Higher price of electric cars a concern for more than half of UK consumers


uk ev

Substation Relay Protection Training

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 12 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$699
Coupon Price:
$599
Reserve Your Seat Today

UK EV Affordability pressures electric car demand as EV prices outpace petrol models; subsidies, battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and charging infrastructure investment shape uptake, CO2 targets, and total cost of ownership.

 

Key Points

UK EV Affordability captures pricing, policy, and infrastructure factors driving electric car demand and adoption.

✅ Higher upfront EV prices dampen consumer demand.

✅ Broader subsidies and PHEV incentives debated.

✅ Massive charging point rollout needed by 2035.

 

Expensive prices for electric cars could hold back the UK’s transition from fossil fuel vehicles, the industry has warned, amid signs that demand for electric vehicles (EVs) is waning, despite a recent surge in inquiries during a fuel supply crisis.

The premium paid for electric cars is a concern for more than half of UK consumers, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), the UK car industry lobby group, and Brexit-related tariffs risk higher costs for new models.

Despite government subsidies, battery electric cars are still more expensive than those burning petrol or diesel, but carmakers are scrambling to ramp up production and sales as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets in order to meet the new restrictions on emissions that came in this year.

Sales of new battery electric cars have almost tripled to 39,000 in the year to July, but there are signs that demand is falling back even as some analysts predict that drivers will go electric within a decade in the UK. Data from online marketplace Auto Trader show that the average asking price for electric cars fell 5.2% in the year to August.

Ian Plummer, Auto Trader’s commercial director, said the higher “upfront retail price of EVs is somewhat off-putting” for consumers, despite the potential savings from their cheaper running costs.

Mike Hawes, the SMMT’s chief executive, said: “Until these vehicles are as affordable to buy and as easy to own and operate as conventional cars, we risk the UK being in the slow lane, undermining industry investment and holding back progress.”

The SMMT has been calling for the UK government to broaden the subsidies offered to buyers of new electric cars to include plug-in hybrid vehicles, while fairer vehicle taxes are being demanded by EV drivers to support adoption. The withdrawal of subsidies from plug-in hybrids last year prompted a furious reaction from the industry, which argues the controversial technology, which combines an internal combustion engine with a battery, is a crucial stepping stone for consumers.

However, environmental groups argue that the best way to accelerate consumer take-up of electric cars is to bring forward bans on internal combustion engines. The government is committed to banning polluting carbon dioxide-emitting engines by 2040, but is considering moving that forward to 2035 or even as early as 2032.

Both the industry and environmental groups are united in calling for a dramatic increase in investment in charging points to make it more attractive for consumers around the country to switch to electric cars, with industry figures saying the UK must be ready for a surge in EV uptake.

The UK will require as many as 1.7m on-street electric car charging points by the end of the decade, and a further 1.1m by 2035, in order to allow for a zero-emissions car fleet, while experts ask whether the grid can cope with rising demand, according to analysis by the SMMT and consultancy Frost and Sullivan. That would equate to more than 500 new charge points per day over 15 years.

Related News

California introduces new net metering regime

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

View more

NanoFlocell Wants To Sell Flow Battery Cars In The US

nanoFlowcell Bi-ION Flow Battery delivers renewable-energy storage for EVs and grids, using seawater-derived electrolyte, membrane stacks, fast refueling, low-cost materials, scalable tanks, and four-motor performance with long range and lightweight energy density.

 

Key Points

A flow cell using Bi-ION to power EVs and grids with fast refueling and scalable, low-cost storage.

✅ Seawater-derived Bi-ION electrolyte; safe, nonflammable, low cost

✅ Fast refueling via dual tanks; membrane stack generates power

✅ EV range up to 1200 miles; scalable for grid-scale storage

 

nanoFlowcell is a European company headquartered in London that focuses on flow battery technology. Flow batteries are an intriguing concept. Unlike lithium batteries or fuel cells, they store electricity in two liquid chambers separated by a membrane. They hold enormous potential for low cost, environmentally friendly energy storage because the basic materials are cheap and abundant. To add capacity, simply make the tanks larger.

While that makes flow batteries ideal for energy storage — whether in the basement of a building or as part of a grid scale installation that utilities weigh against options like hydrogen for power companies today in practice — their size and weight make them a challenge for use in vehicles. That hasn’t stopped nanoFlowcell from designing a number of concept and prototype vehicles over the past 10 years and introducing them to the public at the Geneva auto show. Its latest concept is a tasty little crumpet known as the Quantino 25.


The Flow Battery & Bi-ION Fluid
The thing that makes the nanoFlowcell ecosystem work is an electrically charged fluid called Bi- ION derived from seawater or reclaimed waste water. It works sort of like hydrogen in a fuel cell, a frequent rival in debates over the future of vehicles today for many buyers. Pump hydrogen in, run it through a fuel cell, and get electricity out. With the Quantino 25, which the company calls a “2+2 sports car,” you pump two liquids to the membrane interface to make electricity.

There are two 33-gallon tanks mounted low in the chassis much the way a lithium-ion battery pack fits into a normal electric car. Fill up with Bi-ION, and you have a car that will dash to 100 km/h in 2.5 seconds, thanks to its 4 electric motors with 80 horsepower each. And get this. According to Autoblog, the company says with full tanks, the Quantino 25 has a range of 1200 miles! Goodbye range anxiety, hello happy motoring.


We should point out that water weighs about 8 pounds per gallon, so the “fuel” to travel 1200 miles would weigh roughly 528 pounds. A conventional lithium-ion battery pack with its attendant cooling apparatus that could travel that far would weigh at least 3 times as much, even as EV battery recycling advances aim for a circular economy today. Granted, the Quantino 25 is not a production car and very few people have ever driven one, but that kind of range vs weight ratio has got to get your whiskers twitching a little in anticipation.

Actually, the folks at Autocar did drive an early prototype in 2016 at the TCS test track near Zurich, Switzerland, and determined that it was a real driveable car. My colleague Jennifer Sensiba reported in April of 2019 that the company’s Quantino test vehicle passed the 350,000 km mark (220,000 miles) with no signs of damage to the membrane or the pumps, and didn’t seem to have suffered any wear at all. The vehicle’s engineers pointed out that it had driven for 10,000 hours at this point. The company says it wants to offer its flow battery technology to EV manufacturers and give the system a 50,000-hour guarantee. That translates to well over 1 million miles of driving.

The problem, of course, is that there is no Bi-ION refueling infrastructure just yet, but that doesn’t mean someday there couldn’t be. Tesla had no Supercharger network when it first started either and things turned out reasonably well for Musk and company.


nanoFlowcell USA Announced
nanoFlowcell announced this week that it has established a new division based in New York to bring its flow battery technology to America. The mission of the new division is to adapt the nanoFlowcell process to US-specific applications and develop nanoFlowcell applications in America. Priority one is beginning series production of flow battery vehicles as well as the constructing a large scale bi-ION production facility that will provide transportable renewable energy and could complement vehicle-to-grid power models for communities for nanoFlowcell applications.

The Bi-ION electrolyte is a high density energy carrier that makes renewable energies storable and transportable in large quantities. The company says it will produce the energy carrier bi-ION from 100 percent renewable energy. Flow cell energy technology is an important solution to substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions as laid out in the Paris Agreement, the company says. Its many benefits include being a safe and clean energy source for many energy intensive processes and transportation services.


“Our nanoFlowcell flow cell and bi-ION energy carrier are key technologies for a successful energy transition,” says Nunzio La Vecchia, CEO of nanoFlowcell Holdings. “We need to make energy from renewable energy safe, storable and transportable to drive environmentally sustainable economic growth. This requires a well thought out strategy and the development of the appropriate infrastructure. With the establishment of nanoFlowcell USA, we are reaching an important milestone in this regard for our future corporate development.”


Focus On Renewable Energy
The production costs of Bi-ION are directly linked to the cost of electricity from renewable sources. With the accelerated expansion of renewable energy under the Inflation Reduction Act along with EV grid flexibility efforts across markets, nanoFlowcell expects the cost of electricity from solar power to be relatively low in the future which will further strengthen the competitiveness of energy sources such as Bi-ION.

“With the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S. has made the largest investment in clean energy in U.S. history, and the potential implications for renewable energy are far-reaching.” But La Vecchia points out, “We will not seek government investments for nanoFlowcell USA to expand our manufacturing facilities and infrastructure in the United States. Where appropriate, we will enter into strategic partnerships to build and expand manufacturing and infrastructure, and to integrate nanoFlowcell technologies into all sectors of the economy.”

“More importantly, with nanoFlowcell USA, we want to help accelerate the decarbonization of the global economy and create economic, social and ecological prosperity. After all, estimates suggest that the clean energy sector will create 500,000 additional jobs. We want to do our part to make this happen.”


‍The Takeaway
nanoFlowcell is about more than electric cars. It wants to get involved in grid-scale energy storage, and moves like Mercedes-Benz energy storage venture signal momentum in the sector today. But to those of us soaking in the hot tub warmed by excess heat from a nearby data center here at CleanTechnica global headquarters, it seems that its contribution to emissions-free transportation could be enormous. Maybe some of those companies still chasing the hydrogen fuel cell dream, as a recent hydrogen fuel cell report notes Europe trailing Asia today, might find the company’s flow battery technology cheaper and more durable without all the headaches that go with making, storing, and transporting hydrogen.

A Bi-ION refueling station would probably cost less than a tenth as much as a hydrogen filling station. A link-up with a major manufacturer would make it easier to build out the infrastructure needed to make this dream a reality. Hey, people laughed at Tesla in 2010. If nothing else, this is a company we will be keeping our eye on.

 

Related News

View more

Electric vehicles can fight climate change, but they’re not a silver bullet: U of T study

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

 

Key Points

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

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

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

✅ Battery materials constraints need recycling, supply diversification

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Related News

View more

Reversing the charge - Battery power from evs to the grid could open a fast lane

Vehicle-to-Grid V2G unlocks EV charging flexibility and grid services, integrating renewable energy, demand response, and peak shaving to displace stationary storage and firm generation while lowering system costs and enhancing reliability.

 

Key Points

Vehicle-to-Grid V2G lets EV batteries discharge to grid, balancing renewables and cutting storage and firm generation.

✅ Displaces costly stationary storage and firm generation

✅ Enables demand response and peak shaving at scale

✅ Supports renewable integration and grid reliability

 

Owners of electric vehicles (EVs) are accustomed to plugging into charging stations at home and at work and filling up their batteries with electricity from the power grid. But someday soon, when these drivers plug in, their cars will also have the capacity to reverse the flow and send electrons back to the grid. As the number of EVs climbs, the fleet’s batteries could serve as a cost-effective, large-scale energy source, with potentially dramatic impacts on the energy transition, according to a new paper published by an MIT team in the journal Energy Advances.

“At scale, vehicle-to-grid (V2G) can boost renewable energy growth, displacing the need for stationary energy storage and decreasing reliance on firm [always-on] generators, such as natural gas, that are traditionally used to balance wind and solar intermittency,” says Jim Owens, lead author and a doctoral student in the MIT Department of Chemical Engineering. Additional authors include Emre Gençer, a principal research scientist at the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), and Ian Miller, a research specialist for MITEI at the time of the study.

The group’s work is the first comprehensive, systems-based analysis of future power systems, drawing on a novel mix of computational models integrating such factors as carbon emission goals, variable renewable energy (VRE) generation, and costs of building energy storage, production, and transmission infrastructure.

“We explored not just how EVs could provide service back to the grid — thinking of these vehicles almost like energy storage on wheels providing flexibility — but also the value of V2G applications to the entire energy system and if EVs could reduce the cost of decarbonizing the power system,” says Gençer. “The results were surprising; I personally didn’t believe we’d have so much potential here.”

Displacing new infrastructure

As the United States and other nations pursue stringent goals to limit carbon emissions, electrification of transportation has taken off, with the rate of EV adoption rapidly accelerating. (Some projections show EVs supplanting internal combustion vehicles over the next 30 years.) With the rise of emission-free driving, though, there will be increased demand for energy on already stressed state power grids nationwide. “The challenge is ensuring both that there’s enough electricity to charge the vehicles and that this electricity is coming from renewable sources,” says Gençer.

But solar and wind energy is intermittent. Without adequate backup for these sources, such as stationary energy storage facilities using lithium-ion batteries, for instance, or large-scale, natural gas- or hydrogen-fueled power plants, achieving clean energy goals will prove elusive. More vexing, costs for building the necessary new energy infrastructure runs to the hundreds of billions.

This is precisely where V2G can play a critical, and welcome, role, the researchers reported. In their case study of a theoretical New England power system meeting strict carbon constraints, for instance, the team found that participation from just 13.9 percent of the region’s 8 million light-duty (passenger) EVs displaced 14.7 gigawatts of stationary energy storage. This added up to $700 million in savings — the anticipated costs of building new storage capacity.

Their paper also described the role EV batteries could play at times of peak demand, such as hot summer days. “With proper grid coordination practices in place, V2G technology has the ability to inject electricity back into the system to cover these episodes, so we don’t need to install or invest in additional natural gas turbines,” says Owens. “The way that EVs and V2G can influence the future of our power systems is one of the most exciting and novel aspects of our study.”

Modeling power

To investigate the impacts of V2G on their hypothetical New England power system, the researchers integrated their EV travel and V2G service models with two of MITEI’s existing modeling tools: the Sustainable Energy System Analysis Modeling Environment (SESAME) to project vehicle fleet and electricity demand growth, and GenX, which models the investment and operation costs of electricity generation, storage, and transmission systems. They incorporated such inputs as different EV participation rates, costs of generation for conventional and renewable power suppliers, charging infrastructure upgrades, travel demand for vehicles, changes in electricity demand, and EV battery costs.

Their analysis found benefits from V2G applications in power systems (in terms of displacing energy storage and firm generation) at all levels of carbon emission restrictions, including one with no emissions caps at all. However, their models suggest that V2G delivers the greatest value to the power system when carbon constraints are most aggressive — at 10 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour load. Total system savings from V2G ranged from $183 million to $1,326 million, reflecting EV participation rates between 5 percent and 80 percent.

“Our study has begun to uncover the inherent value V2G has for a future power system, demonstrating that there is a lot of money we can save that would otherwise be spent on storage and firm generation,” says Owens.


Harnessing V2G

For scientists seeking ways to decarbonize the economy, the vision of millions of EVs parked in garages or in office spaces and plugged into the grid via vehicle-to-building charging for 90 percent of their operating lives proves an irresistible provocation. “There is all this storage sitting right there, a huge available capacity that will only grow, and it is wasted unless we take full advantage of it,” says Gençer.

This is not a distant prospect. Startup companies are currently testing software that would allow two-way communication between EVs and grid operators or other entities. With the right algorithms, EVs would charge from and dispatch energy to the grid according to profiles tailored to each car owner’s needs, never depleting the battery and endangering a commute.

“We don’t assume all vehicles will be available to send energy back to the grid at the same time, at 6 p.m. for instance, when most commuters return home in the early evening,” says Gençer. He believes that the vastly varied schedules of EV drivers will make enough battery power available to cover spikes in electricity use over an average 24-hour period. And there are other potential sources of battery power down the road, such as electric school buses that are employed only for short stints during the day and then sit idle, with the potential to power buildings during peak hours.

The MIT team acknowledges the challenges of V2G consumer buy-in. While EV owners relish a clean, green drive, they may not be as enthusiastic handing over access to their car’s battery to a utility or an aggregator working with power system operators. Policies and incentives would help.

“Since you’re providing a service to the grid, much as solar panel users do, you could get paid to sell electricity back for your participation, and paid at a premium when electricity prices are very high,” says Gençer.

“People may not be willing to participate ’round the clock, but as states like California explore EVs for grid stability programs and incentives, if we have blackout scenarios like in Texas last year, or hot-day congestion on transmission lines, maybe we can turn on these vehicles for 24 to 48 hours, sending energy back to the system,” adds Owens. “If there’s a power outage and people wave a bunch of money at you, you might be willing to talk.”

“Basically, I think this comes back to all of us being in this together, right?” says Gençer. “As you contribute to society by giving this service to the grid, you will get the full benefit of reducing system costs, and also help to decarbonize the system faster and to a greater extent.”


Actionable insights

Owens, who is building his dissertation on V2G research, is now investigating the potential impact of heavy-duty electric vehicles in decarbonizing the power system. “The last-mile delivery trucks of companies like Amazon and FedEx are likely to be the earliest adopters of EVs,” Owen says. “They are appealing because they have regularly scheduled routes during the day and go back to the depot at night, which makes them very useful for providing electricity and balancing services in the power system.”

Owens is committed to “providing insights that are actionable by system planners, operators, and to a certain extent, investors,” he says. His work might come into play in determining what kind of charging infrastructure should be built, and where.

“Our analysis is really timely because the EV market has not yet been developed,” says Gençer. “This means we can share our insights with vehicle manufacturers and system operators — potentially influencing them to invest in V2G technologies, avoiding the costs of building utility-scale storage, and enabling the transition to a cleaner future. It’s a huge win, within our grasp.”

 

Related News

View more

Electric car charging networks jostle for pole position amid Biden's push to electrify

EV Charging Infrastructure Expansion accelerates as DC fast charging, Level 2 stations, and 150-350 kW networks grow nationwide, driven by Biden's plan, ChargePoint, EVgo, and Electrify America partnerships at retailers like Walmart and 7-Eleven.

 

Key Points

The nationwide build-out of public EV chargers, focusing on DC fast charging, kW capacity, and retailer partnerships.

✅ DC fast chargers at 150-350 kW cut charge times

✅ Retailers add ports: Walmart and 7-Eleven expand access

✅ Investments surge via ChargePoint, EVgo, Electrify America

 

Today’s battery-electric vehicles deliver longer range at a lower cost, are faster and more feature-laden than earlier models. But there’s one particular challenge that still must be addressed: charging infrastructure across the U.S.

That’s a concern that President Joe Biden wants to address, with $174 billion of his proposed infrastructure bill to be used to promote the EV boom while expanding access. About 10 percent of that would help fund a nationwide network of 500,000 chargers.

However, even before a formal bill is delivered to Congress, the pace at which public charging stations are switching on is rapidly accelerating.

From Walmart to 7-Eleven, electric car owners can expect to find more and more charging stations available, as automakers strike deals with regulators, charger companies and other businesses, even as control of charging remains contested.

7-Eleven convenience chain already operates 22 charging stations and plans to grow that to 500 by the end of 2022. Walmart now lets customers charge up at 365 stores around the country and plans to more than double that over the next several years.

According to the Department of Energy, there were 20,178 public chargers available at the end of 2017. That surged to 41,400 during the first quarter of this year, as electric utilities pursue aggressive charging plans.

The vast majority of those available three years ago were “Level 2,” 240-volt AC chargers that would take as much as 12 hours to fully recharge today’s long-range BEVs, like the Tesla Model 3 or Ford Mustang Mach-E. Increasingly, new chargers are operating at 400 volts and even 800 volts, delivering anywhere from 50 to 350 kilowatts. The new Kia EV6 will be able to reach 80 percent of its full capacity in just 18 minutes.

“Going forward, unless there is a limit to the power we can access at a particular location, all our new chargers will have 150 to 350 kilowatt capacity,” Pat Romano, CEO of ChargePoint, one of the world’s largest providers of chargers, told NBC News.

ChargePoint saw its first-quarter revenues jump by 24 percent to $40.5 million this year, a surge largely driven by rapid growth in the EV market. Sales of battery cars were up 45 percent during the first quarter, compared to a year earlier. To take advantage of that growth, ChargePoint added another 6,000 active ports — the electric equivalent of a gas pump — during the quarter. It now has 112,000 active charge ports.

In March, ChargePoint became the world’s first publicly traded global EV charging network. It completed a SPAC-style merger with Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation. Rival EVgo plans to go through a similar deal this month with the "blank check" company Climate Change Crisis Real Impact Acquisition Corporation (CRIS), which has valued the charge provider at $2.6 billion.

“We look forward to highlighting EVgo’s leadership position and its significant opportunity for long-term growth in the climate critical electrification of transport sector,” CRIS CEO David Crane said Tuesday, ahead of an investor meeting with EVgo.

Electrify America, another emerging giant, has its own deep-pocket backer. The suburban Washington, D.C.-based firm was created using $2 billion of the settlement Volkswagen agreed to pay to settle its diesel emissions scandal. It is doling that out in regular tranches and just announced $200 million in additional investments — much of that to set up new chargers.

Industry investments in BEVs will top $250 million this decade, and could even reach $500 billion. That's encouraging automakers like Volkswagen, Ford and General Motors to tie up with individual charger companies, including plans to build 30,000 chargers nationwide.

In 2019, GM set up a partnership with Bechtel to build a charger network that will stretch across the U.S.

Others are establishing networks of their own, as Tesla has done with its Supercharger network.

Each charging network is leveraging relationships to speed up installations. Ford is offering buyers of its Mustang Mach-E 250 kilowatt-hours of free energy through Electrify America stations and is also partnering with Bank of America to “let you charge where you bank,” the automaker said.

Even if Biden gets his infrastructure plan through Congress quickly, other government agencies are already getting in to the charger business, even as state power grids brace for increased loads. That includes New York State which, in May, announced plans to put 150 new ports into place by year-end.

"Expanding high-speed charging in local markets across the state is a crucial step in encouraging more drivers to choose EVs,” said Gov. Andrew Cuomo, adding that, "public-private partnerships enable New York to build a network of fast, affordable and reliable electric vehicle public charging stations in a nimble and affordable way."

One of the big questions is how many charging stations actually are needed. There are 168,000 gas stations in the U.S., according to the Dept. of Energy. But the goal is not a one-for-one match, stressed ChargePoint CEO Romano, because “80 percent of EV owners today charge at home, and energy storage promises added flexibility, … and we expect that to continue to be the case."

But there are still many potential owners who won’t be able to set up their own chargers, and a network will still be needed for those driving long distances. Until that happens, many motorists will be reluctant to switch.

 

Related News

View more

Spread of Electric Cars Sparks Fights for Control Over Charging

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

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified