-car infrastructure,” said Emily Koo ’13, senior policy advocate and R.I. program director of the Acadia Center. “But the core issues of not meeting the Act on Climate targets, nor measuring project level emissions reductions, remain.”

While Acadia was “glad to see that there’s significantly more funding for bike paths, it is still for resurfacing and preservation and maintenance of existing bike paths and not (establishing) new bike infrastructure,” Koo said.

For Koo, RIDOT is “putting the onus of the transportation sector planning and analysis on the state’s 2025 climate strategy.”

To read the entire article from the Brown Daily Herald, click here.

Building Power: Breaking down Rhode Island’s new community electricity programs

This summer, during the hottest July on record, over 1,000 Rhode Islanders had their electricity service shut off. These residents—unable to pay bills 25 percent higher than last summer—were left without AC or electricity for days of extreme heat, causing heat-related illnesses and exacerbating existing health conditions. Facing longer and hotter summers due to climate change, Rhode Islanders, especially those with underlying health conditions, have a dire need for air conditioning. But more AC usage alongside ongoing energy rate hikes means higher bills, and with higher bills comes the risk of shut-offs, leaving vulnerable Rhode Islanders without electricity when it is most critical.

Emily Koo, who was Providence’s Director of Sustainability during much of the development of the PCE program, pointed to the importance of taking control back from the utility:

“Communities are in the driver’s seat here and will continue to pursue the dual goal of lower cost, higher renewables for its customers in its electricity procurement,” she said. “This separation of supply is a great example of removing a responsibility from the utility so that it better aligns with state and community goals to address climate pollution and lower consumer costs.”

Many residents are concerned by the dissonance between the dirty tricks and the purported clean energy goals of the biggest renewable supplier in the country, their potential future supplier. So how and why was such a company chosen? And should it change how we understand municipal aggregation in Rhode Island?

The first question is simpler to answer. Koo put it bluntly: there wasn’t much of a choice. The buying group of municipalities put out a Request for Proposal (RFP), inviting any energy suppliers licensed to work in the region to bid to procure energy for the program; after initial vetting by Good Energy on the financial viability of the proposed suppliers, they were left with bids from two companies. One was NextEra; the other remains confidential.

Ultimately, Jamie Rhodes explains, it came down to a decision between two fundamentally different pricing models. Given the needs of the program—the necessary balance of lower prices and renewable options—Koo told the Indy that the buying group of municipalities decided that, of the two, NextEra best balanced these factors.

Municipal aggregation in Rhode Island is a truly important shift, a step toward enabling Rhode Islanders to have more agency over their energy system, toward acknowledging the power in collectivity. With NextEra in the mix, this program is far from ideal. But it’s what we have, and it’s better than what we had before. The development of local renewables is real and important; the costs of energy remain lower than RI Energy and will hopefully continue to drop.

And as Emily Koo said, these large energy companies, even involved as they are in dirty nationwide politics, “can also be driven to serve the needs of certain communities.”

To read the full article from the Indy, click here.

Clean Energy, Climate, Consumers, and the Future of the Electric Utility: Where Does Maine Go from Here?

A recent highly publicized ballot initiative in Maine focused on the importance of getting the utilities’ role right in the clean energy transition. The ballot initiative asked Maine voters to approve a process to transition the state’s two for-profit electric utilities, Central Maine Power and Versant, into a new consumer-owned utility to be called Pine Tree Power. The referendum proposed to have Pine Tree Power governed by a board of 13 elected members, seven of whom would be elected in statewide public elections, and the remaining six appointed by the elected members. On November 7, 2023, Maine voters overwhelmingly voted not to proceed with Pine Tree Power.

The referendum’s defeat is not an ending, but instead an opportunity for a new beginning. Maine’s utility regulators must ensure that the state’s utility policies are aligned with climate, consumer, and equity priorities—regardless of whether its utilities are publicly or privately owned. By doing so, Maine can motivate its utilities to be full partners in fighting climate change, accelerating the clean energy transition, protecting consumer interests, and promoting environmental justice.

However, it should be noted that utilities in Maine caused consumers to rebel. Legitimate complaints about customer service, reliability, and billing abound. Maine’s utilities have reacted to complaints defensively and have been slow to respond to the urgent demands of climate change and creating a clean energy future.

Second, the utility regulatory structure in Maine must change regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Maine, like most states, continues to rely on a utility monopoly structure that was developed decades ago in very different times. Utility monopolies were created to streamline bringing electric service to all. The impetus for creating monopoly utilities like Central Maine Power was to optimize the growth of electric service by connecting electric generating plants to a single distribution system of wires and poles that reached rural and urban communities alike.

But that was decades ago, and times have changed. Today, the role of electricity in our economy and lives is far different. Reliable electric service is not a luxury but essential to modern life’s functioning and safety. We need electricity to power almost all aspects of our lives, from heating systems to refrigeration and almost everything in between. Moreover, electrification is critical to today’s climate goals. New clean, electric technologies can provide greater comfort at lower costs and lower emissions. But the way Maine regulates its utilities must change to make this a reality. The return on investment for a utility shareholder should not matter more than providing utility customers with the best possible energy options at the lowest price. Under existing utility policies, investor-owned utilities are driven by one mantra: to provide the highest possible return on investment to shareholders, while customers and climate goals take a back seat.  That system imposes conflicting incentives on the utility’s decision making.

There is a better way!

Acadia Center is actively engaged in efforts to advance policies that will reshape the role of Maine’s utilities as proactive players in the clean energy transition. For example, we are calling for regulators to ensure that metrics for utility success and performance are meaningfully tied to the right policy priorities and that utilities are held accountable for their performance. Acadia Center advocates for performance-based metrics and incentives for utilities that tie utility compensation to performance, including lowering bills and increasing customer satisfaction ratings. For any normal business, competitive pressure would force it to reduce costs, but in a monopolistic system, while Maine utilities receive a guaranteed high rate of return, they are not subject to similar competitive pressures.

Acadia Center is further advancing reforms to improve and modernize state utility planning oversight. Utility planning processes should eliminate barriers to clean distributed energy resources and non-wires alternatives, but today, that is not the case. Acadia Center has offered a new, updated framework for utility oversight and energy system planned called RESPECT: Reforming Energy System Planning for Equity and Climate Transformation.  RESPECT recommends a modernized framework for how utilities should make long-term investment decisions to ensure energy systems are aligned with state goals to address climate pollution, further environmental justice, and lower consumer costs.  For example, currently, utilities both plan and make decisions on which energy options they should invest in.  Often these decisions are informed by the financial return for the company. Critically, RESPECT contains approaches to remove these competing financial and planning incentives on the utility by offering a new approach for independent system planning.  Acadia Center advocates for more comprehensive utility planning efforts, such as the Maine PUC’s Integrated Grid Planning (which Acadia Center was instrumental in getting written into law).  These efforts will require active participation and clear buy-in by the utilities and the Maine Public Utility Commission.

These are just several examples of the many important policy changes needed. But despite the complexity of utility reform, Maine does not have to look far for notable models of better practices. In Vermont, for example, Green Mountain Power (GMP) offers multiple programs that treat customers as partners and looks for ways to provide them relief, not just to collect their bills. For example, GMP provides direct incentives to its customers that are not mere tokens: customers can receive up to $10,500 for the installation of home batteries, free at-home EV chargers (and a lower EV charging rate) as well as generous rebates and incentives for heat pumps, induction stoves, electric yard equipment, and a host of other electric devices. The kinds of innovative programs that utilities like Green Mountain Power offer could provide a roadmap for Maine’s utilities – and greatly benefit Maine families by offering a full array of new options to control costs.

Now is a critical time for ensuring that Maine’s electrical system works for the benefit of consumers and communities in Maine, and not distant shareholders whose focus is return on investment. Look for Acadia Center to dive into these issues in more detail and offer specific recommendations in the coming months.

Myth Busting: Electric Vehicle Charging and Reliability

EVs don’t work in the cold weather, and the car heater kills the battery!

While older EVs do experience reduced efficiency in their battery life below 30° Fahrenheit, traditional gas-powered vehicles experience the same issue. In newer EV models this issue is reduced and the extreme cold usually affects the battery by about 15-30%. Newer EVs have also found a solution to the problem of heater use reducing the battery level, equipping their models with heat pumps that heat the car and do not reduce the battery capacity by any significant percentage when in use.

EVs are expensive; it’s cheaper to stick with gas vehicles.

In very recent years, both new and used car prices have dramatically escalated. But the price for many EV models has come down, and there are financial incentives available for many makes of cars from federal and state programs that make EVs competitive with the price of new gasoline and hybrid vehicles. You can check the IRS website to see financial incentives that may be applicable to your situation. The incentives can be substantial, depending on where the car was built, and the battery materials were mined. Lower price EVs include the Kia Niro, Chevrolet Bolt, and Tesla Model 3 (base model).

The range thing freaks me out; I could get stranded!

Most late-model EVs have an achievable range of about 200-250 miles, and several have more than 300 miles, far above the range of the average daily driver. Charging stations exist throughout the region for longer trips, with new programs promoting additional charging station locations. Plus, it’s important to remember that if you have a home charger, you can fully charge your EV and need fewer breaks at charging stations on the road.

Charging an EV is complicated; how do people figure it out?

Charging an EV is similar in many ways to charging a mobile phone. You can charge your EV in at least three ways. Here are your options:

1. Plug it into a wall socket! A typical home socket is 110V, known as a Level 1 charger. This method of charging can be slow, taking about 8-10 hours to charge the battery fully. Few people prefer this method because it takes so long.
2. Install a Level 2 charger at home that can “fill the tank” in about 2-4 hours. This charger uses 240 volts, typically charging four times faster than Level 1. Many states or consumer groups have incentives to install home chargers, and they’re as simple to use as plugging in your car and removing the plug once it’s full. Here’s a picture of a home charger in my garage. I have two lines for two EVs.

3. Charge on the road with a “Supercharger” in about 20-30 minutes. See below for more on the Supercharger.

Wait, I can charge at home, but what about out on the road? I’m going to get stranded again!

There are chargers throughout the U.S. and Canada. In Maine, where I live, there are approximately 216 high-speed chargers available on the roads, with 708 slower community chargers. Of course, there are fewer chargers in rural areas, and some planning is required. It is a little more complicated than charging at home, but not much, and there are phone apps that can help you navigate to the nearest charger. On the road, many chargers are so-called “Superchargers” or Level 3 chargers that can charge your car fully in about 20-30 minutes. A new fleet of even faster Level 4 chargers is being installed in the United States. You can easily download many apps on your phone, such as Plugshare and ABRP, which show you where the chargers are located, whether they are working or occupied. Once you find one on the map, you touch the screen on the pin, and it gives you directions to the Supercharger! These apps also allow you to plan your journey so that you are sure chargers will be available along the way.

For questions, please email Senior Policy Advocate and Maine Program Director Pete LaFond at plafond@acadiacenter.org, and he will endeavor to answer your questions.