Plan to secure Savannah manhole caps after blasts

California Public Safety Power Shutoffs highlight wildfire prevention as PG&E outages disrupt schools, businesses, and rural communities, driving generator use, economic hardship, and emergency preparedness across Northern California during high-wind events.

Key Points

Utility outages to reduce wildfire risk during extreme winds, impacting homes and businesses in high-risk California.

✅ PG&E cuts power during high winds to prevent wildfires

✅ Costs rise for generators, fuel, batteries, and spoiled food

✅ Rural, low-income communities face greater economic losses

The intentional blackout by California’s largest utility this week put Forest Jones out of work and his son out of school. On Friday morning Mr. Jones, a handyman and single father, sat in his apartment above a tattoo parlor waiting for the power to come back on and for school to reopen.

“I’ll probably lose $400 or $500 dollars because of this,” said Mr. Jones, who lives in the town of Paradise, which was razed by fire last year and is slowly rebuilding. “Things have been really tough up here.”

Millions of people were affected by the blackout, which spanned the outskirts of Silicon Valley to the forests of Humboldt County near the Oregon border. But the outage, which the power company said was necessary to reduce wildfire risk across the region, also drew a line between those who were merely inconvenienced and those who faced a major financial hardship.

To have the lights on, the television running and kitchen appliances humming is often taken for granted in America, even as U.S. grid during coronavirus questions persisted. During California’s blackout it became an economic privilege.

The economic impacts of the shut-off were especially acute in rural, northern towns like Paradise, where incomes are a fraction of those in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Both wealthy and poorer areas were affected by the blackout but interviews across the state suggested that being forced off the grid disproportionately hurt the less affluent. One family in Humboldt County said they had spent $150 on batteries and water alone during the shutdown.

“To be prepared costs money,” Sue Warhaftig, a massage therapist who lives in Mill Valley, a wealthy suburb across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. Ms. Warhaftig spent around two days without electricity but said she had been spared from significant sacrifices during the blackout.

She invested in a generator to keep the refrigerator running and to provide some light. She cooked in the family’s Volkswagen camper van in her driveway. At night she watched Netflix on her phone, which she was able to charge with the generator. Her husband, a businessman, is in London on a work trip. Her two sons, both grown, live in Southern California and Seattle.

“We were inconvenienced but life wasn’t interrupted,” Ms. Warhaftig said. “But so many people’s lives were.

Pacific Gas & Electric restored power to large sections of Northern California on Friday, including Paradise, where the electricity came back on in the afternoon. But hundreds of thousands of people in other areas remained in the dark. The carcasses of burned cars still littered the landscape around Paradise, where 86 people died in the Camp Fire last year, some of them while trying to escape.

Officials at power company said that by Saturday they hoped to have restored power to 98 percent of the customers who were affected.

The same dangerous winds that spurred the shut-off in Northern California have put firefighters to work in the south. The authorities in Los Angeles County ordered the evacuation of nearly 100,000 people on Friday as the Saddleridge Fire burned nearly 5,000 acres and destroyed 25 structures. The Sandalwood Fire, which ignited Thursday in Riverside County, had spread to more than 800 acres and destroyed 74 structures by Friday afternoon.

While this week’s outage was the first time many customers in Northern California experienced a deliberate power shut-off, residents in and around Paradise have had their power cut four times in recent months, residents say.

Many use a generator, but running one has become increasingly expensive with gasoline now at more than $4 a gallon in California.

On Friday, Dennis and Viola Timmer drove up the hill to their home in Magalia, a town adjacent to Paradise, loaded with $102 dollars of gasoline for their generators. It was their second gasoline run since the power went out Tuesday night.

The couple, retired and on a fixed income after Mr. Timmer’s time in the Navy and in construction, said the power outage had severely limited their ability to do essential tasks like cooking, or to leave the house.

“You know what it feels like? You’re in jail,” said Ms. Timmer, 72. “You can’t go anywhere with the generators running.”

Since the generators are not powerful enough to run heat or air conditioning, the couple slept in their den with an electric space heater.

“It’s really difficult because you don’t have a normal life,” Ms. Timmer said. “You’re trying to survive.”

To be sure, the shutdown has affected many people regardless of economic status, and similar disruptions abroad, like a London power outage that disrupted routines, show how widespread such challenges can be. The areas without power were as diverse as the wealthy suburbs of Silicon Valley, the old Gold Rush towns of the Sierra Nevada, the East Bay of San Francisco and the seaside city of Arcata.

Ms. Cahn’s cellphone ran out of power during the blackout and even when she managed to recharge it in her car cell service was spotty, as it was in many areas hit by the blackout.

Accustomed to staying warm at night with an electric blanket, Ms. Cahn slept under a stack of four blankets.

“I’m doing what I have to do which is not doing very much,” she said.

Further south in Marin City, Chanay Jackson stood surrounded by fumes from generators still powering parts of the city.

She said that food stamps were issued on the first of the month and that many residents who had to throw away food were out of luck.

“They’re not going to issue more food stamps just because the power went out,” Ms. Jackson said. “So they’re just screwed until next month.”

Strong winds have many times in the past caused power lines to come in contact with vegetation, igniting fires that are then propelled by the gusts, and hurricanes elsewhere have crippled infrastructure with Louisiana grid rebuild after Laura according to state officials. This was the case with the Camp Fire.

Since higher elevations had more extreme winds many of the neighborhoods where power was turned off this week were in hills and canyons, including in the Sierra Nevada.

The shut-off, which by one estimate affected a total of 2.5 million people, has come under strong criticism by residents and politicians, and warnings from Cal ISO about rolling blackouts as the power grid strained. The company’s website crashed just as customers sought information about the outage. Gov. Gavin Newsom called it unacceptable. But his comments were nuanced, criticizing the way the shut-off was handled, not the rationale for it. Mr. Newsom and others said the ravages of the Camp Fire demanded preventive action to prevent a reoccurrence.

Yet the calculus of trying to avoid deadly fires by shutting off power will continue to be debated as California enters its peak wildfire season, even as electricity reliability during COVID-19 was generally maintained for most consumers.

In the city of Grass Valley, Matthew Gottschalk said he and his wife realized that a generator was essential when they calculated that they had around $500 worth of food in their fridge.

“I don’t know what we would have done,” said Mr. Gottschalk, whose power went out Tuesday night.

His neighbors are filling coolers with ice. Everyone is hoping the power will come back on soon.

“Ice is going to run out and gas is going to run out,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

UK Electricity Grid Investment underpins net zero, reinforcing transmission and distribution networks to integrate wind, solar, EV charging, and heat pumps, while Ofgem balances investor returns, debt risks, price controls, resilience, and consumer bills.

Key Points

Capital to reinforce grids for net zero, integrating wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps while balancing returns and bills.

✅ 170bn-210bn GBP by 2050 to reinforce cables, pylons, capacity.

✅ Ofgem to add investability metric while protecting consumers.

✅ Integrates wind, solar, EVs, heat pumps; manages grid resilience.

Prime Minister Sunak's recent upgrade to his home's electricity grid, designed to power his heated swimming pool, serves as a microcosm of a much larger challenge facing the UK: transforming the nation's entire electricity network for net zero emissions, amid Europe's electrification push across the continent.

This transition requires a monumental £170bn-£210bn investment by 2050, earmarked for reinforcing and expanding onshore cables and pylons that deliver electricity from power stations to homes and businesses. This overhaul is crucial to accommodate the planned switch from fossil fuels to clean energy sources - wind and solar farms - powering homes with electric cars, as EV demand on the grid rises, and heat pumps.

The UK government's Climate Change Committee warns of potentially doubled electricity demand by 2050, the target date for net zero, even though managing EV charging can ease local peaks. This translates to a significant financial burden for companies like National Grid, SSE, and Scottish Power who own the main transmission networks and some regional distribution networks.

Balancing investor needs for returns and ensuring affordable energy bills for consumers presents a delicate tightrope act for regulators like Ofgem. The National Audit Office criticized Ofgem in 2020 for allowing network owners excessive returns, prompting concerns about potential bill hikes, especially after lessons from 2021 reshaped market dynamics.

Think-tank Common Wealth reported that distribution networks paid out a staggering £3.6bn to their owners between 2017 and 2021, raising questions about the balance between profitability and affordability, amid UK EV affordability concerns among consumers.

However, Ofgem acknowledges the need for substantial investment to finance network upgrades, repairs, and the clean energy transition. To this end, they are considering incorporating an "investability" metric, recognizing how big battery rule changes can erode confidence elsewhere, in the next price controls for transmission networks, ensuring these entities remain attractive for equity fundraising without overburdening consumers.

This proposal, while welcomed by the industry, has drawn criticism from consumer advocacy groups like Citizens Advice, who fear it could contribute to unfairly high bills. With energy bills already hitting record highs, public trust in the net-zero transition hinges on ensuring affordability.

High debt levels and potential credit rating downgrades further complicate the picture, potentially impacting companies' ability to raise investment funds. Ofgem is exploring measures to address this, such as stricter debt structure reporting requirements for regional distribution companies.

Lawrence Slade, CEO of the Energy Networks Association, emphasizes the critical role of investment in achieving net zero. He highlights the need for "bold" policies and regulations that balance ambitious goals with investor confidence and ensure efficient resource allocation, drawing on B.C.'s power supply challenges as a cautionary example.

The challenge lies in striking a delicate balance between attracting investment, ensuring network resilience, and maintaining affordable energy bills. As Andy Manning from Citizens Advice warns, "Without public confidence, net zero won't be delivered."

The UK's journey to net zero hinges on navigating this complex landscape. By carefully calibrating regulations, fostering investor confidence, and prioritizing affordability, the country can ensure its electricity grid is not just robust enough to power heated swimming pools, but also a thriving green economy for all.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Georgia Power June bill credit delivers PSC-approved savings, lower fuel rates, and COVID-19 relief for residential customers, driven by natural gas prices and 2018 earnings, with typical 1,000 kWh users seeing June bill reductions.

Key Points

A PSC-approved one-time credit and lower fuel rates reducing June bills for Georgia Power residential customers.

✅ $11.29 credit for 1,000 kWh usage on June bills

✅ Fuel rate cut saves $10.26 per month from June to September 2020

✅ PSC-approved $51.5M credit based on Georgia Power's 2018 results

Georgia Power announced that the typical residential customer using 1,000-kilowatt hours will receive an $11.29 credit on their June bill, reflecting a lump-sum credit model also used elsewhere.

This reflects implementation of a one-time $51.5 million credit for customers, similar to Gulf Power's bill decrease efforts, approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission, as a result of

Georgia Power's 2018 financial results.

Pairing the June credit with new, lower fuel rates recently announced, the typical residential customer would see a reduction of $21.55 in June, even as some regions face increases like Pennsylvania's winter price hikes elsewhere.

The amount each customer receives will vary based on their 2018 usage. Georgia Power will apply the credit to June bills for customers who had active accounts as of Dec. 31, 2018, and are still active or receiving a final bill as of June 2020, and the company has issued pandemic scam warnings to help customers stay informed.

Fuel rate lowered 17.2 percent

In addition to the approved one-time credit in June, the Georgia PSC recently approved Georgia Power’s plan to reduce its fuel rates by 17.2 percent and total billings by approximately $740 million over a two-year period. The implementation of a special interim reduction will provide customers additional relief during the COVID-19 pandemic through even lower fuel rates over the upcoming 2020 summer months. The lower fuel rate and special interim reduction will lower the total bill of a typical residential customer using an average of 1,000-kilowatt hours by a total of $10.26 per month from June through September 2020.

The reduction in the company’s fuel rate is driven primarily by lower natural gas prices, even as FPL proposed multiyear rate hikes in Florida, as a result of increased natural gas supplies, which the company is able to take advantage of to benefit customers due to its diverse generation sources.

February bill credit due to tax law savings

Georgia Power completed earlier this year the third and final bill credit associated with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, resulting in credits totaling $106 million. The typical residential customer using an average of 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month received a credit of approximately $22 on their February Georgia Power bill, a helpful offset as U.S. electric bills rose 5% in 2022 according to national data.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Baima Hydropower Station advances China renewable energy on the Wujiang River, a Yangtze tributary in Chongqing; a 525 MW cascade project approved by NDRC, delivering 1.76 billion kWh and improving river shipping.

Key Points

An NDRC-approved 525 MW project on Chongqing's Wujiang River, producing 1.76 billion kWh and improving navigation.

✅ 10.2 billion yuan investment; final cascade plant on Wujiang in Chongqing

✅ Expected output: 1.76 billion kWh; capacity 525 MW; NDRC approval

✅ Improves river shipping; relocation of 5,000 residents in Wulong

China plans to build a 525-MW hydropower station on the Wujiang River, a tributary of the Yangtze River, in Southwest China's Chongqing municipality, aligning with projects like the Lawa hydropower station elsewhere in the Yangtze basin.

The Baima project, the last of a cascade of hydropower stations on the section of the Wujiang River in Chongqing, has gotten the green light from the National Development and Reform Commission, China's state planning agency, even as some independent power projects elsewhere face uncertainty, such as the Siwash Creek project in British Columbia, the Chongqing Municipal Commission of Development and Reform said Monday.

The project, in Baima township of Wulong district, is expected to involve an investment of 10.2 billion yuan ($1.6 billion), as China explores compressed air generation to bolster grid flexibility, it said.

#google#

With a power-generating capacity of 525 MW, it is expected to generate 1.76 billion kwh of electricity a year, supporting efforts to reduce coal power production nationwide, and help improve the shipping service along the Wujiang River.

More than 5,000 local residents will be relocated to make room for the project, which forms part of a broader energy mix alongside advances in nuclear energy in China.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. EV Market Share Dip Q1 2024 reflects slower BEV adoption, rising PHEV demand, affordability concerns, charging infrastructure gaps, tax credit shifts, range anxiety, and automaker strategy adjustments across the electric vehicle market.

Key Points

Q1 2024 EV and hybrid share slipped as BEV sales lag, PHEVs rise, and affordability and charging concerns temper demand.

✅ BEV share fell to 7.0% as affordable models remain limited

✅ PHEV sales rose 50% YoY, easing range anxiety concerns

✅ Policy shifts and charging gaps weigh on consumer adoption

The U.S. electric vehicle (EV) market, once a beacon of unbridled growth, appears to be experiencing a course correction. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reveals that the combined market share of electric vehicles (battery electric vehicles, or BEVs) and hybrids dipped slightly in the first quarter of 2024, marking the first decline since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, even as EU EV share rose during lockdowns in 2020.

This news comes as a surprise to many analysts who predicted continued exponential growth for the EV market. While overall sales of electric vehicles surged into 2024 and did increase by 7% compared to Q1 2023, this growth wasn't enough to keep pace with the overall rise in vehicle sales. The result: a decline in market share from 18.8% in Q4 2023 to 18.0% in Q1 2024.

Several factors may be contributing to this shift. One potential culprit is a slowdown in battery electric vehicle sales. BEVs saw their share of the market dip from 8.1% to 7.0% in the same period. This could be attributed to a lack of readily available affordable options, with many popular EV models still commanding premium prices and concerns that EV supply may miss demand in the near term.

Another factor could be the rising interest in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). PHEV sales witnessed a significant jump of 50% year-over-year, reflecting how gas-electric hybrids are getting a boost from major automakers, potentially indicating a consumer preference for vehicles that offer both electric and gasoline powertrain options, addressing concerns about range anxiety often associated with BEVs.

Industry experts offer mixed interpretations of this data. Some downplay the significance of the dip, attributing it to a temporary blip, even though EVs remain behind gas cars in total sales. They point to the ongoing commitment from major automakers to invest in EV production and the potential for new, more affordable models to hit the market soon.

Others express more concern, citing Europe's recent EV slump and suggesting this might be a sign of maturing consumer preferences. They argue that simply increasing the number of EVs on the market might not be enough. Automakers need to address issues like affordability, charging infrastructure, and range anxiety to maintain momentum.

The role of government incentives also remains a question mark. The federal tax credit for electric vehicles is currently set to phase out gradually, potentially impacting consumer purchasing decisions in the future. Continued government support, through incentives or infrastructure development, could be crucial in maintaining consumer interest.

The coming quarters will be crucial in determining the long-term trajectory of the U.S. EV market, especially after the global electric car market's rapid expansion in recent years. Whether this is a temporary setback or a more lasting trend remains to be seen. Addressing consumer concerns, ensuring a diverse range of affordable EV options, and continued government support will all be essential in ensuring the continued growth of this critical sector.

This development also presents an opportunity for traditional automakers. By capitalizing on the growing PHEV market and addressing consumer concerns about affordability and range anxiety, they can carve out a strong position in the evolving automotive landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News