B.C. residents and businesses get break on electricity bills for three months

Site C Dam Update outlines hydroelectric budget overruns, geotechnical risks, COVID-19 construction delays, BC Hydro timelines, cancellation costs, and First Nations treaty rights concerns affecting renewable energy, ratepayers, and Peace Valley impacts.

Key Points

Overview of Site C costs, delays, geotechnical risks, and concerns shaping BC Hydro hydroelectric plans.

✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B

✅ Final budget now about $16B; completion pushed to 2025

✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns

The cost to cancel a massive B.C. energy development project would be at least $10 billion, provincial officials revealed in an update on the future of Site C.

Thus the project will go ahead, Premier John Horgan and Energy Minister Bruce Ralston announced Friday, but with an increased budget and timeline.

Horgan and Ralston spoke at a news conference in Victoria about the findings of a status report into the hydroelectric dam project in northeastern B.C.

Peter Milburn, former deputy finance minister, finished the report earlier this year, but the findings were not initially made public.

$10B more than initial estimate
On Friday, it was announced that the project's final price tag has once again ballooned by billions of dollars.

Site C was initially estimated to cost $6 billion, and the first approved budget, back in 2014, was $8.775 billion. The budget increased to $10.8 billion in 2018.

But the latest update suggests it will cost about $16 billion in total.

And, in addition to a higher budget, the date of completion has been pushed back to 2025 – a year later than the initial target.

Among the reasons for the revisions, according to the province, is the impact of COVID-19. While officials did not get into details, there have been multiple cases of the disease publicly reported at Site C work camps.

Additionally, fewer workers were permitted on site to allow for physical distancing, and construction was scaled back.

Also cited as a cause for the increased cost were "unforeseeable" geotechnical issues at the site, which required installation of an enhanced drainage system.

Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.

“Managing the contract the BC Liberals signed has been difficult because it transfers the vast majority of the geotechnical risk back to BC Hydro,” said Horgan.

Former Premier Christy Clark vowed to get the project to a point of no return, and in 2017 the NDP decided to continue with the project because of the cost of cancelling it.

The Liberals now say the clean energy project should continue, but deny they shoulder any of the blame.

“Someone has to take ownership – and it's got to be government in power,” said MLA Tom Shypitka, BC Liberal critic for energy. 

There are also several reviews underway, including how to change contractor schedules to reflect delays and potential cost impacts from COVID-19, and how to keep the work environment safe during the pandemic.

A total of 17 recommendations were made in Milburn's report, all of which have been accepted by BC Hydro and the province.

Among these recommendations is a restructured project assurance board with a focus on skill-specific membership and autonomy from BC Hydro.

Cost of cancelling the project
The report looked into whether it would be better to scrap the project altogether, but the cost of cancelling it at this point would be at least $10 billion, Horgan and Ralston said.

That cost does not include replacing lost energy and capacity that Site C's electricity would have provided, according to the province.

A study conducted in 2019 suggested B.C. will need to double its electricity production by 2055, especially as drought conditions are forcing BC Hydro to adapt power generation. 

The NDP government says the cost to ratepayers of cancelling the project would be $216 a year for 10 years. Going forward will still have a cost, but instead, that payment will be split over more than 70 years, the estimated lifetime of Site C, meaning BC Hydro customers will pay about $36 more a year once the site goes live, the NDP says, even as cryptocurrency mining raises questions about electricity use.

“We will not put jobs at risk; we will not shock people's hydro bills,” said Horgan.

"Our government has taken this situation very seriously, and with the advice of independent experts guiding us, I am confident in the path forward for Site C," Ralston said.

"B.C. needs more renewable energy to bridge the electricity gap with Alberta and electrify our economy, transition away from fossil fuels and meet our climate targets."

The minister said the site is currently employing about 4,500 people.

Arguments against Site C
While there are benefits to the project, there has also been vocal opposition.

In a statement released following the announcement that the project would go ahead, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs suggested the decision violated the premier's commitment to a UN declaration.

"The Site C dam has never had the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted First Nations, and proceeding with the project is a clear infringement of the treaty rights of the West Moberly First Nation," the UBCIC's secretary treasurer said.

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson said the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a suspension of the project until it has the consent of Indigenous peoples.

"B.C. did not even attempt to engage First Nations about the safety risks associated with the stability of the dam in the recent reviews," she said.

"It is unfathomable that such clear human rights violations are somehow OK by this government."

Chief Roland Wilson of the West Moberly First Nation said he was disappointed the province didn’t consult his and other communities prior to making this announcement. In an interview with CTV News, he said he was offered an opportunity to join a call this morning.

“We signed a treaty in 1814,” he said. “Our treaty rights are being trampled on.”

Wilson said his nation has ongoing concerns about safety issues and the plans to flood the Peace Valley. West Moberly is in a bitter court battle with the province.

At the BC Legislature, Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau slammed the government’s decision.

“It is an astonishingly terrible business case in any circumstances, but considering that we lose the agricultural land, the biodiversity, the traditional treaty lands of Treaty 8, this is particularly catastrophic,” she told reporters.

She went on to accuse the NDP government of keeping bad news from the public. She alleged the NDP knew of serious problems before last fall’s unscheduled election, but chose not to release information.

Prior to the decision former BC Hydro president and a former federal fisheries minister are among those who added their voices to calls to halt work on the dam.

They were among 18 Canadians who wrote an open letter to the province calling for an independent team of experts to explore geotechnical problems at the site.

In the letter, signed in September, the group that also included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC wrote that going ahead would be a "costly and potentially catastrophic mistake." 

According to Friday's update, independent experts have confirmed the site is safe, though improvements have been recommended to enhance oversight and risk management.

Earlier in the project, a B.C. First Nation claimed it was a $1-billion treaty violation, though an agreement was reached in 2020 after the province promised to improve land management and restore traditional place names in areas of cultural significance.

The Prophet River First Nation will also receive payments while the site is operating, and some Crown land will be transferred to the nation as part of the agreement. 

Additionally, residents of a tiny community not far from the site is suing the province over two slow-moving landslides they claim caused property values to plummet.

Nearly three dozen residents of Old Fort are behind the allegations of negligence and breach of their charter right to security of person. The claim is tied to two landslides, in 2018 and 2020, that the group alleges were caused by ground destabilization from construction related to Site C.

One of the landslides damaged the only road into the community, leaving residents under evacuation for a month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EECBG Program Funding empowers states, Tribes, and local governments with DOE grants to deploy clean energy, energy efficiency, EV infrastructure, and community solar, cutting emissions, lowering utility bills, and advancing net-zero decarbonization.

Key Points

EECBG Program Funding is a $550M DOE grant for states, Tribes, and governments to deploy clean energy and efficiency.

✅ Supports EV infrastructure and community solar deployment

✅ Cuts emissions and lowers utility costs via efficiency

✅ Prioritizes Justice40 benefits for underserved communities

The Biden-Harris Administration, through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), today released a Notice of Intent announcing $550 million to support community-based clean energy in state, Tribal, and local governments — serving more than 250 million Americans. This investment in American communities, through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, will support communities across the country to develop local programming and deploy clean energy technologies to cut emissions, advance a 90% carbon-free electricity goal nationwide, and reduce consumers’ energy costs, and help meet President Biden’s goal of a net-zero economy by 2050. 

“This funding is a streamlined and flexible tool for local governments to build their electricity future with clean energy,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “State, local, and Tribal communities nationwide will be able to leverage this funding to drive greater energy efficiency and conservation practices to lower utility bills and create healthier environments for American families.”   

The EECBG Program will fund 50 states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, 774 Tribes, and 1,878 local governments in a variety of capacity-building, planning, and infrastructure efforts to reduce carbon emissions and energy use and improve energy efficiency in the transportation, building, and other related sectors. For example, communities with this funding can build out electric vehicle infrastructure and deploy community solar to serve areas that otherwise do not have access to electric vehicles or clean energy, particularly through a rural energy security program where appropriate.  

The $550 million made available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) represents the second time that the EECBG Program has been funded, the first of which was through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. With this most recent funding, communities can build on prior investments and leverage additional clean energy funding from DOE, other federal agencies, and the private sector to achieve sustained impacts, supported by a Clean Electricity Standard where applicable, that can put their communities on a pathway to decarbonization. 

Through the EECBG Program and the Office of State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP), DOE will support the many diverse state, local, and tribal communities across the U.S., including efforts to revitalize coal communities through clean energy, as they implement this funding and other clean energy projects. To ensure no communities are left behind, the program aligns with President’s Justice40 initiative and efforts toward equity in electricity regulation to help ensure that 40% of the overall benefits of clean energy investments go to underserved and overburdened communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Grid Resiliency Pricing Opposition underscores industry groups, RTOs, and ISOs rejecting DOE's NOPR, warning against out-of-market subsidies for coal and nuclear, favoring competitive markets, reliability, and true grid resilience.

Key Points

Coalition urging FERC to reject DOE's NOPR subsidies, protecting reliability and competitive power markets.

✅ Industry groups, RTOs, ISOs oppose DOE NOPR

✅ PJM reports sufficient reliability and resilience

✅ Reject out-of-market aid to coal, nuclear

A diverse group of a dozen energy industry associations representing oil, natural gas, wind, solar, efficiency, and other energy technologies today submitted reply comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) continuing their opposition to the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed rulemaking on grid resiliency pricing and electricity pricing changes within competitive markets, in the next step in this FERC proceeding.

Action by FERC, as lawmakers urge movement on aggregated DERs to modernize markets, is expected by December 11.

In these comments, this broad group of energy industry associations notes that most of the comments submitted initially by an unprecedented volume of filers, including grid operators whose markets would be impacted by the proposed rule, urged FERC not to adopt DOE'sproposed rule to provide out-of-market financial support to uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants in the wholesale electricity markets overseen by FERC.

Just a small set of interests - those that would benefit financially from discriminatory pricing that favors coal and nuclear plants - argued in favor of the rule put forward by DOE in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NOPR, as did coal and business interests in related regulatory debates. But even those interests - termed 'NOPR Beneficiaries' by the energy associations - failed to provide adequate justification for FERC to approve the rule, and their specific alternative proposals for implementing the bailout of these plants were just as flawed as the DOE plan, according to the energy industry associations.

'The joint comments filed today with partners across the energy spectrum reflect the overwhelming majority view that this proposed rulemaking by FERC is unprecedented and unwarranted, said Todd Foley, Senior Vice President, Policy & Government Affairs, American Council on Renewable Energy.

We're hopeful that FERC will rule against an anti-competitive distortion of the electricity marketplace and avoid new unnecessary initiatives that increase power prices for American consumers and businesses.'

In the new reply comments submitted in response to the initial comments filed by hundreds of stakeholders on or before October 23 - the energy industry associations made the following points: Despite hundreds of comments filed, no new information was brought forth to validate the assertion - by DOE or the NOPR Beneficiaries - that an emergency exists that requires accelerated action to prop up certain power plants that are failing in competitive electricity markets: 'The record in this proceeding, including the initial comments, does not support the discriminatory payments proposed' by DOE, state the industry groups.

Nearly all of the initial comments filed in the matter take issue with the DOE NOPR and its claim of imminent threats to the reliability and resilience of the electric power system, despite reports of coal and nuclear disruptions cited by some advocates: 'Of the hundreds of comments filed in response to the DOE NOPR, only a handful purported to provide substantive evidence in support of the proposal. In contrast, an overwhelming majority of initial comments agree that the DOE NOPR fails to substantiate its assertions of an immediate reliability or resiliency need related to the retirement of merchant coal-fired and nuclear generation.'

Grid operators filed comments refuting claims that the potential retirement of coal and nuclear plants which could not compete for economically present immediate or near-term challenges to grid management, even as a coal CEO criticism targeted federal decisions: 'Even the RTOs and ISOs themselves filed comments opposing the DOE NOPR, noting that the proposed cost-of-service payments to preferred generation would disrupt the competitive markets and are neither warranted nor justified.... Most notably, this includes PJM Interconnection, ... the RTO in which most of the units potentially eligible for payments under the DOE NOPR are located. PJM states that its region 'unquestionably is reliable, and its competitive markets have for years secured commitments from capacity resources that well exceed the target reserve margin established to meet [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] requirements.' And PJM analysis has confirmed that the region's generation portfolio is not only reliable, but also resilient.'

The need for NOPR Beneficiaries to offer alternative proposals reflects the weakness of DOE'srule as drafted, but their options for propping up uneconomic power plants are no better, practically or legally: 'Plans put forward by supporters of the power plant bailout 'acknowledge, at least implicitly, that the preferential payment structure proposed in the DOE NOPR is unclear, unworkable, or both. However, the alternatives offered by the NOPR Beneficiaries, are equally flawed both substantively and procedurally, extending well beyond the scope of the DOE NOPR.'

Citing one example, the energy groups note that the detailed plan put forward by utility FirstEnergy Service Co. would provide preferential payments far more costly than those now provided to individual power plants needed for immediate reasons (and given a 'reliability must run' contract, or RMR): 'Compensation provided under [FirstEnergy's proposal] would be significantly expanded beyond RMR precedent, going so far as to include bailing [a qualifying] unit out of debt based on an unsupported assertion that revenues are needed to ensure long-term operation.'

Calling the action FERC would be required to take in adopting the DOE proposal 'unprecedented,' the energy industry associations reiterate their opposition: 'While the undersigned support the goals of a reliable and resilient grid, adoption of ill-considered discriminatory payments contemplated in the DOE NOPR is not supportable - or even appropriate - from a legal or policy perspective.

About ACORE

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) is a national non-profit organization leading the transition to a renewable energy economy. With hundreds of member companies from across the spectrum of renewable energy technologies, consumers and investors, ACORE is uniquely positioned to promote the policies and financial structures essential to growth in the renewable energy sector. Our annual forums in Washington, D.C., New York and San Franciscoset the industry standard in providing important venues for key leaders to meet, discuss recent developments, and hear the latest from senior government officials and seasoned experts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Vehicle Adoption Barriers include range anxiety, charging infrastructure, and cost parity; consumer demand, tax credits, lithium-ion batteries, and performance benefits are accelerating EV uptake, pushing SUVs and self-driving tech toward mainstream mobility.

Key Points

They are the key hurdles to mainstream EV uptake: range anxiety, sparse charging networks, and high upfront costs.

✅ Range targets of 300+ miles reduce anxiety and match ICE convenience

✅ Expanded home, work, and public charging speeds adoption

✅ Falling battery costs and incentives drive price parity

The automotive industry is hurtling toward a future that will change transportation the same way electricity changed how we light the world. Electric and self-driving vehicles will alter the automotive landscape forever — it's only a question of how soon, and whether the age of electric cars arrives ahead of schedule.

Like any revolution, this one will be created by market demand.
Beyond the environmental benefit, electric vehicle owners enjoy the performance, quiet operation, robust acceleration, style and interior space. And EV owners like not having to buy gasoline. We believe the majority of these customers will stay loyal to electric cars, and U.S. EV sales are soaring into 2024 as this loyalty grows.

But what about non-EV owners? Will they want to buy electric, and is it time to buy an electric car for them yet? About 25 years ago, when we first considered getting into the electric vehicle business with a small car that had about 70 miles of range, the answer was no. But today, the results are far more encouraging.

We recently held consumer clinics in Los Angeles and Chicago and presented people with six SUV choices: three gasoline and three electric. When we asked for their first choice to purchase, 40% of the Chicago respondents chose an electric SUV, and 45% in LA did the same. This is despite a several thousand-dollar premium on the price of the electric models, and despite that EV sales still lag gas cars nationally today, consumer interest was strong (but also before crucial government tax credits that we believe will continue to drive people toward electric vehicles and help fuel market demand).

They had concerns, to be sure. Most people said they want vehicles that can match gasoline-powered vehicles in range, ease of ownership and cost. The sooner we can break down these three critical barriers, the sooner electric cars will become mainstream.

Range
Range is the single biggest barrier to EV acceptance. Just as demand for gas mileage doesn't go down when there are more gas stations, demand for better range won't ease even as charging infrastructure improves. People will still want to drive as long as possible between charges.

Most consumers surveyed during our clinics said they want at least 300 miles of range. And if you look at the market today, which is driven by early adapters, electric cars have hit an inflection point in demand, and the numbers bear that out. The vast majority of electric vehicles sold — almost 90% — are six models with the highest range of 238 miles or more — three Tesla models, the Chevrolet Bolt EV, the Hyundai Kona and the Kia Niro, according to IHS Markit data.

Lithium-ion batteries, which power virtually all electric cars on the road today, are rapidly improving, increasing range with each generation. At GM, we recently announced that our 2020 Chevrolet Bolt EV will have a range of 259 miles, a 21-mile improvement over the previous model. Range will continue to improve across the industry, and range anxiety will dissipate.

Charging infrastructure
Our research also shows that, among those who have considered buying an electric vehicle, but haven't, the lack of charging stations is the number one reason why.

For EVs to gain widespread acceptance, manufacturers, charging companies, industry groups and governments at all levels must work together to make public charging available in as many locations as possible. For example, we are seeing increased partnership activity between manufacturers and charging station companies, as well as construction companies that build large infrastructure projects, as the American EV boom approaches, with the goal of adding thousands of additional public charging stations in the United States.

Private charging stations are just as important. Nearly 80% of electric vehicle owners charge their vehicles at home, and almost 15% at work, with the rest at public stations, our research shows. Therefore, continuing to make charging easy and seamless is vital. To that end, more partnerships with companies that will install the chargers in consumers' homes conveniently and affordably will be a boon for both buyers and sellers.

Cost
Another benefit to EV ownership is a lower cost of operation. Most EV owners report that their average cost of operation is about one-third of what a gasoline-powered car owner pays. But the purchase price is typically significantly higher, and that's where we should see change as each generation of battery technology improves efficiency and reduces cost.

Looking forward, we think electric vehicle propulsion systems will achieve cost parity with internal combustion engines within a decade or sooner, and will only get better after that, driving sticker prices down and widening the appeal to the average consumer. That will be driven by a number of factors, including improvements with each generation of batteries and vehicles, as well as expected increased regulatory costs on gasoline and diesel engines.

Removing these barriers will lead to what I consider the ultimate key to widespread EV adoption — the emergence of the EV as a consumer's primary vehicle — not a single-purpose or secondary vehicle. That will happen when we as an industry are able to offer the utility, cost parity and convenience of today's internal combustion-based cars and trucks.

To get the electric vehicle to first-string status, manufacturers simply must make it as good or better than the cars, trucks and crossovers most people are used to driving today. And we must deliver on our promise of making affordable, appealing EVs in the widest range of sizes and body styles possible. When we do that, electric vehicle adoption and acceptance will be widespread, and it can happen sooner than most people think.

Mark Reuss is president of GM. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Hybrid Vehicle Sales Outlook highlights rising hybrid demand as an EV bridge, driven by emissions rules, range anxiety, charging infrastructure gaps, and automaker strategies from Ford, Toyota, and Stellantis across U.S. markets.

Key Points

Forecast of U.S. hybrid sales shaped by EV adoption, emissions rules, charging access, and automaker strategies.

✅ S&P sees hybrids at 24% of U.S. sales by 2028

✅ Bridges ICE to EV amid range and charging concerns

✅ Ford, Toyota, Stellantis expand U.S. hybrid lineups

Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles may not be dying as fast as some predicted in the auto sector’s rush to develop all-electric models.

Ford Motor is the latest of several top automakers, including Toyota and Stellantis, planning to build and sell hundreds of thousands of hybrid vehicles in the U.S. over the next five years, industry forecasters told Reuters.

The companies are pitching hybrids as an alternative for retail and commercial customers who are seeking more sustainable transportation, but may not be ready to make the leap to a full electric vehicle.

"Hybrids really serve a lot of America," said Tim Ghriskey, senior portfolio strategist at New York-based investment manager Ingalls & Snyder. "Hybrid is a great alternative to a pure electric vehicle (and) it's an easier sell to a lot of customers."

Interest in hybrids is rebounding as consumer demand for pure electrics has not accelerated as quickly as expected, with EV market share dipping in Q1 2024 according to some analyses. Surveys cite a variety of reasons for tepid EV demand, from high initial cost and concerns about range to lengthy charging times and a shortage of public charging infrastructure in many regions.

“With the tightening of emissions requirements, hybrids provide a cleaner fleet without requiring buyers to take the leap into pure electrics,” said Sam Fiorani, vice president at AutoForecast Solutions.

S&P Global Mobility estimates hybrids will more than triple over the next five years, accounting for 24% of U.S. new vehicle sales in 2028. Sales of pure electrics will claim about 37%, supported by strong U.S. EV sales into 2024 momentum, leaving combustion vehicles — including so-called “mild” hybrids — with a nearly 40% share.

S&P estimates hybrids will account for just 7% of U.S. sales this year, and pure electrics 9%, underscoring that EV sales still lag gas cars as internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles take more than 80%.

Historically, hybrids have accounted for less than 10% of total U.S. sales, with Toyota’s long-running Prius among the most popular models. The Japanese automaker has consistently said hybrids will play a key role in the company's long-range electrification plans as it slowly ramps up investment in pure EVs.

Ford is the latest to roll out more aggressive hybrid plans. On its second-quarter earnings call in late July, Chief Executive Jim Farley surprised analysts, saying Ford expects to quadruple its hybrid sales over the next five years after earlier promising an aggressive push into all-electric vehicles.

“This transition to EVs will be dynamic,” Farley told analysts. “We expect the EV market to remain volatile until the winners and losers shake out.”

Among Ford’s competitors, General Motors appears to have little interest in hybrids in the U.S., while Stellantis will follow Toyota and Ford’s hedge by offering U.S. buyers a choice of different powertrains, including hybrids, until sales of pure electric vehicles start to take off after mid-decade, a potential EV inflection point according to forecaster GlobalData.

In a statement, GM said it, echoing leadership's view that EVs won't go mainstream until key issues are addressed, "continues to be committed to its all-electric future ... While we will have hybrid vehicles in our global fleet, our focus remains on transitioning our portfolio to electric by 2030.”

Stellantis said hybrids now account for 36% of Jeep Wrangler sales and 19% of Chrysler Pacifica sales. In addition to new pure electric models coming soon, "we are very bullish on hybrids going forward," a spokesperson said.

This year, manufacturers are marketing more than 60 hybrids in the U.S. Toyota and its premium Lexus brand are selling at least 18 different hybrid models, enabling the Japanese automaker to maintain its stranglehold on the sector.

Hyundai and sister brand Kia offer seven hybrid models, with Ford and Lincoln six. Stellantis offers just three, and GM’s sole entry, due out later this year, is a hybrid version of the Chevrolet Corvette sports car.

But hybrids remain in short supply at many U.S. dealerships.

Andrew DiFeo, dealer principal at Hyundai of St. Augustine, south of Jacksonville, FL, doesn't see EV adoption hitting the levels the Biden administration wants until EV charging networks are as ubiquitous as gas stations.

"Hybrids are a great bridge to whatever the future holds,” said DiFeo, adding, “I've got zero in stock (and) I've got customers that want all of them."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News