Swiss electricity getting cleaner, says energy report

Cobalt Supply Chain for EV Batteries faces shortages as lithium-ion demand surges; Tesla gigafactories, ethical sourcing, Idaho cobalt mining, and DRC risks intensify pricing, logistics, and procurement challenges for manufacturers and investors.

Key Points

A network supplying cobalt for lithium-ion cathodes, strained by EV demand, ethical sourcing pressures, and DRC risk.

✅ EV growth outpaces cobalt supply, widening deficits

✅ DRC reliance drives ESG scrutiny and sourcing shifts

✅ Idaho projects and stockpiling reshape U.S. supply

A perfect storm is brewing in the 21st Century battery market.

More specifically, it's about what goes into those batteries - and it's not just lithium.

The other element that makes up 35 percent of the lithium-ion batteries mass produced at Tesla's Nevada gigafactory and at a dozen of other behemoths slated to come on line, is cobalt. And it's already in dramatically short supply. A part of the answer to the cobalt deficit is 100 percent American, and this little-known miner is sitting on a prime Idaho cobalt project that is one of only two that looks likely to come online in the U.S. and it's right in Tesla's backyard.

High-Energy Batteries Need More Cobalt Than Lithium 

If you've been focusing your investment on lithium supplies lately you've been missing the even bigger story. EV batteries need about 200 grams of refined cobalt per kilowatt of battery capacity. Power walls need more than twice that. Between March 2016 and April 2017, the cost of the cobalt in that mix nearly tripled. But it isn't just the price that's got manufacturers worried. It's the shortage of availability. Keeping gigafactories stocked with enough cobalt to run at capacity is the challenge of the decade.

Tesla, now with a $50-billion market cap, launched a $5-billion battery gigafactory in Nevada in January. By the end of 2017, it will have doubled the entire global battery production capacity. By next year, it will be producing more batteries than the rest of the world combined.

It is estimated that Tesla's gigafactory alone will need anywhere between 7,000 and 17,500 tonnes of refined cobalt every year.

Tesla used to buy its finished battery cells from Panasonic, which in turn got its processed cathode powders from a Japanese company, Sumitomo was processing its own cobalt in the Philippines. However, that facility is already running at capacity and couldn't even begin to handle Tesla's gigafactory demand. In other words, Tesla's supply chain is no longer secure. And that's just Tesla.

The EV market is fifteen times larger than it was five years ago. The market has experienced a comppound annual growth rate of over 72 percent from 2011-2016, with new sources like Alberta's lithium-laced oil fields drawing investment alongside cobalt. This year, analysts expect it to gain another 25-26 percent. Last year, global EV production grew 41 percent, and sales are up more than 60 per cent year to year.

In addition,the Iron Creek project isn't a new exploration property. It has already seen major historic exploratory work, including 30,000 feet of diamond drilling. Iron Creek has historic (non 43-101 compliant) indications of 1.3 million tons grading 0.59 percent of cobalt with encouraging indications of up to 10 million tons. The 'closeology' is also brilliant. It's right next to the only advanced cobalt project in the U.S., which has a resource of 3 million-plus tonnes of cobalt.

As the battery market hits fever pitch and the supply-chain bottlenecks become unbearable, homegrown exploration is the key-first-movers and first investors will be the biggest beneficiaries.

A Very Precarious Supply Chain 

Supply is already in deficit, and we're also looking at an anticipated 500 percent increase in demand, making EV battery recycling an increasingly important complement to mining. Analysts at Macquarie Research project deficits of 885 tonnes of this resource next year, 3,205 in 2019 and 5,340 in 2020.

Not only is demand set to wildly outstrip supply very soon, but current supply (50 percent) comes primarily from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Buyers are coming under increasing pressure to look elsewhere for cobalt as the U.S. moves to work with allies to secure EV metals through diversified supply chains. The DRC has a horrendous record when it comes to labor practices and human rights.

Ask Apple Inc.  The tech giant recently announced it would stop buying unethical DRC cobalt for its iPhones - and as such, it has been forced to look for new suppliers.

The perfect storm continues: Some 95 percent of the world's cobalt is produced as a byproduct of copper and nickel mining, where concerns about ethical sourcing have put a spotlight on Canada's role in sustainable nickel practices worldwide. This means that cobalt supply is dependent on copper and nickel mining, and if those commodities are uneconomic to mine, there are no cobalt by-product results.

Not only is US Cobalt one of the first movers on the All-American ethical cobalt scene, but it's also financed to advance its Idaho Cobalt Belt project, and hopes to prove up 10 million tonnes of cobalt resource.

The Dream Team Behind Pure American Cobalt 

The CEO of US Cobalt, Wayne Tisdale, is a legend in spotting emerging trends with impeccable timing and has created billions in shareholder value. He's already done it with uranium, gold and oil and gas, and his most recent homerun was in lithium, with Pure Energy. When it launched in 2012, lithium was selling for about $5,000 per tonne. Within 18 months, it had increased 450 percent.

His next bet is on cobalt.

Tisdale and his team at Intrepid Financial have, in recent years, created $2.7 billion in value by building and financing 5 companies in completely different industries:

• Rainy River (gold) was worth $1.2 billion at its peak
• Xemplar (uranium) hit $1 billion at its peak
• Ryland Oil (oil and gas) sold for $114 million
• Webtech Wireless (tech) was worth $300 million at its peak
• Pure Energy (lithium) is worth $65 million (and counting)

The bottom line? There is no other commodity on the market right now that we need more.

Just watch what the hedge funds are doing with cobalt because it's unprecedented. The run on physical cobalt started in February in the least expected corner: Major hedge funds started buying up physical cobalt and hoarding it in order to gain exposure, resulting in a major supply shortage for the blue metal. Swiss-based Pala Investments and China's Shanghai Chaos have already hoarded 17 percent of last year's global production. At today's prices that's worth around $280 million. At tomorrow's prices, it will be worth a lot more.

When hedge funds start stockpiling physical cobalt, it sends its traditional buyers into a panic to secure new shipments. Since November, cobalt prices have rallied more than 100 percent, and this is only the beginning. As the cobalt supply problem grows, and EV giants and gigafactories continue to increase demand, a home-grown solution is at hand. As a first principle of investing, where there is a supply problem, there is a massive opportunity for early investors.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

CrashOverride malware is a Russian-linked ICS cyberweapon targeting power grids, SCADA systems, and utility networks; linked to Electrum/Sandworm, it threatens U.S. transmission and distribution with modular attacks and time-bomb payloads across critical infrastructure.

Key Points

A modular ICS malware linked to Russian actors that disrupts power grids via SCADA abuse and forced breaker outages.

✅ Targets breakers and substation devices to sustain outages

✅ Modular payloads adapt to ICS protocols and vendors

✅ Enables timed, multi-site attacks against transmission and distribution

Hackers allied with the Russian government have devised a cyberweapon that has the potential to be the most disruptive yet against electric systems that Americans depend on for daily life, according to U.S. researchers.

The malware, which researchers have dubbed CrashOverride, is known to have disrupted only one energy system — in Ukraine in December. In that incident, the hackers briefly shut down one-fifth of the electric power generated in Kiev.

But with modifications, it could be deployed against U.S. electric transmission and distribution systems to devastating effect, said Sergio Caltagirone, director of threat intelligence for Dragos, a cybersecurity firm that studied the malware and issued a recent report.

And Russian government hackers have shown their interest in targeting U.S. energy and other utility systems, with reports of suspected breaches at U.S. power plants in recent years, researchers said.

“It’s the culmination of over a decade of theory and attack scenarios,” Caltagirone warned. “It’s a game changer.”

The revelation comes as the U.S. government is investigating a wide-ranging, ambitious effort by the Russian government last year to disrupt the U.S. presidential election and influence its outcome, and has issued a condemnation of Russian power grid hacking as well. That campaign employed a variety of methods, including hacking hundreds of political and other organizations, and leveraging social media, U.S. officials said.

Dragos has named the group that created the new malware Electrum, and it has determined with high confidence that Electrum used the same computer systems as the hackers who attacked the Ukraine electric grid in 2015. That attack, which left 225,000 customers without power, was carried out by Russian government hackers, other U.S. researchers concluded. U.S. government officials have not officially attributed that attack to the Russian government, but some privately say they concur with the private-sector analysis.

“The same Russian group that targeted U.S. [industrial control] systems in 2014, including the Dragonfly campaign documented by Symantec, turned out the lights in Ukraine in 2015,” said John Hultquist, who analyzed both incidents while at iSight Partners, a cyber-intelligence firm now owned by FireEye, where he is director of intelligence analysis. Hultquist’s team had dubbed the group Sandworm.

“We believe that Sandworm is tied in some way to the Russian government — whether they’re contractors or actual government officials, we’re not sure,” he said. “We believe they are linked to the security services.”

Sandworm and Electrum may be the same group or two separate groups working within the same organization, but the forensic evidence shows they are related, said Robert M. Lee, chief executive of Dragos.

The Department of Homeland Security, which works with the owners of the nation’s critical infrastructure systems, did not respond to a request for comment Sunday.

Energy-sector experts said that the new malware is cause for concern, but that the industry is seeking to develop ways to disrupt attackers who breach their systems, including documented access to U.S. utility control rooms in prior incidents.

“U.S. utilities have been enhancing their cybersecurity, but attacker tools like this one pose a very real risk to reliable operation of power systems,” said Michael J. Assante, who worked at Idaho National Labs and is a former chief security officer of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, where he oversaw the rollout of industry cybersecurity standards.

CrashOverride is only the second instance of malware specifically tailored to disrupt or destroy industrial control systems. Stuxnet, the worm created by the United States and Israel to disrupt Iran’s nuclear capability, was an advanced military-grade weapon designed to affect centrifuges that enrich uranium.

In 2015, the Russians used malware to gain access to the power supply network in western Ukraine, but it was hackers at the keyboards who remotely manipulated the control systems to cause the blackout — not the malware itself, Hultquist said.

With CrashOverride, “what is particularly alarming . . . is that it is all part of a larger framework,” said Dan Gunter, a senior threat hunter for Dragos.

The malware is like a Swiss Army knife, where you flip open the tool you need and where different tools can be added to achieve different effects, Gunter said.

Theoretically, the malware can be modified to attack different types of industrial control systems, such as water and gas. However, the adversary has not demonstrated that level of sophistication, Lee said.

Still, the attackers probably had experts and resources available not only to develop the framework but also to test it, Gunter said. “This speaks to a larger effort often associated with nation-state or highly funded team operations.”

One of the most insidious tools in CrashOverride manipulates the settings on electric power control systems. It scans for critical components that operate circuit breakers and opens the circuit breakers, which stops the flow of electricity. It continues to keep them open even if a grid operator tries to close them, creating a sustained power outage.

The malware also has a “wiper” component that erases the software on the computer system that controls the circuit breakers, forcing the grid operator to revert to manual operations, which means driving to the substation to restore power.

With this malware, the attacker can target multiple locations with a “time bomb” functionality and set the malware to trigger simultaneously, Lee said. That could create outages in different areas at the same time.

The outages would last a few hours and probably not more than a couple of days, Lee said. That is because the U.S. electric industry has trained its operators to handle disruptions caused by large storms, alongside a renewed focus on protecting the grid in response to recent alerts. “They’re used to having to restore power with manual operations,” he said.

So although the malware is “a significant leap forward in tradecraft, it’s also not a doomsday scenario,” he said.

The malware samples were first obtained by ESET, a Slovakian research firm, which shared some of them with Dragos. ESET has dubbed the malware Industroyer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

UK EV Charging Infrastructure is accelerating as ABB and Formula E spotlight fast charging, smart grids, and public stations, preparing Britain for mass electric vehicle adoption with expanded capacity, reliable connectors, and nationwide coverage.

Key Points

The UK network of charge points, grid capacity, and services enabling secure, scalable electric vehicle adoption.

✅ ABB urges rapid rollout of fast chargers and smart grid upgrades

✅ National Grid forecasts up to 9m EVs by 2030 in the UK

✅ Government GBP 400m investment targets reliable nationwide coverage

The UK should speed up preparations for the rise of electric vehicles, according to the chief executive of ABB, the world’s largest supplier of fast-charging points.

Speaking as the Switzerland-based engineering firm became the first official sponsor of the electric street racing series Formula E, Ulrich Spiesshofer predicted a flood of consumer take-up of plug-in cars, noting how EV inquiries surged in the UK during a recent fuel supply crisis.

And he added his voice to warnings that Britain must move faster to make sure owners of electric vehicles are not stymied by a shortage of charging bays or cost concerns among consumers.

“E-mobility is unstoppable, it’s just a question of how fast and how deep it will be deployed,” he said. “The UK has a big population that really wants to contribute to a greener, more sustainable world. But there’s always a question of whether it’s quick enough. In the next couple of years, it’s in the interest of everybody to make sure the infrastructure is coming up.”

How green are electric cars?

He said this would include adding to the UK’s network of electric charging points, as well as ensuring enough energy capacity so that the grid can cope with rising demand.

There are 14,344 charging connectors in the UK, according to ZapMap, which charts the scale of the UK’s network.

Those charging points served around 132,000 plug-in vehicles at the end of 2017, but the National Grid has predicted that the number of electric cars could surge to 9m by 2030.

“In the next couple of years, it’s in the interest of everybody to make sure the infrastructure is coming up,” said Spiesshofer.

He welcomed the government’s budget pledge to spend £400m on improving the UK’s charging point network but warned that the power grid also needed to be ready to meet the increased demand, which many argue is manageable with proper management approaches.

Electric cars have been forecast to add about 18 gigawatts of power demand to the grid, the equivalent of six Hinkley Point C nuclear power stations.

Spiesshofer said he hoped ABB’s sponsorship of Formula E, which will last until 2025, would help spur interest in electric cars and lead to technological breakthroughs, even as the US EV boom tests charging capacity elsewhere.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

National Electricity Market review calls for clear coal-fired closure schedules to safeguard energy security, backing a technology-agnostic clean energy and low emissions target with tradeable certificates to stabilise prices and support a smoother transition.

Key Points

A review proposing orderly coal closures and a technology-agnostic clean energy target to protect grid reliability.

✅ Mandates advance notice of coal plant closure schedules

✅ Supports clean energy and low emissions target with certificates

✅ Aims to stabilise prices and ensure system security

THE Latrobe Valley’s coal-fired power stations could be forced to give details of planned closures well in advance to help governments avoid major threats to electricity supply, amid an AEMO warning on reduced reserves across the grid.

The much-anticipated review of the national electricity market, to be released on Friday, will outline the need for clear schedules for the closure of coal-fired power stations to avoid rushed decisions on ­energy security.

It is believed the Turnbull government, which has ruled out taxpayer-funded power plants in the current energy debate, will move toward either a clean-energy or a low-emissions target that aims to bolster power security while reducing household bills and emissions.

The system, believed to be also favoured by industry, would likely provide a more stable transition to clean energy by engaging with the just transition concept seen in other markets, because coal-fired power would not be driven out of the market as quickly.

Sources said that would lead to greater investment in the energy sector, a surplus of production and, as seen in Alberta's shift to gas and price cap debate driving market changes, a cut in prices.

It is likely most coal-fired power stations, such as Yallourn and Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley, would see out their “natural lives” under the government’s favoured system, rather than be forced out of business by an EIS.

The new target would be separate from the Renewable Energy Target which have come under fire because of ad hoc federal and state targets.

The Herald Sun has been told the policy would provide tradeable clean-energy certificates for low-emissions generation, such as wind, solar and gas and coal which used carbon capture and storage technology.

Energy retailers and large industrial users would then be ­required to source a mandated amount of certified clean power.

Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has repeatedly said any solution must be “technology agnostic” including gas, renewable energy and coal, amid ongoing debates over whether to save or close nuclear plants such as the Three Mile Island debate in other markets.

Energy Networks Australia’s submission to the review, chaired by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, acknowledged the challenges in identifying potential generation closures, particularly with uncertain and poorly integrated state and national carbon policy settings.

The group said given the likelihood of further closures of coal fired generation units a new mechanism was needed to better manage changes in the generation mix, well in advance of the closure of the plant.

It said the implications for system stability were “too significant” to rely on the past short-term closures, such as Hazelwood, particularly when the amount of power generated could drive energy security to “tipping point”.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) enables bidirectional charging, letting EV batteries supply smart grid services to large buildings, support renewable energy integration, reduce battery degradation, and optimize demand response for efficient, resilient power management.

Key Points

Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) is bidirectional EV charging that feeds the grid and buildings while protecting battery health.

✅ Uses idle EVs to power buildings and support renewables

✅ Smart algorithms minimize lithium-ion battery degradation

✅ Provides grid services, demand response, and peak shaving

Stored energy from electric vehicles (EVs) can be used to power large buildings -- creating new possibilities for the future of smart, renewable energy -- thanks to ground-breaking battery research from WMG at the University of Warwick.

Dr Kotub Uddin, with colleagues from WMG's Energy and Electrical Systems group and Jaguar Land Rover, has demonstrated that vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology can be intelligently utilised to take enough energy from idle EV batteries to be pumped into the grid and power buildings -- without damaging the batteries.

This new research into the potentials of V2G shows that it could actually improve vehicle battery life by around ten percent over a year.

For two years, Dr Uddin's team analysed some of the world's most advanced lithium ion batteries used in commercially available EVs -- and created one of the most accurate battery degradation models existing in the public domain -- to predict battery capacity and power fade over time, under various ageing acceleration factors -- including temperature, state of charge, current and depth of discharge.

Using this validated degradation model, Dr Uddin developed a 'smart grid' algorithm, which supports grid coordination and intelligently calculates how much energy a vehicle requires to carry out daily journeys, and -- crucially -- how much energy can be taken from its battery without negatively affecting it, or even improving its longevity.

The researchers used their 'smart grid' algorithm to see if they could power WMG's International Digital Laboratory -- a large, busy building which contains a 100-seater auditorium, two electrical laboratories, teaching laboratories, meeting rooms, and houses approximately 360 staff -- with vehicle-to-building charging from EVs parked on the University of Warwick campus.

They worked out that the number of EVs parked on the campus (around 2.1% of cars, in line with the UK market share of EVs) could spare the energy to power this building, acting as capacity on wheels for electricity networks -- and that in doing so, capacity fade in participant EV batteries would be reduced by up to 9.1%, and power fade by up to 12.1% over a year.

It has previously been thought that extracting energy from EVs with V2G technology causes their lithium ion batteries to degrade more rapidly.

Dr Uddin's group (along with collaborators from Jaguar Land Rover) have proved, however, that battery degradation is more complex -- and this complexity, in operation, can be exploited to improve a battery's lifetime.

Given that battery degradation is dependent on calendar age, capacity throughput, temperature, state of charge, current and depth of discharge, V2G is an effective tool that can be used to optimise a battery's conditions such that degradation is minimised. Hence, taking excess energy from an idle EV to power the grid actually keeps the battery healthier for longer.

Dr Uddin commented on the research:

"These findings reinforce the attractiveness of vehicle-to-grid technologies to automotive Original Equipment Manufacturers: not only is vehicle-to-grid an effective solution for grid support -- and subsequently a tidy revenue stream -- but we have shown that there is a real possibility of extending the lifetime of traction batteries in tandem.

"The results are also appealing to policy makers interested in grid decarbonisation and addressing grid challenges from rising EVs across power systems."

The research, 'On the possibility of extending the lifetime of lithium-ion batteries through optimal V2G facilitated by an integrated vehicle and smart-grid system' is published in Energy.

It was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the WMG centre High Value Manufacturing Catapult, in partnership with Jaguar Land Rover.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EV Opportunity for Utilities spans EV charging infrastructure, grid modernization, demand response, time-of-use rates, and customer engagement, enabling predictable load growth, flexible charging, and stronger utility branding amid electrification and resilience challenges.

Key Points

It is the strategy to leverage EV adoption for load growth, grid flexibility, and branded charging services.

✅ Monetizes EV load via TOU rates, managed charging, and V2G.

✅ Uses rate-based infrastructure to expand equitable charging access.

✅ Enhances resilience and DER integration through smart grid upgrades.

Tesla recently announced delivery of the first 30 production units of its Model 3 electric vehicle (EV). EV technology has generated plenty of buzz in the electric utility industry over the past decade and, with last week’s announcement, it would appear that projections of a significant market presence for EVs could give way to rapid growth.

Tesla’s announcement could not have come at a more critical time for utilities, which face unprecedented challenges. For the past 15 years, utilities have been grappling with increasingly frequent “100-year storms,” including hurricanes, snowstorms and windstorms, underscoring the reality that the grid’s aging infrastructure is not fit to withstand increasingly extreme weather, along with other threats, such as cyber attacks.

Coupled with flat or declining load growth, changing regulations, increasing customer demand, and new technology penetration, these challenges have given the electric utility industry good reason to describe its future as “threatened.” These trends, each exacerbating the others, mean essentially that utilities can no longer rely on traditional ways of doing business.

EVs have significant potential to help relieve the industry’s pessimistic outlook. This article will explore what EV growth could mean for utilities and how they can begin establishing critical foundations today to help ensure their ability to exploit this opportunity.

The opportunity

At the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) Global Summit 2017, BNEF Advisory Board Chairman Michael Liebreich announced the group’s prediction that electric vehicles will comprise 35-47 percent of new vehicle sales globally by 2040.

U.S. utilities have good reason to be optimistic about this potential new revenue source, as EV-driven demand growth could be substantial according to federal lab analyses. If all 236 million gas-powered cars in the U.S. — average miles driven per year: 12,000 — were replaced with electric vehicles, which travel an average of 100 miles on 34 kWh, they would require 956 billion kWh each year. At a national average cost of $0.12 / kWh, the incremental energy sold by utilities in the U.S. would bring in around $115 billion per year in new revenues. A variety of factors could increase or decrease this number, but it still represents an attractive opportunity for the utility sector.

Capturing this burgeoning market is not simply a matter of increased demand; it will also require utilities to be predictable, adaptable and brandable. Moreover, while the aggregate increase in demand might be only 3-4 percent, demand can come as a flexible and adaptable load through targeted programming. Also, if utilities target the appropriate customer groups, they can brand themselves as the providers of choice for EV charging. The power of stronger branding, in a sector that’s experiencing significant third-party encroachment, could be critical to the ongoing financial health of U.S. utilities.

Many utilities are already keenly aware of the EV opportunity and are speeding down this road (no pun intended) as part of their plans for utility business model reinvention. Following are several questions to be asked when evaluating the EV opportunity.

Is the EV opportunity feasible with today’s existing grid?

According to a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the grid is already capable of supporting more than 150 million pure electric vehicles, even as electric cars could challenge state grids in the years ahead, a number equal to at least 63 percent of all gas-powered cars on the road today. This is significant, considering that a single EV plugged into a Level 2 charger can double a home’s peak electricity demand. Assuming all 236 million car owners eventually convert to EVs, utilities will need to increase grid capacity. However, today’s grid already has the capacity to accommodate the most optimistic prediction of 35-47 percent EV penetration by 2040, which is great news.

Should the EV opportunity be owned by utilities?

There’s significant ongoing debate among regulators and consumer advocacy groups as to whether utilities should own the EV charging infrastructure, with fights for control over charging reflecting broader market concerns today. Those who are opposed to this believe that the utilities will have an unfair pricing advantage that will inhibit competition. Similarly, if the infrastructure is incorporated into the rate base, those who do not own electric vehicles would be subsidizing the cost for those who do.

If the country is going to meet the future demands of electric cars, the charging infrastructure and power grid will need help, and electric utilities are in the best position to address the problem, as states like California explore EVs for grid stability through utility-led initiatives that can scale. By rate basing the charging infrastructure, utilities can provide charging services to a wider range of customers. This would not favor one economic group over another, which many fear would happen if the private sector were to control the EV charging market.

If you build it, will they come?

At this point, we can conclude that growth in EV market penetration is a tremendous opportunity for utilities, one that’s most advantageous to electricity customers if utilities own some, if not all, of the charging infrastructure. The question is, if you build it, will they come — and what are the consequences if they don’t?

With any new technology, there’s always a debate centered around adoption timing — in this case, whether to build the infrastructure ahead of demand for EV or wait for adoption to spike. Either choice could have disastrous consequences if not considered properly. If utilities wait for the adoption to spike, their lack of EV charging infrastructure could stunt the growth of the EV sector and leave an opening for third-party providers. Moreover, waiting too long will inhibit GHG emissions reduction efforts and generally complicate EV technology adoption. On the other hand, building too soon could lead to costly stranded assets. Both problems are rooted in the inability to control adoption timing, and, until recently, utilities didn’t have the means or the savvy to influence adoption directly.

How should utilities prepare for the EV?

Beyond the challenges of developing the hardware, partnerships and operational programs to accommodate EV, including leveraging energy storage and mobile chargers for added flexibility, influencing the adoption of the infrastructure will be a large part of the challenge. A compelling solution to this problem is to develop an engaged customer base.

A more engaged customer base will enable utilities to brand themselves as preferred EV infrastructure providers and, similarly, empower them to influence the adoption rate. There are five key factors in any sector that influence innovation adoption:

1. Relative advantage – how improved an innovation is over the previous generation.

2. Compatibility – the level of compatibility an innovation has with an individual’s life.

3. Complexity – if the innovation is to difficult to use, individuals will not likely adopt it.

4. Trialability – how easily an innovation can be experimented with as it’s being adopted.

5. Observability – the extent that an innovation is visible to others.

Although much of EV adoption will depend on the private vehicle sector influencing these five factors, there’s a huge opportunity for utilities to control the compatibility, complexity and observability of the EV. According to  “The New Energy Consumer: Unleashing Business Value in a Digital World,” utilities can influence customers’ EV adoption through digital customer engagement. Studies show that digitally engaged customers:

• have stronger interest and greater likelihood to be early EV adopters;

• are 16 percent more likely to purchase home-based electric vehicle charging stations and installation services;

• are 17 percent more likely to sign up for financing for home-based electric vehicle charging stations; and

• increase the adoption of consumer-focused programs.

These findings suggest that if utilities are going to seize the full potential of the EV opportunity, they must start engaging customers now so they can appropriately influence the timing and branding of EV charging assets.

How can utilities engage consumers in preparation?

If utilities establish the groundwork to engage customers effectively, they can reduce the risks of waiting for an adoption spike and of building and investing in the asset too soon. To improve customer engagement, utilities need to:

1. Change their customer conversations from bills, kWh, and outages, to personalized, interesting topics, communicated at appropriate intervals and via appropriate communication channels, to gain customers’ attention.

2. Establish their roles as trusted advisors by presenting useful, personalized recommendations that benefit customers. These tips should change dynamically with changing customer behavior, or they risk becoming stagnant and redundant, thereby causing customers to lose interest.

3. Convert the perception of the utility as a monopolistic, inflexible entity to a desirable, consumer-oriented brand through appropriate EV marketing.

It’s critical to understand that this type of engagement strategy doesn’t even have to provide EV-specific messaging at first. It can start by engaging customers through topics that are relevant and unique, through established or evolving customer-facing programs, such as EE, BDR, TOU, HER.

As lines of communication open up between utility and users, utilities can begin to understand their customers’ energy habits on a more granular level. This intelligence can be used by business analysts to help educate program developers on the optimal EV program timing. For example, as customers become interested in services in which EV owners typically enlist, utilities can target them for EV program marketing. As the number of these customers grows, the window for program development opens, and their levels of interest can be used to inform program and marketing timelines.

While all this may seem like an added nuisance to an EV asset development strategy, there’s significant risk of losing this new asset to third-party providers. This is a much greater burden to utilities than spending the time to properly own the EV opportunity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News