This Thin-Film Turns Heat Waste From Electronics Into Electricity

Home Solar Cost vs Utility Bills compares electricity rates, ROI, incentives, and battery storage, explaining payback, financing, and grid fees while highlighting long-term savings, rate volatility, and backup power resilience for homeowners.

Key Points

Compares home solar pricing and financing to utility rates, outlining savings, incentives, ROI, and backup power value.

✅ Average retail rates rose 59% in 20 years; volatility persists

✅ Typical 7.15 kW system costs $18,950 before incentives

✅ Federal ITC and state rebates improve ROI and payback

When shopping for a home solar system, sometimes the quoted price can leave you wondering why someone would move forward with something that seems so expensive. 

When compared with the status quo, electricity delivered from the utility, the price may not seem so high after all. First, pv magazine will examine the status quo, and how much you can expect to pay for power if you don’t get solar panels. Then, we will examine the average cost of solar arrays today and introduce incentives that boost home solar value.

The cost of doing nothing

Generally, early adopters have financially benefited from going solar by securing price certainty and stemming the impact of steadily increasing utility-bill costs, particularly for energy-insecure households who pay more for electricity.

End-use residential electric customers pay an average of $0.138/kWh in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In California, that rate is $0.256/kWh, it averages $0.246/kWh across New England, $0.126/kWh in the South Atlantic region, and $0.124/kWh in the Mountain West region.

EIA reports that the average home uses 893 kWh per month, so based on the average retail rate of $0.138/kWh, that’s an electric bill of about $123 monthly, or $229 monthly in California.

Over the last 20 years, EIA data show that retail electricity prices have increased 59% across the United States, with evidence indicating that renewables are not making electricity more expensive, suggesting other factors have driven costs higher, or 2.95% each year.

This means based on historical rates, the average US homeowner can expect to pay $39,460 over the next 20 years on electricity bills. On average, Californians could pay $73,465 over 20 years.

Recent global events show just how unstable prices can be for commodities, and energy is no exception here, with solar panel sales doubling in the UK as homeowners look to cut soaring bills. What will your utility bill cost in 20 years?

These estimated bills also assume that energy use in the home is constant over 20 years, but as the United States electrifies its homes, adds more devices, and adopts electric vehicles, it is fair to expect that many homeowners will use more electricity going forward.

Another factor that may exacerbate rate raising is the upgrade of the national transmission grid. The infrastructure that delivers power to our homes is aging and in need of critical upgrades, and it is estimated that a staggering $500 billion will be spent on transmission buildout by 2035. This half-trillion-dollar cost gets passed down to homeowners in the form of raised utility bill rates.

The benefit of backup power may increase as time goes on as well. Power outages are on the rise across the United States, and recent assessments of the risk of power outages underscore that outages related to severe weather events have doubled in the last 20 years. Climate change-fueled storms are expected to continue to rise, so the role of battery backup in providing reliable energy may increase significantly.

The truth is, we don’t know how much power will cost in 20 years. Though it has increased 59% across the nation in the last 20 years, there is no way to be certain what it will cost going forward. That is where solar has a benefit over the status quo. By purchasing solar, you are securing price certainty going forward, making it easier to budget and plan for the future.

So how do these costs compare to going solar?

Cost of solar

As a general trend, prices for solar have fallen. In 2010, it cost about $40,000 to install a residential solar system, and since then, prices have fallen by as much as 70%, and about 37% in the last five years. However, prices have increased slightly in 2022 due to shipping costs, materials costs, and possible tariffs being placed on imported solar goods, and these pressures aren’t expected to be alleviated in the near-term.

When comparing quotes, the best metric for an apples-to-apples comparison is the cost per watt. Price benchmarking by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows the average cost per watt for the nation was $2.65/W DC in 2021, and the average system size was 7.15 kW. So, an average system would cost about $18,950. With 12.5 kWh of battery energy storage, the average cost was $4.26/W, representing an average price tag of $30,460 with batteries included.

The prices above do not include any incentives. Currently, the federal government applies a 26% investment tax credit to the system, bringing down system costs for those who qualify to $14,023 without batteries, and $22,540 with batteries. Compared to the potential $39,460 in utility bills, buying a solar system outright in cash appears to show a clear financial benefit.

Many homeowners will need financing to buy a solar system. Shorter terms can achieve rates as low as 2.99% or less, but financing for a 20-year solar loan typically lands between 5% to 8% or more. Based on 20-year, 7% annual percentage rate terms, a $14,000 system would total about $26,000 in loan payments over 20 years, and the system with batteries included would total about $42,000 in loan payments.

Often when you adopt solar, the utility will still charge you a grid access fee even if your system produces 100% of your needs. These vary from utility to utility but are often around $10 a month. Over 20 years, that equates to about $2,400 that you’ll still need to pay to the utility, plus any costs for energy you use beyond what your system provides.

Based on these average figures, a homeowner could expect to see as much as $12,000 in savings with a 20-year financed system. Homeowners in regions whose retail energy price exceeds the national average could see savings in multiples of that figure.

Though in this example batteries appear to be marginally more expensive than the status quo over a 20-year term, they improve the home by adding the crucial service of backup power, and as battery costs continue to fall they are increasingly being approved to participate in grid services, potentially unlocking additional revenue streams for homeowners.

Another thing to note is most solar systems are warranted for 25 years rather than the 20 used in the status quo example. A panel can last a good 35 years, and though it will begin to produce less in old age, any power produced by a panel you own is money back in your pocket.

Incentives and home value

Many states have additional incentives to boost the value of solar, too, and federal proposals to increase solar generation tenfold could remake the U.S. electricity system. Checking the Database of State Incentives for Renewables (DSIRE) will show the incentives available in your state, and a solar representative should be able to walk you through these benefits when you receive a quote. State incentives change frequently and vary widely, and in some cases are quite rich, offering thousands of dollars in additional benefits.

Another factor to consider is home value. A study by Zillow found that solar arrays increase a home value by 4.1% on average. For a $375,000 home, that’s an increase of $15,375 in value. In most states home solar is exempt from property taxes, making it a great way to boost value without paying taxes for it.

Bottom line

We’ve shared a lot of data on national averages and the potential cost of power going forward, but is solar for you? In the past, early adopters have been rewarded for going solar, and celebrate when they see $0 electric bills paid to the utility company.

Each home is different, each utility is different, and each homeowner has different needs, so evaluating whether solar is right for your home will take a little time and analysis. Representatives from solar companies will walk you through this analysis, and it’s generally a good rule of thumb to get at least three quotes for comparison.

A great resource for starting your research is the Solar Calculator developed by informational site SolarReviews. The calculator offers a quote and savings estimate based on local rates and incentives available to your area. The website also features reviews of installers, equipment, and more.

Some people will save tens of thousands of dollars in the long run with solar, while others may witness more modest savings. Solar will also provide the home clean, local energy, and U.S. solar generation is projected to reach 20% by 2050 as capacity expands, making an impact both on mitigating climate change and in supporting local jobs.

One indisputable benefit of solar is that it will offer greater clarity into what your electricity bills will cost over the next couple of decades, rather than leaving you exposed to whatever rates the utility company decides to charge in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Arizona Electric Vehicle Ownership is surging, led by EV adoption, charging stations growth, state incentives, and local manufacturers; yet rural infrastructure gaps and limited fast-charging plugs remain key barriers to convenient, statewide electrification.

Key Points

Arizona Electric Vehicle Ownership shows rising EV adoption and incentives, but rural fast-charging access still lags.

✅ 28,770 EVs registered; sixth per 1,000 residents statewide

✅ 385 fast chargers; 1,448 Level 2 plugs; many not 24/7

✅ Incentives: lower registration, HOV access, utility rebates

For a mostly red state, Arizona has a lot of blue-state company when it comes to states ranked by electric vehicle ownership, according to recent government data.

Arizona had 28,770 registered electric vehicles as of June, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center, the seventh-highest number among states. When ownership is measured per 1,000 residents, Arizona inches up a notch to sixth place, with just over four electric vehicles per 1,000 people.

That rate put Arizona just behind Oregon and Colorado and just ahead of Nevada and Vermont. California was in the lead by far, with California's EV and charging lead reflected in 425,300 registered electric vehicles, or one for every 10.7 residents.

Arizona EV enthusiasts welcomed the ranking, which they said they have seen reflected in steady increases in group membership, but said the state can do better, even amid soaring U.S. EV sales this year.

"Arizona is growing by leaps and bounds in major areas, but still struggling out there in the hinterlands," said Jerry Asher, vice president of the Tucson Electric Vehicle Association.

He and others said the biggest challenge in Arizona, as in much of the country, is the lack of readily available charging stations for electric vehicles.

Currently, there are 385 public fast-charging plugs and 1,448 non-fast-charging plugs in the state, where charging networks compete to expand access, said Diane Brown, executive director with the Arizona Public Interest Research Group Education Fund. And many of those "are not available 24 hours a day, often making EV charging less convenient to the public," she said.

And in order for the state to hit 10% EV ownership by 2030, one scenario outlined by Arizona PIRG, the number of charging stations would need to grow significantly.

"According to the Arizona PIRG Education Fund, to support a future in which 10% of Arizona's vehicles are EVs – a conservative target for 2030 – Arizona will need more than 1,098 fast-charging plugs and 14,888 Level 2 plugs," Brown said.

This will require local, state and federal policies, as EVs challenge state power grids, to make "EV charging accessible, affordable, and easy," she said.

But advocates said there are several things working in their favor, even as an EV boom tests charging capacity across the country today. Jim Stack, president of the Phoenix Electric Auto Association, said many of the current plug-ins charging stations are at stores and libraries, places "where you would stop anyway."

"We have a good charging infrastructure and it keeps getting better," Stack said.

One way Asher said Arizona could be more EV-friendly would be to add charging stations at hotels, RV parks and shopping centers. In Tucson, he said, the Culinary Dropout and Jersey Mike's restaurants have already begun offering free electric vehicle charging to customers, Asher said.

While they push for more charging infrastructure, advocates said improving technology and lower vehicle expenses are on their side, as post-2021 electricity trends reshape costs, helping to sway more Arizonans to purchase an electric vehicle in recent years.

"The batteries are getting better and lower in cost as well as longer-lasting," Stack said. He said an EV uses about 50 cents of electricity to cover the same number of miles a gas-burning car gets from a gallon of gas – currently selling for $3.12 a gallon in Arizona, according to AAA.

In addition, the state is offering incentives to electric vehicle buyers.

"In AZ we get reduced registration on electric vehicles," Stack said. "It's about $15 a year compared to $300-700 a year for gas and diesel cars."

Electric vehicle owners also "get 24/7 access to HOV lanes, even with one person," he said. And utilities like Tucson Electric Power offer rebates and incentives for home charging stations, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, and neighboring New Mexico's EV benefits underscore potential economic gains for the region.

Stack also noted that Arizona is now home to three eclectic vehicle manufacturers: Lucid, which makes cars in Casa Grande, Nikola, which makes trucks in Phoenix and Coolidge, and Electra Meccanica, which plans to build the three-wheeled SOLO commuter in Mesa.

"We get clear skies. No oil changes, no muffler work, no transmission, faster acceleration. No smog or smog tests," Stack said. "It's priceless."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

DOE LNG Export Approvals expand flexibility for Cheniere's Sabine Pass and Corpus Christi to ship to non-FTA countries, boosting U.S. supply to Europe while advancing methane emissions reductions and strengthening global energy security.

Key Points

DOE LNG export approvals authorize Sabine Pass and Corpus Christi to sell full-capacity LNG to non-FTA markets.

✅ Exports allowed to any non-FTA country, including Europe

✅ Capacity covers Sabine Pass and Corpus Christi terminals

✅ DOE targets methane reductions across oil and gas

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today issued two long-term orders authorizing liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from two current operating LNG export projects, Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass in Louisiana and Corpus Christi in Texas, following a recent deep freeze that slammed the American energy sector.

The two orders allow Sabine Pass and Corpus Christi additional flexibility to export the equivalent of 0.72 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas as LNG to any country with which the U.S. does not have a free trade agreement, including all of Europe, such as the UK natural gas market as well.

While U.S. exporters are already exporting at or near their maximum capacity, with today's issuances, every operating U.S. LNG export project has approval from DOE to export its full capacity to any country where not prohibited by U.S. law or policy constraints in place.

The U.S. is now the top global exporter of LNG and exports are set to grow an additional 20% beyond current levels by the end of this year as additional capacity comes online, even as a domestic energy crisis influences electricity and gas markets.  In January 2022, U.S. LNG supplied more than half of the LNG imports into Europe for the month.

With the expected rise in LNG exports, DOE is particularly focused on driving down methane emissions in the oil and gas sector both domestically and abroad, leveraging the deep technical expertise of the Department, and supporting nuclear innovation as well.

U.S. LNG remains an important component to global energy security worldwide and DOE remains committed to finding ways to help our allies and trading partners, including support to Ukraine and others with the energy supplies they need while continuing to work to mitigate the impact of climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Utility-Controlled EV Charging shapes who builds charging stations as utilities, regulators, and private networks compete over infrastructure, grid upgrades, and pricing, impacting ratepayers, competition, and EV adoption across states seeking cleaner transport.

Key Points

Utility-controlled EV charging is utilities building charging networks affecting rates, competition and grid costs.

✅ Regulated investment may raise rates before broader savings.

✅ Private firms warn monopolies stifle competition and innovation.

✅ Regulators balance access, equity, and grid upgrade needs.

Electric vehicles are widely seen as the automobile industry’s future, but a battle is unfolding in states across America over who should control the charging stations that could gradually replace fuel pumps.

From Exelon Corp. to Southern California Edison, utilities have sought regulatory approval to invest millions of dollars in upgrading their infrastructure as state power grids adapt to increased charging demand, and, in some cases, to own and operate chargers.

The proposals are sparking concerns from consumer advocates about higher electric rates and oil companies about subsidizing rivals. They are also drawing opposition from startups that say the successors to gas stations should be open to private-sector competition, not controlled by monopoly utilities.

That debate is playing out in regulatory commissions throughout the U.S. as states and utilities promote wider adoption of electric vehicles. At stake are charging infrastructure investments expected to total more than $13 billion over the next five years, as an American EV boom accelerates, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. That would cover roughly 3.2 million charging outlets.

Calvin Butler Jr., who leads Exelon’s utilities business, said many states have grown more open to the idea of utilities becoming bigger players in charging as electric vehicles have struggled to take off in the U.S., where they make up only around 2% of new car sales.

“When the utilities are engaged, there’s quicker adoption because the infrastructure is there,” he said.

Major auto makers including General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. are accelerating production of electric vehicles, and models like Tesla’s Model 3 are shaping utility planning, and a number of states have set ambitious EV goals—most recently California, which aims to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. But a patchy charging-station network remains a huge impediment to mass EV adoption.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has called for building more than 500,000 new public charging outlets in a decade as part of his plan to combat climate change, amid Biden’s push to electrify the transportation sector. But exactly how that would happen is unclear. The U.S. currently has fewer than 100,000 public outlets, according to the Energy Department. President Trump, who has weakened federal tailpipe emissions targets, hasn’t put forward an electric-vehicle charging plan, though he backed a 2019 transportation bill that would have provided $1 billion in grants to build alternative fueling infrastructure, including for electric vehicles.

Charging access currently varies widely by state, as does utility involvement, with many utilities bullish course on EV charging to support growth, which can range from providing rebates on home chargers to preparing sites for public charging—and even owning and operating the equipment needed to juice up electric vehicles.

As of September, regulators in 24 states had signed off on roughly $2.6 billion of utility investment in transportation electrification, according to Atlas Public Policy, a Washington, D.C., policy firm. More than half of that spending was authorized in California, where electric vehicle adoption is highest.

Nearly a decade ago, California blocked utilities from owning most charging equipment, citing concerns about potentially stifling competition. But the nation’s most populous state reversed course in 2014, seeking to spur electrification.

Regulators across the country have since been wrestling with similar questions, generating a patchwork of rules.

Maryland regulators signed off last year on a pilot program allowing subsidiaries of Exelon and FirstEnergy Corp. to own and operate public charging stations on government property, provided that the drivers who use them cover at least some of the costs.

Months later, the District of Columbia rejected an Exelon subsidiary’s request to own public chargers, saying independent charging companies had it covered.

Some charging firms argue utilities shouldn’t be given monopolies on car charging, though they might need to play a role in connecting rural customers and building stations where they would otherwise be uneconomical.

“Maybe the utility should be the supplier of last resort,” said Cathy Zoi, chief executive of charging network EVgo Services LLC, which operates more than 800 charging stations in 34 states.

Utility charging investments generally are expected to raise customers’ electricity bills, at least initially. California recently approved the largest charging program by a single utility to date: a $436 million initiative by Southern California Edison, an arm of Edison International, as the state also explores grid stability opportunities from EVs. The company said it expects the program to increase the average residential customer’s bill by around 50 cents a month.

But utilities and other advocates of electrification point to studies indicating greater EV adoption could help reduce electricity rates over time, by giving utilities more revenue to help cover system upgrades.

Proponents of having utilities build charging networks also argue that they have the scale to do so more quickly, which would lead to faster EV adoption and environmental improvements such as lower greenhouse gas emissions and cleaner air. While the investments most directly help EV owners, “they accrue immediate benefits for everyone,” said Jill Anderson, a Southern California Edison senior vice president.

Some consumer advocates are wary of approving extensive utility investment in charging, citing the cost to ratepayers.

“It’s like, ‘Pay me now, and maybe someday your rates will be less,’” said Stefanie Brand, who advocates on behalf of ratepayers for the state of New Jersey, where regulators have yet to sign off on any utility proposals to invest in electric vehicle charging. “I don’t think it makes sense to build it hoping that they will come.”

Groups representing oil-and-gas companies, which stand to lose market share as people embrace electric vehicles, also have criticized utility charging proposals.

“These utilities should not be able to use their monopoly power to use all of their customers’ resources to build investments that definitely won’t benefit everybody, and may or may not be economical at this point,” said Derrick Morgan, who leads federal and regulatory affairs at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a trade organization.

Utility executives said their companies have long been used to further government policy objectives deemed to be in the public interest, drawing on lessons from 2021 to guide next steps, such as improving energy efficiency.

“This isn’t just about letting market forces work,” said Mike Calviou, senior vice president for strategy and regulation at National Grid PLC’s U.S. division.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UK Transport Policy Overhaul signals bans on petrol and diesel cars, rail franchising reform, 15-minute cities, and active travel, tackling congestion, emissions, microplastics, urban sprawl, and public health with systemic, multimodal planning.

Key Points

A shift toward EVs, rail reform, and 15-minute cities to reduce emissions, congestion, and health risks.

✅ Phase-out of petrol and diesel car sales by 2030

✅ National rail franchising replaced with integrated operations

✅ Urban design: 15-minute cities, cycling, and active travel

Could it be true? That this government will bring all sales of petrol and diesel cars to an end by 2030, even as a 2035 EV mandate in Canada is derided by critics? That it will cancel all rail franchises and replace them with a system that might actually work? Could the UK, for the first time since the internal combustion engine was invented, really be contemplating a rational transport policy? Hold your horses.

Before deconstructing it, let’s mark this moment. Both announcements might be a decade or two overdue, but we should bank them as they’re essential steps towards a habitable nation.

We don’t yet know exactly what they mean, as the government has delayed its full transport announcement until later this autumn. But so far, nothing that surrounds these positive proposals makes any sense, and the so-called EV revolution often proves illusory in practice.

If the government has a vision for transport, it appears to be plug and play. We’ll keep our existing transport system, but change the kinds of vehicles and train companies that use it. But when you have a system in which structural failure is embedded, nothing short of structural change will significantly improve it.

A switch to electric cars will reduce pollution, though the benefits depend on the power mix; in Canada, Canada’s grid was 18% fossil-fuelled in 2019, for example. It won’t eliminate it, as a high proportion of the microscopic particles thrown into the air by cars, which are highly damaging to our health, arise from tyres grating on the surface of the road. Tyre wear is also by far the biggest source of microplastics pouring into our rivers and the sea. And when tyres, regardless of the engine that moves them, come to the end of their lives, we still have no means of properly recycling them.

Cars are an environmental hazard long before they leave the showroom. One estimate suggests that the carbon emissions produced in building each one equate to driving it for 150,000km. The rise in electric vehicle sales has created a rush for minerals such as lithium and copper, with devastating impacts on beautiful places. If the aim is greatly to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, and replace those that remain with battery-operated models, alongside EV battery recycling efforts, then they will be part of the solution. But if, as a forecast by the National Grid proposes, the current fleet is replaced by 35m electric cars, a University of Toronto study warns they are not a silver bullet, and we’ll simply create another environmental disaster.

Switching power sources does nothing to address the vast amount of space the car demands, which could otherwise be used for greens, parks, playgrounds and homes. It doesn’t stop cars from carving up community and turning streets into thoroughfares and outdoor life into a mortal hazard. Electric vehicles don’t solve congestion, or the extreme lack of physical activity that contributes to our poor health.

So far, the government seems to have no interest in systemic change. It still plans to spend £27bn on building even more roads, presumably to accommodate all those new electric cars. An analysis by Transport for Quality of Life suggests that this road-building will cancel out 80% of the carbon savings from a switch to electric over the next 12 years. But everywhere, even in the government’s feted garden villages and garden towns, new developments are being built around the car.

Rail policy is just as irrational, even though lessons from large electric bus fleets offer cleaner mass transit options. The construction of HS2, now projected to cost £106bn, has accelerated in the past few months, destroying precious wild places along the way, though its weak business case has almost certainly been destroyed by coronavirus.

If one thing changes permanently as a result of the pandemic, it is likely to be travel. Many people will never return to the office. The great potential of remote technologies, so long untapped, is at last being realised. Having experienced quieter cities with cleaner air, few people wish to return to the filthy past.

Like several of the world’s major cities, our capital is being remodelled in response, though why electric buses haven’t taken over remains a live question. The London mayor – recognising that, while fewer passengers can use public transport, a switch to cars would cause gridlock and lethal pollution – has set aside road space for cycling and walking. Greater Manchester hopes to build 1,800 miles of protected pedestrian and bicycle routes.

Cycling to work is described by some doctors as “the miracle pill”, massively reducing the chances of early death: if you want to save the NHS, get on your bike. But support from central government is weak and contradictory, and involves a fraction of the money it is spending on new roads. The major impediment to a cycling revolution is the danger of being hit by a car.

Even a switch to bicycles (including electric bikes and scooters) is only part of the answer. Fundamentally, this is not a vehicle problem but an urban design problem. Or rather, it is an urban design problem created by our favoured vehicle. Cars have made everything bigger and further away. Paris, under its mayor Anne Hidalgo, is seeking to reverse this trend, by creating a “15-minute city”, in which districts that have been treated by transport planners as mere portals to somewhere else become self-sufficient communities – each with their own shops, parks, schools and workplaces, within a 15-minute walk of everyone’s home.

This, I believe, is the radical shift that all towns and cities need. It would transform our sense of belonging, our community life, our health and our prospects of local employment, while greatly reducing pollution, noise and danger. Transport has always been about much more than transport. The way we travel helps to determine the way we live. And at the moment, locked in our metal boxes, we do not live well.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario EV V2G Pilots enable bi-directional charging, backup power, and grid services with IESO, Toronto Hydro, and Hydro One, linking energy storage, solar, blockchain apps, and demand response incentives for smarter electrification.

Key Points

Ontario EV V2G pilots test bidirectional charging and backup power to support grid services with apps and incentives.

✅ Tests Nissan Leaf V2H backup with Hydro One and Peak Power.

✅ Integrates solar, storage, blockchain apps via Sky Energy and partners.

✅ Pilots demand response apps in Toronto and Waterloo utilities.

Electric vehicle owners in Ontario may one day be able to use the electricity in their EVs instead of loud diesel or gas generators to provide emergency power during blackouts. They could potentially also sell back energy to the grid when needed. Both are key areas of focus for new pilot projects announced this week by Ontario’s electricity grid operator and partners that include Toronto Hydro and Ontario Hydro.

Three projects announced this week will test the bi-directional power capabilities of current EVs and the grid, all partially funded by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) of Ontario, with their announcement in Toronto also attended by Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith.

The first project is with Hydro One Networks and Peak Power, which will use up to 10 privately owned Nissan Leafs to test what is needed technically to support owners using their cars for vehicle-to-building charging during power outages. It will also study what type of financial incentives will convince EV owners to provide backup power for other users, and therefore the grid.

A second pilot program with solar specialist Sky Energy and engineering firm Hero Energy will study EVs, energy storage, and solar panels to further examine how consumers with potentially more power to offer the grid could do it securely, in part using blockchain technology. York University and Volta Research are other partners in the program, which has already produced an app that can help drivers choose when and how much power to provide the grid — if any.

The third program is with local utilities in Toronto and Waterloo, Ont., and will test a secure digital app that helps EV drivers see the current demands on the grid through improved grid coordination mechanisms, and potentially price an incentive to EV drivers not to charge their vehicles for a few hours. Drivers could also be actively further paid to provide some of the charge currently in their vehicle back to the grid.

It all adds up to $2.7 million in program funding from IESO ($1.1 million) and the associated partners.

“An EV charged in Ontario produces roughly three per cent of emissions of a gas fuelled car,” said IESO’s Carla Nell, vice-president of corporate relations and innovation at the announcement near Peak Power chargers in downtown Toronto. “We know that Ontario consumers are buying EVs, and expected to increase tenfold — so we have to support electrification.”

If these types of programs sound familiar, it may be because utilities in Ontario have been testing such vehicle-to-grid technologies soon after affordable EVs became available in the fall of 2011. One such program was run by PowerStream, now the called Alectra, and headed by Neetika Sathe, who is now Alectra’s vice-president of its Green Energy and Technology (GRE&T) Centre in Guelph, Ont.

The difference between now and those tests in the mid-2010s is that the upcoming wave of EV sales can be clearly seen on the horizon, and California's grid stability work shows how EVs can play a larger role.

“We can see the tsunami now,” she said, noting that cost parity between EVs and gas vehicles is likely four or five years away — without government incentives, she stressed. “Now it’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when — and that when has received much more clarity on it.”

Sathe sees a benefit in studying all these types of bi-directional power-flowing scenarios, but notes that they are future scenarios for years in the future, especially since bi-directional charging equipment — and the vehicles with this capability — are pricey, and largely still not here. What she believes is much closer is the ability to automatically communicate what the grid needs with EV drivers, as Nova Scotia Power pilots integration, and how they could possibly help. For a price, of course.

“If I can set up a system that says ‘oh, the grid is stressed, can you not charge for the next two hours? And here’s what we’ll offer to you for that,’ that’s closer to low-hanging fruit,” she said, noting that Alectra is currently testing out such systems. “Think of it the same way as offering your car for Uber, or a room on Airbnb.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News