Carnegie Teams with Sumitomo for Grid-Scale Vanadium Flow Battery Storage

Alberta Electricity Rate Cap shields RRO customers with a 6.8 cents/kWh price ceiling, stabilizing power bills amid capacity market transition, using carbon tax funding to offset spikes and enhance consumer protection from volatility.

Key Points

A four-year 6.8 cents/kWh ceiling on Alberta's RRO power price, backed by carbon tax to stabilize bills.

✅ Applies to RRO customers from Jun 2017 to May 2021

✅ Caps rates at 6.8 cents/kWh; lower RRO still applies

✅ Funded by carbon tax when market prices exceed cap

The Alberta government introduced a bill Tuesday, part of new electricity rules that will allow it to place a cap on regulated electricity rates for the next four years.

The move to cap consumer power rates at a maximum of 6.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for four years was announced in November 2016 by Premier Rachel Notley, although it was later scrapped by the UCP during a subsequent policy shift.

The cap is intended to protect consumers from price fluctuations from June 1, 2017, to May 31, 2021, as the province moves from a deregulated to a capacity power market amid a power market overhaul that is underway.

The price ceiling will apply to people with a regulated rate option. If the RRO is below 6.8 cents, they will still pay the lower rate.

The government isn't forecasting price fluctuations above 6.8 cents in this four-year period. If the price goes above that amount, funding would come from the carbon tax if required.

Funding may come from carbon tax

"We're taking a number of steps to keep prices low," said Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd. "But in the event that prices were to spike, the cap would automatically prevent the energy rate from going over 6.8 cents to give Albertans even more peace of mind." 

The government isn't forecasting price fluctuations above 6.8 cents in this four-year period. If the price goes above that amount, funding would come from the carbon tax.

McCuaig-Boyd said this would be an appropriate use for the carbon tax as the cap helps Albertans move to a greener energy system and change how the province produces and pays for electricity without relying as much on coal-fired electricity. 

The government estimates the program will cost $10 million a month for each cent the rate goes above 6.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. If rates remain below that amount, the program may not cost anything.

Wildrose electricity and renewables critic Don MacInytre said the move shows the government expects retail electricity rates will double over the next four years. 

MacIntyre argued a rate cap simply shifts increasing electricity costs away from consumers to the Alberta government. But ultimately everyone pays. 

"It's simply a shift of a burden from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, which is essentially the same person," he said. 

The City of Medicine Hat runs its own electrical system without a regulated rate option. The government will talk with the city to see if it is interested in taking part in the price cap protection.

About 60 per cent of eligible Albertans or one million households use the regulated rate option in their electricity contracts.

The current regulated rate option averages less than three cents per kilowatt-hour.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Shift From Coal to Renewables accelerates as natural gas, solar, and wind power gain market share, driven by the Paris climate agreement, clean energy mandates, smart grid upgrades, and energy efficiency.

Key Points

An industry trend where power producers replace coal with natural gas, solar, and wind to meet clean energy goals.

✅ Shareholders and customers demand cleaner power portfolios

✅ Natural gas, solar, and wind outcompete coal on cost and risk

✅ Smart grid and efficiency investments reduce emissions further

President Trump once again promised to revive the U.S. coal industry when he announced his intention to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

But that reversal seems as unlikely as ever as electric power producers, the biggest consumers of coal in the U.S., continue to shift to natural gas and renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. In 2016, natural gas became the leading fuel for U.S. electricity generation for the first time, responsible for 33.8% of the output, compared with 30.4% for coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, even as coal-fired generation was projected to rise in 2021 in the short term.

Nick Akins, the CEO of American Electric Power, one of the largest utilities in the U.S., says the preference for gas, renewables and energy efficiency, will only grow in response to increasing demands from shareholders and customers for cleaner energy, regardless of changes in national energy policy.

With 5.4 million customers in 11 states, AEP plans to spend $1.5 billion on renewable energy from 2017 through 2019, and $13 billion on transmission and distribution improvements, including new “smart” technologies that will make the grid more resilient and efficient, AEP says.

We spoke with Akins on Thursday, just after Trump’s announcement. The transcript is edited for length and clarity.

What do you think of Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. from the climate agreement?

I don’t think it’s unexpected. He obviously made the point that he’s willing to renegotiate or have further dialogue about it. That’s a good sign. From our perspective, we’re going to continue along the path we’re already on toward a cleaner energy economy.

AEP and the U.S. electric power industry in general have been moving away from coal in favor of natural gas and renewable energy. Will this decision by the Trump administration have any impact on that trend?

If you look at our resource plans in all of the states we serve, they are focused on renewables, natural gas and transmission, as declining returns from coal generation pressure investment choices across the industry. And big-data analytics improves the efficiency of the grid, so energy efficiency is obviously a key component, as Americans use less electricity overall.

Our carbon dioxide emissions in 2016 were 44% below 2000 levels, and that progress will continue with the additions of more renewables, energy efficiency and natural gas.

So, you don’t see coal making a comeback at AEP or other utilities?

No, I don’t think so. … You wouldn’t make a decision (to build a coal power plant) at this point because it’s heavily capital-intensive, and involves a longer-term process and risk to build. And, of course, you can add renewables that are very efficient and natural gas that’s efficient and much less expensive and risky, in terms of construction and operation.

Do you plan to close any more coal-powered plants soon? 

I suspect we’ll see some more retirements in the future, with coal and nuclear closures test just transition in many communities, and as we progress towards that cleaner energy economy, and consider the expectations of our customers and shareholders for us to mitigate risk, you’ll continue to see that happen.

But on the other hand, I want to make sure there’s an understanding that coal will remain a part of the portfolio, even though in rare cases new coal plants are still being built where options are limited, but it will be of a lesser degree because of these other resources that are available to us now that weren’t available to us just a few years ago.

Do you find yourself under more or less pressure from customers and shareholders to move to cleaner forms of energy?

I think there’s more pressure. Investors are looking for the sustainability of the company going forward and mitigation of risks … From a customer standpoint, we have some large customers interested in moving into our service territory who are looking for cleaner energy, and want to know if we’re focused on that. Some of them want to be supplied entirely by those clean sources. So, we’re clearly responding to our customers’ and our shareholders’ expectations.

What’s the solution for workers at coal mines and coal power plants who have lost their jobs?

Certainly, the skill sets of employees in mining and around machinery are transferable to other areas of manufacturing, like aerospace and defense. So, we’re really focusing on economic-development efforts in our service territories … particularly in the coal states … to bring coal miners back to work, not necessarily in coal mines but certainly (in manufacturing).

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Uber Elevate eVTOL Batteries enable electric air taxis with advanced energy storage, lithium-ion cell quality, safety engineering, and zero-emissions performance for urban air mobility, ride-hailing aviation, and scalable battery pack development.

Key Points

Battery systems for Uber's electric air taxis, maximizing energy density, safety, and cycle life for urban air mobility.

✅ Ex-Tesla battery leader guides pack design and cell quality

✅ All-electric eVTOL targets zero-emissions urban air mobility

✅ Focus on safety, energy density, fast charge, and lifecycle

Celina Mikolajczak, a senior manager for battery pack development at Tesla, has been hired by Uber to help the ride-hail company’s “flying car” project get off the ground. It’s an important hire because it signals that Uber plans to get more involved in the engineering aspects of this outlandish-sounding project.

For six years, Mikolajczak served as senior manager and technical lead for battery technology, cell quality, and materials analysis. She worked with Tesla’s suppliers, tested the car company’s lithium-ion batteries for long-term use as the age of electric cars accelerates, oversaw quality assurance, and conducted “failure analysis” to drive battery cell production and design improvements. In other words, Mikolajczak was in charge of making sure the most crucial component in Tesla’s entire assembly line was top of the line.

Now she works for Uber — and not just for Uber, but for Uber Elevate, the absurdly ambitious air taxi service that hinges on the successful development of electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) vehicles. There are practically zero electric planes in service today, and definitely none being used in a commercial ride-hail service. The hurdles to getting this type of service off the ground are enormous.

Her title at Uber is director of engineering and energy storage systems, and today marks her first week on the job. She joins Mark Moore, the former chief technologist for on-demand mobility at NASA’s Langley Research Center, who joined Uber almost a year ago to help lend a professional appearance to Elevate. Both serve under Jeff Holden, Uber’s head of product, who oversees the air taxi project.

Uber first introduced its plan to bring ride-sharing to the skies in a white paper last year. At the time, Uber said it wasn’t going to build its own eVTOL aircraft, but stood ready to “contribute to the nascent but growing VTOL ecosystem and to start to play whatever role is most helpful to accelerate this industry’s development.”

Instead, Uber said it would be partnering with a handful of aircraft manufacturers, real estate firms, and government regulators to better its chances of developing a fully functional, on-demand flying taxi service. It held a day-long conference on the project in Dallas in April, and plans to convene another one later this year in Los Angeles. In 2020, Uber says its aerial service will take off in three cities: LA, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Dubai.

UBER’S TAKING A MORE PROMINENT ROLE

Now, Uber’s taking a more prominent role in the design and manufacturing of its fleet of air taxis, which signals a stronger commitment to making this a reality — and also more of a responsibility if things eventually go south, as setbacks like Eviation's collapse underscore.

Perhaps most ambitiously, Uber says the aircraft it plans to use (but, importantly, do not exist yet) will run on pure battery-electric power, and not any hybrid of gasoline and electricity. Most of the companies exploring eVTOL admit that battery’s today aren’t light enough or powerful enough to sustain flights longer than just a few minutes, but many believe that battery technology will eventually catch up, with Elon Musk suggesting a three-year timeline for cheaper, more powerful cells.

Uber believes that in order to sustain a massive-scale new form of transportation, it will need to commit to an all-electric, zero-operational emissions approach from the start, even as potential constraints threaten the EV boom overall. And since the technology isn’t where it needs to be yet, the ride-hail company is taking a more prominent role in the development of the battery pack for its air taxi vehicles. Mikolajczak certainly has her work cut out for her.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Renewable Energy Market Reform aligns solar and wind with modern grid pricing, tackling intermittency via batteries and demand response, stabilizing wholesale power prices, and enabling capacity markets to finance flexible supply for deep decarbonization.

Key Points

A market overhaul that integrates variable renewables, funds flexibility, and stabilizes grids as solar and wind grow.

✅ Dynamic pricing rewards flexibility and demand response

✅ Capacity markets finance reliability during intermittency

✅ Smart grids, storage, HV lines balance variable supply

ALMOST 150 years after photovoltaic cells and wind turbines were invented, they still generate only 7% of the world’s electricity. Yet something remarkable is happening. From being peripheral to the energy system just over a decade ago, they are now growing faster than any other energy source and their falling costs are making them competitive with fossil fuels. BP, an oil firm, expects renewables to account for half of the growth in global energy supply over the next 20 years. It is no longer far-fetched to think that the world is entering an era of clean, unlimited and cheap, abundant electricity for all. About time, too. 

There is a $20trn hitch, though. To get from here to there requires huge amounts of investment over the next few decades, to replace old smog-belching power plants and to upgrade the pylons and wires that bring electricity to consumers. Normally investors like putting their money into electricity because it offers reliable returns. Yet green energy has a dirty secret. The more it is deployed, the more it lowers the price of power from any source. That makes it hard to manage the transition to a carbon-free future, during which many generating technologies, clean and dirty, need to remain profitable if the lights are to stay on. Unless the market is fixed, subsidies to the industry will only grow.

Policymakers are already seeing this inconvenient truth as a reason to put the brakes on renewable energy. In parts of Europe and China, investment in renewables is slowing as subsidies are cut back, even as Europe’s electricity demand continues to rise. However, the solution is not less wind and solar. It is to rethink how the world prices clean energy in order to make better use of it.

Shock to the system

At its heart, the problem is that government-supported renewable energy has been imposed on a market designed in a different era. For much of the 20th century, electricity was made and moved by vertically integrated, state-controlled monopolies. From the 1980s onwards, many of these were broken up, privatised and liberalised, so that market forces could determine where best to invest. Today only about 6% of electricity users get their power from monopolies. Yet everywhere the pressure to decarbonise power supply has brought the state creeping back into markets. This is disruptive for three reasons. The first is the subsidy system itself. The other two are inherent to the nature of wind and solar: their intermittency and their very low running costs. All three help explain why power prices are low and public subsidies are addictive.

First, the splurge of public subsidy, of about $800bn since 2008, has distorted the market. It came about for noble reasons—to counter climate change and prime the pump for new, costly technologies, including wind turbines and solar panels. But subsidies hit just as electricity consumption in the rich world was stagnating because of growing energy efficiency and the financial crisis. The result was a glut of power-generating capacity that has slashed the revenues utilities earn from wholesale power markets and hence deterred investment.

Second, green power is intermittent. The vagaries of wind and sun—especially in countries without favourable weather—mean that turbines and solar panels generate electricity only part of the time. To keep power flowing, the system relies on conventional power plants, such as coal, gas or nuclear, to kick in when renewables falter. But because they are idle for long periods, they find it harder to attract private investors. So, to keep the lights on, they require public funds.

Everyone is affected by a third factor: renewable energy has negligible or zero marginal running costs—because the wind and the sun are free. In a market that prefers energy produced at the lowest short-term cost, wind and solar take business from providers that are more expensive to run, such as coal plants, depressing wholesale electricity prices, and hence revenues for all.

Get smart

The higher the penetration of renewables, the worse these problems get—especially in saturated markets. In Europe, which was first to feel the effects, utilities have suffered a “lost decade” of falling returns, stranded assets and corporate disruption. Last year, Germany’s two biggest electricity providers, E.ON and RWE, both split in two. In renewable-rich parts of America, power providers struggle to find investors for new plants, reflecting U.S. grid challenges that slow a full transition. Places with an abundance of wind, such as China, are curtailing wind farms to keep coal plants in business.

The corollary is that the electricity system is being re-regulated as investment goes chiefly to areas that benefit from public support. Paradoxically, that means the more states support renewables, the more they pay for conventional power plants, too, using “capacity payments” to alleviate intermittency. In effect, politicians rather than markets are once again deciding how to avoid blackouts. They often make mistakes: Germany’s support for cheap, dirty lignite caused emissions to rise, notwithstanding huge subsidies for renewables. Without a new approach the renewables revolution will stall.

The good news is that new technology can help fix the problem.  Digitalisation, smart meters and batteries are enabling companies and households to smooth out their demand—by doing some energy-intensive work at night, for example. This helps to cope with intermittent supply. Small, modular power plants, which are easy to flex up or down, are becoming more popular, as are high-voltage grids that can move excess power around the network more efficiently, aligning with common goals for electricity networks worldwide.

The bigger task is to redesign power markets to reflect the new need for flexible supply and demand. They should adjust prices more frequently, to reflect the fluctuations of the weather. At times of extreme scarcity, a high fixed price could kick in to prevent blackouts. Markets should reward those willing to use less electricity to balance the grid, just as they reward those who generate more of it. Bills could be structured to be higher or lower depending how strongly a customer wanted guaranteed power all the time—a bit like an insurance policy. In short, policymakers should be clear they have a problem and that the cause is not renewable energy, but the out-of-date system of electricity pricing. Then they should fix it.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Site C Project Delay raises BC Hydro costs as Christy Clark warns $600 million impact; NDP and Greens seek BCUC review of the hydroelectric dam on the Peace River, challenging evictions and construction contracts.

Key Points

A potential slowdown of B.C.'s Site C dam, risking $600M overruns, evictions, and schedule delays pending a BCUC review.

✅ Clark warns $600M cost if river diversion slips a year

✅ NDP-Green seek BCUC review; request to pause contracts, evictions

✅ Peace River hydro dam; schedule critical to budget, ratepayers

Premier Christy Clark is warning the NDP and Greens that delaying work on the Site C project in northeast British Columbia could cost taxpayers $600 million.

NDP Leader John Horgan wrote to BC Hydro last week asking it to suspend the evictions of two homeowners and urging it not to sign any new contracts on the $8.6-billion hydroelectric dam until a new government has gained the confidence of the legislature.

But Clark says in letters sent to Horgan and Green Leader Andrew Weaver on Tuesday that the evictions are necessary as part of a road and bridge construction project that are needed to divert a river in September 2019.

Any delay could postpone the diversion by a year and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, she says.

“With a project of this size and scale, keeping to a tight schedule is critical to delivering a completed project on time and on budget,” she says. “The requests contained in your letter are not without consequences to the construction schedule and ultimately have financial ramifications to ratepayers.”

The premier has asked Horgan and Weaver to reply by Saturday on whether they still want to put the evictions on hold.

She also asks whether they want the government to issue a “tools down” request to BC Hydro on other decisions that she says are essential to maintaining the budget and construction schedule.

An agreement between the NDP and Green party was signed last week that would allow the New Democrats to form a minority government, ousting Clark's Liberals.

The agreement includes a promise to refer the Site C project to the B.C. Utilities Commission to determine its economic viability.

Some analysts argue that better B.C.-Alberta power integration could improve climate outcomes and market flexibility.

But Clark says the project is likely to progress past the “point of no return” before a review can be completed.

Clark did not define what she meant by “point of no return,” nor did she explain how she reached the $600-million figure. Her press secretary Stephen Smart referred questions to BC Hydro, which did not immediately respond.

During prolonged drought conditions, BC Hydro has had to adapt power generation across the province, affecting planning assumptions.

In a written response to Clark, Weaver says before he can comment on her assertions he requires access to supporting evidence, including signed contracts, the project schedule and potential alternative project timelines.

“Please let me express my disappointment in how your government is choosing to proceed with this project,” he says.

“Your government is turning a significant capital project that potentially poses massive economic risks to British Columbians into a political debate rather than one informed by evidence and supported by independent analysis.”

The dam will be the third on the Peace River, flooding an 83-kilometre stretch of valley, and local First Nations, landowners and farmers have fiercely opposed the project.

Construction began two years ago.

A report written by University of British Columbia researchers in April argued it wasn't too late to press pause on the project and that the electricity produced by Site C won't be fully required for nearly a decade after it's complete.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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