Peer-to-peer energy breakthrough could allow solar and wind energy sources to be shared

Ukraine Wind Energy Resilience shields the grid with wind power along the Black Sea, dispersing turbines to withstand missile attacks, accelerate clean energy transition, aid EU integration, and strengthen energy security and rapid recovery.

Key Points

A strategy in Ukraine using wind farms to harden the grid, ensure clean power, and speed recovery from missile strikes.

✅ Distributed turbines reduce single-point-of-failure risk

✅ Faster repair of substations and lines than power plants

✅ Supports EU-aligned clean energy and grid security goals

The giants catch the wind with their huge arms, helping to keep the lights on in Ukraine — newly built windmills, on plains along the Black Sea.

In 15 months of war, Russia has launched countless missiles and exploding drones at power plants, hydroelectric dams and substations, trying to black out as much of Ukraine as it can, as often as it can, even amid talk of limiting attacks on energy sites that has surfaced, in its campaign to pound the country into submission.

The new Tyligulska wind farm stands only a few dozen miles from Russian artillery, but Ukrainians say it has a crucial advantage over most of the country’s grid, helping stabilize the system even as electricity exports have occasionally resumed under fire.

A single, well-placed missile can damage a power plant severely enough to take it out of action, but Ukrainian officials say that doing the same to a set of windmills — each one tens of meters apart from any other — would require dozens of missiles. A wind farm can be temporarily disabled by striking a transformer substation or transmission lines, but these are much easier to repair than power plants.

“It is our response to Russians,” said Maksym Timchenko, CEO of DTEK Group, the company that built the turbines in the southern Mykolaiv region — the first phase of what is planned as Eastern Europe’s largest wind farm. “It is the most profitable and, as we know now, most secure form of energy.”

Ukraine has had laws in place since 2014 to promote a transition to renewable energy, both to lower dependence on Russian energy imports, with periods when electricity exports resumed to neighbors, and because it was profitable. But that transition still has a long way to go, and the war makes its prospects, like everything else about Ukraine’s future, murky.

In 2020, 12% of Ukraine’s electricity came from renewable sources — barely half the percentage for the European Union. Plans for the Tyligulska project call for 85 turbines producing up to 500 megawatts of electricity. That’s enough for 500,000 apartments — an impressive output for a wind farm, but less than 1% of the country’s prewar generating capacity.

After the Kremlin began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the need for new power sources became acute, prompting deliveries such as a mobile gas turbine power plant to bolster capacity. Russia has bombarded Ukraine’s power plants and cut off delivery of the natural gas that fueled some of them.

Russian occupation forces have seized a large part of the country’s power supply, and Russia has built power lines to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant in occupied territory, ensuring that its output does not reach territory still held by Ukraine. They hold the single largest generator, the 5,700-megawatt Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which has been damaged repeatedly in fighting and has stopped transmitting energy to the grid, with UN inspectors warning of mines at the site during recent visits. They also control 90% of Ukraine’s renewable energy plants, which are concentrated in the southeast.

The postwar recovery plans Ukraine has presented to supporters including the European Union, which it hopes to join, feature a major new commitment to clean energy, even as a controversial proposal on Ukraine’s nuclear plants continues to stir debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

2020 U.S. Renewable Electricity Generation set a record as wind, solar, hydro, biomass, and geothermal produced 834 billion kWh, surpassing coal and nuclear, second only to natural gas in nationwide power output.

Key Points

The record year when renewables made 834 billion kWh, topping coal and nuclear in U.S. electricity.

✅ Renewables supplied 21% of U.S. electricity in 2020

✅ Coal output fell 20% y/y; nuclear slipped 2% on retirements

✅ EIA forecasts renewables rise in 2021-2022; coal rebounds

In 2020, renewable energy sources (including wind, hydroelectric, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy) generated a record 834 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity, or about 21% of all the electricity generated in the United States. Only natural gas (1,617 billion kWh) produced more electricity than renewables in the United States in 2020. Renewables surpassed both nuclear (790 billion kWh) and coal (774 billion kWh) for the first time on record. This outcome in 2020 was due mostly to significantly less coal use in U.S. electricity generation and steadily increased use of wind and solar generation over time, amid declining consumption trends nationwide.

In 2020, U.S. electricity generation from coal in all sectors declined 20% from 2019, while renewables, including small-scale solar, increased 9%. Wind, currently the most prevalent source of renewable electricity in the United States, grew 14% in 2020 from 2019, and the EIA expects solar and wind to be larger sources in summer 2022, reflecting continued growth. Utility-scale solar generation (from projects greater than 1 megawatt) increased 26%, and small-scale solar, such as grid-connected rooftop solar panels, increased 19%, while early 2021 January power generation jumped year over year.

Coal-fired electricity generation in the United States peaked at 2,016 billion kWh in 2007 and much of that capacity has been replaced by or converted to natural gas-fired generation since then. Coal was the largest source of electricity in the United States until 2016, and 2020 was the first year that more electricity was generated by renewables and by nuclear power than by coal (according to our data series that dates back to 1949). Nuclear electric power declined 2% from 2019 to 2020 because several nuclear power plants retired and other nuclear plants experienced slightly more maintenance-related outages.

We expect coal-fired generation to increase in the United States during 2021 as natural gas prices continue to rise and as coal becomes more economically competitive. Based on forecasts in our Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), we expect coal-fired electricity generation in all sectors in 2021 to increase 18% from 2020 levels before falling 2% in 2022. We expect U.S. renewable generation across all sectors to increase 7% in 2021 and 10% in 2022, and in 2021, non-fossil fuel sources accounted for about 40% of U.S. electricity. As a result, we forecast coal will be the second-most prevalent electricity source in 2021, and renewables will be the second-most prevalent source in 2022. We expect nuclear electric power to decline 2% in 2021 and 3% in 2022 as operators retire several generators.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Chinese EV Makers in Europe target the EU market with electric SUVs, battery swapping, competitive pricing, and subsidies, led by NIO, Xpeng, MG, and BYD, starting in Norway amid Europe's zero-emissions push.

Key Points

Chinese EV makers expanding into EU markets with tech, pricing, and lean retail to gain share.

✅ Early launches in Norway leverage EV incentives

✅ Compete via battery swapping, OTA tech, and price

✅ Mix of importers, online sales, and lean dealerships

China's electric carmakers are darting into Europe, hoping to catch traditional auto giants cold and seize a slice of a market supercharged by the continent's EV transition towards zero emissions.

Nio Inc (NIO.N), among a small group of challengers, launches its ES8 electric SUV in Oslo on Thursday - the first foray outside China for a company that is virtually unheard of in Europe even though it's valued at about $57 billion.

Other brands unfamiliar to many Europeans that have started selling or plan to sell cars on the continent include Aiways, BYD's (002594.SZ) Tang, SAIC's (600104.SS) MG, Dongfeng's VOYAH, and Great Wall's (601633.SS) ORA.

Yet Europe, a crowded, competitive car market dominated by famous brands, has proved elusive for Chinese carmakers in the past. They made strategic slips and also contended with a perception that China, long associated with cheap mass-production, could not compete on quality.

Indeed, Nio Chief Executive William Li told Reuters he foresees a long road to success in a mature market where it is "very difficult to be successful".

Chinese carmakers may need up to a decade to "gain a firm foothold" in Europe, the billionaire entrepreneur said - a forecast echoed by He Xiaopeng, CEO of electric vehicle (EV) maker Xpeng (9868.HK) who told Reuters his company needs 10 years "to lay a good foundation" on the continent.

These new players, many of which have only ever made electric vehicles, believe they have a window of opportunity to finally crack the lucrative market.

While electric car sales in the European Union more than doubled last year and jumped 130% in the first half of this year, even as threats to the EV boom persist, traditional manufacturers are still gradually shifting their large vehicle ranges over to electric and have yet to flood the thirsty market with models.

"The market is not that busy yet, if you compare it with combustion-engine models where each of the major carmakers has a whole range of vehicles," said Alexander Klose, who heads the foreign operations of Chinese electric vehicle maker Aiways.

"That is where we think we have an opportunity," he added on a drive around Munich in a U5, a crossover SUV on sale in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, where new EV rules are aimed at discouraging purchases of Chinese models.

The U5 starts at 30,000 euros ($35,000) in Germany - below the average new car price and most local EV prices - before factoring in 9,000 euros in EV subsidies, though France's EV incentives have tightened for Chinese models - and comes in just four colours and two trim levels to minimize costs.

'GERMAN PEOPLE BUY GERMAN CARS'
As Chinese carmakers gear up to enter Europe, they are trying out different business models, from relying on importers, low-cost retail options or building up more traditional dealerships.

The new reality that top Western carmakers like BMW (BMWG.DE) and Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) now produce cars in technological powerhouse China, where the EV market is intensely competitive, has likely undermined past perceptions of low quality workmanship - though they can be hard to shake.

Antje Levers, a teacher who lives in western Germany near the Dutch border, and her husband owned a diesel Chevrolet Orlando but wanted a greener option. They bought an Aiways U5 last year after plenty of research to fend off criticism for not buying local, and loves its handling and low running costs.

She said people had told her: "You can't buy a Chinese car, they're plastic and cheap and do not support German jobs." But she feels that is no longer true in a global car industry where you find German auto parts in Chinese cars and vice versa.

"German people buy German cars, so to buy a Chinese car you need to have a little courage," the 47-year-old added. "Sometimes you just have to be open for new things."

NIO LANDS IN NORWAY WITH NOMI
Nio launches its ES8 electric SUV alongside a NIO House - part-showroom, part-cafe and workspace for customers in the capital of Norway, a country that's also the initial base for Xpeng.

Norwegian state support for EVs has put the country at the forefront of the shift to electric. It makes sense as a European entry point because customers are used to electric vehicles so only have to be sold on an unknown Chinese brand, said Christina Bu, secretary general of the Norwegian EV Association.

"If you go to another European country you may struggle to sell both," said Bu, adding that her organisation has talked extensively with a number of Chinese EV makers keen to learn market specifics and consumer culture before launching there.

She is uncertain, though, how consumers will react to Nio's approach of swapping out batteries for customers rather than stopping to charge them, a contrast to other EV battery strategies in the industry, or the carmaker's strategy of leasing rather than selling batteries to customers.

"But where the Chinese are really at the forefront is the technology," she added, referring in particular to Nomi, the digital assistant in the dashboard of Nio's cars.

NEWCOMERS' STRATEGIES DIVERGE
One size does not fit all. While Nio and Xpeng have been hiring staff building up their organizations in Norway, SAIC's MG works through a car importer to sell cars in a handful of European markets.

Aiways is trying an lower-cost approach to selling cars in Europe, though Klose says it varies by market.

In Germany, for instance, the company sells its cars through Euronics, an association of independent electronics retailers, rather than building traditional dealerships.

It aims to sell across the EU by next year and to enter the U.S. market by 2023, said Klose, a former Volvo and Ford executive.

Past failed attempts by Chinese carmakers to conquer Europe are unlikely to hurt Chinese EV makers today, as consumers have grown accustomed to electronics coming from China, he added.

Such failures included Brilliance in 2007, whose vehicle received one out of five stars in a German car crash test, damaging the brand.

"The fact there are more Chinese carmakers entering the market will also help us, as it will make Chinese brands more accepted by consumers," Klose said.

Selling cars to Europeans is a "tough business, especially if your product isn't well known," said Arnie Richters, chairman of Brussels-based industry group Platform for Electromobility.

"But if they bring a lot of innovation they have a lot of opportunity."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Clean Electricity Standard drives Biden's infrastructure, grid decarbonization, and utility mandates, leveraging EPA regulation, renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture via reconciliation to reach 80% clean power by 2030 amid partisan Congress.

Key Points

A federal mandate to reach 80% clean U.S. power by 2030 using incentives and EPA rules to speed grid decarbonization.

✅ Targets 80% clean electricity by 2030 via Congress or reconciliation

✅ Mix of renewables, nuclear, gas with carbon capture allowed

✅ Backup levers: EPA rules, incentives, utility planning shifts

The true measure of President Biden’s climate ambition may be the clean electricity standard he tucked into his massive $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending plan.

Its goal is striking: 80% clean power in the United States by 2030.

The details, however, are vague. And so is Biden’s plan B if it fails—an uncertainty that’s worrisome to both activists and academics. The lack of a clear backup plan underscores the importance of passing a clean electricity standard, they say.

If the clean electricity standard doesn’t survive Congress, it will put pressure on the need to drive climate policy through targeted spending, said John Larsen, a power system analyst with the Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm.

“I don’t think the game is lost at all if a clean electricity standard doesn’t get through in this round,” Larsen said. “But there’s a difference between not passing a clean electricity standard and passing the right spending package.”

In his few months in office, Biden has outlined plans to bring the United States back into the international Paris climate accord, pause oil and gas leasing on public lands, boost the electric vehicle market, and target clean energy investments in vulnerable communities, including plans to revitalize coal communities across the country, most affected by climate change.

But those are largely executive orders and spending proposals—even as early assessments show mixed results from climate law—and unlikely to last beyond his administration if the next president favors fossil fuel usage over climate policy. The clean electricity standard, which would decarbonize 80% of the electrical grid by 2030, is different.

It transforms Biden’s climate vision from a goal into a mandate. Passing it through Congress makes it that much harder for a future administration to undo. If Biden is in office for two terms, the United States would see a rate of decarbonization unparalleled in its history that would set a new bar for most of the world’s biggest economies.

But for now, the clean electricity standard faces an uncertain path through Congress and steep odds to getting enacted. That means there’s a good chance the administration will need a plan B, observers said.

Exactly what kind of climate spending can pass Congress is the very question the White House and congressional Democrats will be working on in the next few months, including upgrades to an aging power grid that affect renewables and EVs, as the infrastructure bill proceeds through Congress.

Negotiations are fraught already. Congress is almost evenly split between a party that wants to curtail the use of fossil fuels and another that wants to grow them, and even high energy prices have not necessarily triggered a green transition in the marketplace.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that “100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration.” He made similar comments at the start of the Obama administration and blocked climate policy from getting through Congress. He also said last week that no Republican senators would vote for Biden’s infrastructure spending plan.

A clean electricity standard has been referred to as the “backbone” of Biden’s climate policy—a way to ensure his policies to decarbonize the economy outlast a future president who would seek to roll back his climate work. Advocates say hitting that benchmark is an essential milestone in getting to a carbon-free grid by 2035. Much of President Obama’s climate policy, crafted largely through regulations and executive orders, proved vulnerable to President Trump’s rollbacks.

Biden appears to have learned from those lessons and wants to chart a new course to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. He’s using his majority in the House and Senate to lock in whatever he can before the 2022 midterms, when Democrats are expected to lose the House.

To pass a clean electricity standard, virtually every Democrat must be on board, and even then, the only chance of success is to pass a bill through the budget reconciliation process that can carry a clean electricity standard. Some Senate Democrats have recently hinted that they were willing to split the bill into pieces to get it through, while others are concerned that although this approach might win some GOP support on traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, it would isolate the climate provisions that make up more than half of the bill.

The most durable scenario for rapid electricity-sector decarbonization is to lock in a bipartisan clean electricity standard into legislation with 60 votes in the Senate, said Mike O’Boyle, the director of electricity policy for Energy Innovation. Because that’s highly unlikely—if not impossible—there are other paths that could get the United States to the 80% goal within the next decade.

“The next best approach is to either, or in combination, pursue EPA regulation of power plant pollution from existing and new power plants as well as to take a reconciliation-based approach to a clean electricity standard where you’re basically spending federal dollars to provide incentives to drive clean electricity deployment as opposed to a mandate per se,” he said.

Either way, O’Boyle said the introduction of the clean electricity standard sets a new bar for the federal government that likely would drive industry response even if it doesn’t get enacted. He compared it to the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s initiative to limit power plant emissions. Even though the plan never came to fruition, because of a Clean Power Plan rollback, it left a legacy that continues years later and wasn’t negated by a president who prioritized fossil fuels over the climate, he said.

“It never got enacted, but it still created a titanic shift in the way utilities plan their systems and proactively reposition themselves for future carbon regulation of their electricity systems,” O’Boyle said. “I think any action by the Biden administration or by Congress through reconciliation would have a similar catalytic function over the next couple years.”

Some don’t think a clean electricity standard has a doomed future. Right now, its provisions are vague. But they can be filled in in a way that doesn’t alienate Republicans or states more hesitant toward climate policy, said Sally Benson, an engineering professor at Stanford University and an expert on low-carbon energy systems. The United States is overdue for a federal mandate that lasts through multiple administrations. The only way to ensure that happens is to get Republican support.

She said that might be possible by making the clean electricity standard more flexible. Mandate the goals, she said, not how states get there. Going 100% renewable is not going to sell in some states or with some lawmakers, she added. For some regions, flexibility will mean keeping nuclear plants open. For others, it would mean using natural gas with carbon capture, Benson said.

While it might not meet the standards some progressives seek to end all fossil fuel usage, it would have a better chance of getting enacted and remaining in place through multiple presidents, she said. In fact, a clean electricity standard would provide a chance for carbon capture, which has been at the center of Republican climate policy proposals. Benson said carbon capture is not economical now, but the mandate of a standard could encourage investments that would drive the sector forward more rapidly.

“If it’s a plan that people see as shutting the door to nuclear or to natural gas plus carbon capture, I think we will face a lot of pushback,” she said. “Make it an inclusive plan with a specific goal of getting to zero emissions and there’s not one way to do it, meaning all renewables—I think that’s the thing that could garner a lot of industrial support to make progress.”

In addition to industry, Biden’s proposed clean electricity standard would drive states to do more, said Larsen of the Rhodium Group. Several states already have their own version of a clean energy standard and have driven much of the national progress on carbon emissions reduction in the last four years, he said. Biden has set a new benchmark that some states, including those with some of the biggest economies in the United States, would now likely exceed, he said.

“It is rare for the federal government to get out in front of leading states in clean energy policy,” he said. “This is not usually how climate policy diffusion works from the state level to the federal level; usually it’s states go ahead and the federal government adopts something that’s less ambitious.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Electric Vehicles Lower Electricity Rates by boosting demand, enabling fixed-cost recovery, and encouraging off-peak charging that balances the grid, reduces peaker plant use, and funds utility upgrades, with V2G poised to expand system benefits.

Key Points

By boosting off-peak demand and utility revenue, EVs spread fixed costs, cut peaker use, and stabilize the grid.

✅ Off-peak charging flattens load, reducing peaker plant reliance

✅ Higher kWh sales spread fixed grid costs across more users

✅ V2G can supply power during peaks and emergencies

Electric vehicles (EVs) are gaining popularity, and it appears they might be offering an unexpected benefit to everyone – including those who don't own an EV.  A new study by the non-profit research group Synapse Energy Economics suggests that the growth of electric cars is actually contributing to lower electricity rates for all ratepayers.

How EVs Contribute to Lower Rates

The study explains several factors driving this surprising trend:

• Increased Electricity Demand: Electric vehicles require additional electricity, boosting rising electricity demand on the grid.
• Optimal Charging Times: Many EV owners take advantage of off-peak charging discounts. Charging cars overnight, when electricity demand is typically low, helps to balance state power grids and reduce the need for expensive "peaker" power plants, which are only used to meet occasional spikes in demand.
• Revenue for Utilities: Electric car charging can generate substantial revenue for utilities, potentially supporting investment in grid improvements, energy storage solutions and renewable energy projects that can bring long-term benefits to all customers.

A Significant Impact

The Synapse Energy Economics study analyzed data from 2011 to 2021 and concluded that EV drivers already contributed over $3 billion more to the grid than their associated costs. That, in turn, reduced monthly electricity bills for all customers.

Benefits May Grow

While the impact on electricity rates has been modest so far, experts anticipate the benefits to grow as EV adoption rates increase. Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology, which allows EVs to feed stored power back into the grid during emergencies or high-demand periods, has the potential to further optimize electricity usage patterns and create additional benefits for electric utilities and customers.

National Implications

The findings of this study offer hope to other regions seeking to increase electric vehicle adoption rates and support California's grid stability efforts, which is a key step towards reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. This news may alleviate concerns about potential electricity rate hikes driven by EV adoption and suggests that the benefits will be broadly shared.

More than Just Environmental Benefits

Electric vehicles bring a clear environmental advantage by reducing reliance on fossil fuels. However, this unexpected economic benefit could further strengthen the case for accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles. This news might encourage policymakers and the public to consider additional incentives or policies, including vehicle-to-building charging approaches, to promote the transition to this cleaner mode of transportation knowing it can yield benefits beyond environmental goals.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News