U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Soar Into 2024

Massachusetts Energy Storage Solicitation offers grants and matching funds via MassCEC and DOER for grid-connected, behind-the-meter projects, utility partners, and innovative business models, targeting 600 MW, clean energy leadership, and ratepayer savings.

Key Points

MassCEC and DOER matching-fund program for grid-connected storage pilots, advancing innovation and ratepayer savings.

✅ $100k-$1.25M matching funds; 50% cost share required

✅ Grid-connected, utility-partnered and behind-the-meter eligible

✅ 10-15 awards; proposals due June 9; install within 18 months

Massachusetts released a much-awaited energy storage solicitation on Thursday offering up to $10 million for new projects.

Issued by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) and the Department of Energy Resources (DOER), the solicitation makes available $100,000 to $1.25 million in matching funds for each chosen project.

The solicitation springs from a state report issued last year that found Massachusetts could save electricity ratepayers $800 million by incorporating 600 MW of energy storage projects. The state plans to set a specific energy storage goal, now the subject of a separate proceeding before the DOER.

The state is offering money for projects that showcase examples of future storage deployment, help to grow the state’s energy storage economy, and contribute to the state’s clean energy innovation leadership.

MassCEC anticipates making about 10-15 awards. Applicants must supply at least 50 percent of total project cost.

The state is offering money for projects that showcase examples of future storage deployment, help to grow the state’s energy storage economy, and contribute to the state’s clean energy innovation leadership.

MassCEC anticipates making about 10-15 awards. Applicants must supply at least 50 percent of total project cost.

The state plans to allot about half of the money from the energy storage solicitation to projects that include utility partners. Both distribution scale and behind-the-meter projects, including net-zero buildings among others, will be considered, but must be grid connected.

The solicitation seeks innovative business models that showcase the commercial value of energy storage in light of the specific local energy challenges and opportunities in Massachusetts.

Projects also should demonstrate multiple benefits/value streams to ratepayers, the local utility, or wholesale market.

And finally, projects should help uncover market and regulatory issues as well as monetization and financing barriers.

The state anticipates teams forming to apply for the grants. Teams may include public and private entities and are are encouraged to include the local utility.

Proposals are due June 9. The state expects to notify winners September 8, with contracts issued within the following month. Projects must be installed within 18 months of receiving contracts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Solar Electricity Generation 2022 rose to a 4.7% share, with 202,256 GWh, per EIA Electric Power Monthly; driven by PV capacity additions despite import constraints, alongside renewables trends in wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric output.

Key Points

The share and output of US solar PV in 2022: 4.7% of electricity and 202,256 GWh, as reported by the EIA.

✅ Solar PV reached 4.7% of US power; 202,256 GWh generated in 2022.

✅ Monthly share varied from about 3% in Jan to just over 6% in Apr.

✅ Wind was 10.1%; wind+solar hit slightly over 20% in April.

In 2022, solar photovoltaics made up 4.7% of U.S. electricity generation, an increase of almost 21% over the 2021 total when solar produced 3.9% of US electricity and about 3% in 2020 according to long-term outlooks. Total solar generation was up 25%, breaking through 200,000 GWh for the year.

The record deployment volumes of 2020 when renewables became the second-most U.S. electricity source and 2021 are the main factors behind this increase. If it were not for ongoing solar panel import difficulties and general inflation, solar’s contribution to electricity generation might have reached 5% in 2022. The data was released by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) in their Electric Power Monthly. This release includes data from December 2022, as well as the rest of the data from 2022.

Solar as a percentage of monthly electricity generation ranged from a low of almost 3% in January, to just over 6% in April. April’s production marked a new monthly record for solar generation in the US and coincided with a renewables share record that month.

Total generation of solar electricity peaked in July, at 21,708 GWh. Over the course of the year, solar production reached  202,256 GWh, and total U.S. electricity generation reached 4,303,980 GWh, a year in which renewables surpassed coal in the power mix overall. Total US electricity generation increased by 3.5% over the 4,157,467 GWh produced in 2021.

In 2022, wind energy contributed 10.1% of the total electricity generated in the United States. Wind and solar together produced 14.8% of U.S. electricity in 2022, growing from the 13% recorded in 2021. In April, when solar power peaked at just over 6%, wind and solar power together reached a peak of slightly over 20%, as a wind-and-solar milestone versus nuclear was noted that month, a new monthly record for the two energy sources.

In total, emissions free energy sources such as wind, solar photovoltaic and thermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, and geothermal, accounted for 37.9% of the total electricity generated in the U.S., while renewables provided about 25.5% share of the mix during the year. This value is barely higher than 2020’s 37.7% – but represents a return to growth after 2021 saw a decrease in emission free electricity to 37%.

Nuclear power was the most significant contributor to emission free electricity, making up a bit more than 45% of the total emissions free electricity. Wind energy ranked second at 26%, followed by hydroelectricity at 15%, and solar photovoltaic at 12%, confirming solar as the #3 renewable in the U.S. mix.

Emissions free electricity is a different summation than the EIA’s ‘Renewable Energy’ category. The Renewable Energy category also includes:

• Wood and Wood-Derived Fuels
• Landfill Gas
• Biogenic Municipal Solid Waste
• Other Waste Biomass

Nuclear produced 17.9% of the total U.S. electricity, a value that has generally stayed flat over the years. However, since nuclear facilities are being retired faster than new facilities are coming online, nuclear production has fallen in the past two years. After multiple long delays, we will probably see reactor three of the Vogtle nuclear facility come online in 2023. Reactor four is officially scheduled to come online later this year.

Hydroelectric production also declined in 2022, due to drought conditions in the southwestern United States. With rain and snow storms in California and the southwest, hydroelectricity generation may rebound in 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Electric Vehicle Charging Costs and Times explain kWh usage, electricity rates, Level 2 vs DC fast charging, per-mile expense, and tax credits, with examples by region and battery size to estimate home and public charging.

Key Points

They measure EV charging price and duration based on kWh rates, charger level, efficiency, and location.

✅ Costs vary by kWh price, region, and charger type.

✅ Efficiency (mi/kWh) sets per-mile cost and range.

✅ Tax credits and utility rates impact total ownership.

More and more car manufacturing companies dip their toes in the world of electric vehicles every year, making it a good time to buy an EV for many shoppers, and the U.S. government is also offering incentives to turn the tides on car purchasing. Electric vehicles bought between 2010 and 2022 may be eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500. 

And according to the Consumer Reports analysis on long-term ownership, the cost of charging an electric vehicle is almost always cheaper than fueling a gas-powered car – sometimes by hundreds of dollars.

But that depends on the type of car and where in the country you live, in a market many expect to be mainstream within a decade across the U.S. Here's everything you need to know.

How much does it cost to charge an electric car?
An electric vehicle’s fuel efficiency can be measured in kilowatt-hours per 100 miles, and common charging-efficiency myths have been fact-checked to correct math errors.

For example, if electricity costs 10.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, charging a 200-mile range 54-kWh battery would cost about $6. Charging a vehicle that consumes 27 kWh to travel 100 miles would cost three cents a mile. 

The national average cost of electricity is 10 cents per kWh and 11.7 cents per kWh for residential use. Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Vehicle Testing compares the energy cost per mile for electric-powered and gasoline-fueled vehicles.

For example, at 10 cents per kWh, an electric vehicle with an efficiency of 3 miles per kWh would cost about 3.3 cents per mile. The gasoline equivalent cost for this electricity cost would be just under $2.60 per gallon.

Prices vary by location as well. For example, Consumer Report found that West Coast electric vehicles tend to be less expensive to operate than gas-powered or hybrid cars, and are often better for the planet depending on local energy mix, but gas prices are often lower than electricity in New England.

Public charging networks in California cost about 30 cents per kWh for Level 2 and 40 cents per kWh for DCFC. Here’s an example of the cost breakdown using a Nissan LEAF with a 150-mile range and 40-kWh battery:

Level 2, empty to full charge: $12
DCFC, empty to full charge: $16

Many cars also offer complimentary charging for the first few years of ownership or provide credits to use for free charging. You can check the full estimated cost using the Department of Energy’s Vehicle Cost Calculator as the grid prepares for an American EV boom in the years ahead.

How long does it take to charge an electric car?
This depends on the type of charger you're using. Charging with a Level 1 charger takes much longer to reach full battery than a level 2 charger or a DCFC, or Direct Current Fast Charger. Here's how much time you can expect to spend charging your electric vehicle:

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California NEM-3 Tariff ushers a successor Net Energy Metering framework, revising export compensation, TOU rates, and non-bypassable charges to balance ratepayer impacts, rooftop solar growth, and energy storage adoption across diverse communities.

Key Points

The CPUC's successor NEM policy redefining export credits and rates to sustain customer-sited solar and storage.

✅ Sets export compensation methodology beyond NEM 2.0

✅ Aligns TOU rates and non-bypassable charges with costs

✅ Encourages solar-plus-storage adoption and equity access

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has officially commenced its “NEM-3” proceeding, which will establish the successor Net Energy Metering (NEM) tariff to the “NEM 2.0” program in California. This is a highly anticipated, high-stakes proceeding that will effectively modify the rules for the NEM tariff in California, amid ongoing electricity pricing changes that affect residential rooftop solar – arguably the single most important policy mechanism for customer-sited solar over the last decade.

The CPUC’s recent order instituting rule-making (OIR) filing stated that “the major focus of this proceeding will be on the development of a successor to existing NEM 2.0 tariffs. This successor will be a mechanism for providing customer-generators with credit or compensation for electricity generated by their renewable facilities that a) balances the costs and benefits of the renewable electrical generation facility and b) allows customer-sited renewable generation to grow sustainably among different types of customers and throughout California’s diverse communities.”

This successor tariff proceeding was initiated by Assembly Bill 327, which was signed into law in October of 2013. AB 327 is best known as the legislation that directed the CPUC to create the “NEM 2.0” successor tariff, which was adopted by the CPUC in January of 2016.

The original Net Energy Metering program in California (“NEM 1.0”) effectively enabled full-retail value net metering “allowing NEM customers to be compensated for the electricity generated by an eligible customer-sited renewable resource and fed back to the utility over an entire billing period.” Under the NEM 2.0 tariff, customers were required to pay charges that aligned them more closely with non-NEM customer costs than under the original structure. The main changes adopted when the NEM 2.0 was implemented were that NEM 2.0 customer-generators must: (i) pay a one-time interconnection fee; (ii) pay non-bypassable charges on each kilowatt-hour of electricity they consume from the grid; and (iii) customers were required to transfer to a time-of-use (TOU) rate, with potential changes to electric bills for many customers.

NEM 2.0

The commencement of the NEM-3 OIR was preceded by the publishing of a 318-page Net Energy Metering 2.0 Lookback Study, which was published by Itron, Verdant Associates, and Energy and Environmental Economics. The CPUC-commissioned study had been widely anticipated and was expected to act as the starting reference point for the successor tariff proceeding. Verdant also hosted a webinar, which summarized the study’s inputs, assumptions, draft findings and results.

The study utilized several different tests to study the impact of NEM 2.0. The cost effectiveness analysis tests, which estimate costs and benefits attributed to NEM 2.0 include: (i) total resource cost test, (ii) participant cost test, (iii) ratepayer impact measure test, and (iv) program administrator test. The evaluation also included a cost of service analysis, which estimates the marginal cost borne by the utility to serve a NEM 2.0 customer.

The opening paragraph of the report’s executive summary stated that “overall, we found that NEM 2.0 participants benefit from the structure, while ratepayers see increased rates.” In every test that the author’s conducted the results generally supported this conclusion for residential customers. There were some exceptions in their findings. For example, in the cost of service analysis the report stated that “residential customers that install customer-sited renewable resources on average pay lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them. On the other hand, nonresidential customers pay bills that are slightly higher than their cost of service after installing customer-sited renewable resources. This is largely due to nonresidential customer rates having demand charges (and other fixed fees), and the lower ratio of PV system size to customer load when compared to residential customers.”

Similar debates over solar rate design, including Massachusetts solar demand charges, highlight how demand charges and TOU decisions can affect customer economics.

NEM-3 timeline

Popular content
The preliminary schedule that the CPUC laid out in its OIR estimates that the proceeding will take roughly 15 months in total, starting with a November 2020 pre-hearing conference.

The real meat of the proceeding, where parties will present their proposals for what they believe the successor tariff should be, as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, and really show their hand will not begin until the Spring of 2021. So we’re still a little ways away from seeing the proposals that the key parties to this proceeding, like the Investor Owned Utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E), solar and storage advocates such as SEIA, CALSSA, Vote Solar, and ratepayer advocates like TURN) will submit.

While the outcome for the new successor NEM tariff is anyone’s guess at this point, some industry policy folks are starting to speculate. We think it is safe to assume that the value of exported energy will get reduced, with debates over income-based utility charges also influencing rate design. How much and the mechanism for how exports get valued remains to be seen. Based on the findings from the lookback study, it seems like the reduction in export value will be more severe than what happened when NEM 2.0 got implemented. In NEM 2.0, non-bypassable charges, which are volumetric charges that must be paid on all imported energy and cannot be netted-out by exports, only equated to roughly $0.02 to $0.03/kWh.

Given that the value of exports will almost certainly get reduced, we expect that to be bullish for energy storage as America goes electric and load shapes evolve. Energy storage attachment rates with solar are already steadily rising in California. By the time NEM-3 starts getting implemented, likely in 2022, we think storage attachment rates will likely escalate further.

We would not be surprised to see future storage attachment rates in California look like the Hawaiian market today, which are upwards of 80% for certain types of customers and applications. Two big questions on our mind are: (i) will the NEM 3.0 rules be different for different customer class: residential, CARE (e.g., low-income or disadvantaged communities), and commercial & industrial; (ii) will the CPUC introduce some sort of glidepath or phased in implementation approach?

The outcome of this proceeding will have far reaching implications on the future of customer-sited solar and energy storage in California. The NEM-3 outcome in California may likely serve as precedent for other states, as California exports its energy policies across the West, and utility territories that are expected to redesign their Net Energy Metering tariffs in the coming years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

IEA Electricity Market Outlook 2023-2025 projects faster demand growth as renewables and nuclear dominate supply, stabilizing power-sector carbon emissions, with Asia leading expansion despite energy crisis shocks and weather-driven volatility.

Key Points

IEA forecast for 2023-2025 electricity demand: renewables and nuclear meet growth as power-sector emissions hold steady.

✅ Asia drives >70% of demand growth

✅ Renewables and nuclear meet most new supply

✅ CO2 intensity declines; grid flexibility vital

The world’s electricity demand growth slowed only slightly in 2022, despite headwinds from the energy crisis, and is expected to accelerate in the years ahead

Renewables are set to dominate the growth of the world’s electricity supply over the next three years as, renewables eclipse coal in global generation, together with nuclear power they meet the vast majority of the increase in global demand through to 2025, making significant rises in the power sector’s carbon emissions unlikely, according to a new IEA report.

After slowing slightly last year to 2% amid the turmoil of the global energy crisis and exceptional weather conditions in some regions, the growth in world electricity demand is expected to accelerate to an average of 3% over the next three years, the IEA’s Electricity Market Report 2023 finds. Emerging and developing economies in Asia are the driving forces behind this faster pace, which is a step up from average growth of 2.4% during the years before the pandemic and above pre-pandemic levels globally.

More than 70% of the increase in global electricity demand over the next three years is expected to come from China, India and Southeast Asia, as Asia’s power use nears half of the world by mid-decade, although considerable uncertainties remain over trends in China as its economy emerges from strict Covid restrictions. China’s share of global electricity consumption is currently forecast to rise to a new record of one-third by 2025, up from one-quarter in 2015. At the same time, advanced economies are seeking to expand electricity use to displace fossil fuels in sectors such as transport, heating and industry.

“The world’s growing demand for electricity is set to accelerate, adding more than double Japan’s current electricity consumption over the next three years,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “The good news is that renewables and nuclear power are growing quickly enough to meet almost all this additional appetite, suggesting we are close to a tipping point for power sector emissions. Governments now need to enable low-emissions sources to grow even faster and drive down emissions so that the world can ensure secure electricity supplies while reaching climate goals.”

While natural gas-fired power generation in the European Union is forecast to fall in the coming years, as wind and solar outpaced gas in 2022, based on current trends, significant growth in the Middle East is set to partly offset this decrease. Sharp spikes in natural gas prices amid the energy crisis have in turn fuelled soaring electricity prices in some markets, particularly in Europe, prompting debate in policy circles over reforms to power market design.

Meanwhile, expected declines in coal-fired generation in Europe and the Americas are likely to be matched by a rise in the Asia-Pacific region, despite increases in nuclear power deployment and restarts of plants in some countries such as Japan. This means that after reaching an all-time high in 2022, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from global power generation are set to remain around the same level through 2025.

The strong growth of renewables means their share of the global power generation mix is forecast to rise from 29% in 2022 to 35% in 2025, with the shares of coal- and gas-fired generation falling. As a result, the CO2 intensity of global power generation will continue to decrease in the coming years. Europe bucked this global trend last year, however. The CO2 intensity of Europe’s power generation increased as a result of higher use of coal and gas amid steep drops in output from both hydropower, due to drought, and nuclear power, due to plant closures and maintenance. This setback will be temporary, though, as Europe’s power generation emissions are expected to decrease on average by about 10% a year through 2025.

Electricity demand trends varied widely by region in 2022. India’s electricity consumption rose strongly, while China’s growth was more subdued due to its zero-Covid policy weighing heavily on economic activity. The United States recorded a robust increase in demand, driven by economic activity and higher residential use amid hotter summer weather and a colder-than-normal winter, even as electricity sales projections continue to decline according to some outlooks.

Demand in the European Union contracted due to unusually mild winter weather and a decline in electricity consumption in the industrial sector, which significantly scaled back production because of high energy prices and supply disruptions caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The 3.5% decrease in EU demand was its second largest percentage decline since the global financial crisis in 2009, with the largest being the exceptional contraction due to the COVID-19 shock in 2020.

The new IEA report notes that electricity demand and supply worldwide are becoming increasingly weather dependent, with extreme conditions a recurring theme in 2022. In addition to the drought in Europe, there were heatwaves in India, resulting in the country’s highest ever peak in power demand. Similarly, central and eastern regions of China were hit by heatwaves and drought, which caused demand for air conditioning to surge amid reduced hydropower generation in Sichuan province. The United States also saw severe winter storms in December, triggering massive power outages.

These highlight the need for faster decarbonisation and accelerated deployment of clean energy technologies, the report says. At the same time, as the clean energy transition gathers pace, the impact of weather events on electricity demand will intensify due to the increased electrification of heating, while the share of weather-dependent renewables will continue to grow in the generation mix. In such a world, increasing the flexibility of power systems, which are under growing strain across grids and markets, while ensuring security of supply and resilience of networks will be crucial.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Adoption Limits highlight that electric vehicles alone cannot meet emissions targets; life cycle assessment, carbon budgets, clean grids, public transit, and battery materials constraints demand broader decarbonization strategies, city redesign, and active travel.

Key Points

EV Adoption Limits show EVs alone cannot hit climate targets; modal shift, clean grids, and travel demand are essential.

✅ 350M EVs by 2050 still miss 2 C goals without major mode shift

✅ Grid demand rises 41%, requiring clean power and smart charging

✅ Battery materials constraints need recycling, supply diversification

Today there are more than seven million electric vehicles (EVs) in operation around the world, compared with only about 20,000 a decade ago. It’s a massive change – but according to a group of researchers at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering, it won’t be nearly enough to address the global climate crisis. 

“A lot of people think that a large-scale shift to EVs will mostly solve our climate problems in the passenger vehicle sector,” says Alexandre Milovanoff, a PhD student and lead author of a new paper published in Nature Climate Change. 

“I think a better way to look at it is this: EVs are necessary, but on their own, they are not sufficient.” 

Around the world, many governments are already going all-in on EVs. In Norway, for example, where EVs already account for half of new vehicle sales, the government has said it plans to eliminate sales of new internal combustion vehicles by 2025. The Netherlands aims to follow suit by 2030, with France and Canada's EV goals aiming to follow by 2040. Just last week, California announced plans to ban sales of new internal combustion vehicles by 2035.

Milovanoff and his supervisors in the department of civil and mineral engineering – Assistant Professor Daniel Posen and Professor Heather MacLean – are experts in life cycle assessment, which involves modelling the impacts of technological changes across a range of environmental factors. 

They decided to run a detailed analysis of what a large-scale shift to EVs would mean in terms of emissions and related impacts. As a test market, they chose the United States, which is second only to China in terms of passenger vehicle sales. 

“We picked the U.S. because they have large, heavy vehicles, as well as high vehicle ownership per capita and high rate of travel per capita,” says Milovanoff. “There is also lots of high-quality data available, so we felt it would give us the clearest answers.” 

The team built computer models to estimate how many electric vehicles would be needed to keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100, a target often cited by climate researchers. 

“We came up with a novel method to convert this target into a carbon budget for U.S. passenger vehicles, and then determined how many EVs would be needed to stay within that budget,” says Posen. “It turns out to be a lot.” 

Based on the scenarios modelled by the team, the U.S. would need to have about 350 million EVs on the road by 2050 in order to meet the target emissions reductions. That works out to about 90 per cent of the total vehicles estimated to be in operation at that time. 

“To put that in perspective, right now the total proportion of EVs on the road in the U.S. is about 0.3 per cent,” says Milovanoff. 

“It’s true that sales are growing fast, but even the most optimistic projections of an electric-car revolution suggest that by 2050, the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent EVs.” 

The team says that, in addition to the barriers of consumer preferences for EV deployment, there are technological barriers such as the strain that EVs would place on the country’s electricity infrastructure, though proper grid management can ease integration. 

According to the paper, a fleet of 350 million EVs would increase annual electricity demand by 1,730 terawatt hours, or about 41 per cent of current levels. This would require massive investment in infrastructure and new power plants, some of which would almost certainly run on fossil fuels in some regions. 

The shift could also impact what’s known as the demand curve – the way that demand for electricity rises and falls at different times of day – which would make managing the national electrical grid more complex, though vehicle-to-grid strategies could help smooth peaks. Finally, there are technical challenges stemming from the supply of critical materials for batteries, including lithium, cobalt and manganese. 

The team concludes that getting to 90 per cent EV ownership by 2050 is an unrealistic scenario. Instead, what they recommend is a mix of policies, rather than relying solely on a 2035 EV sales mandate as a singular lever, including many designed to shift people out of personal passenger vehicles in favour of other modes of transportation. 

These could include massive investment in public transit – subways, commuter trains, buses – as well as the redesign of cities to allow for more trips to be taken via active modes such as bicycles or on foot. They could also include strategies such as telecommuting, a shift already spotlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“EVs really do reduce emissions, which are linked to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local studies, but they don’t get us out of having to do the things we already know we need to do,” says MacLean. “We need to rethink our behaviours, the design of our cities, and even aspects of our culture. Everybody has to take responsibility for this.” 

The research received support from the Hatch Graduate Scholarship for Sustainable Energy Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News