Connect with us

Published

on

By Devonie McCamey

A quick scan of recent energy-related headlines and industry announcements shows rising interest in hybrids — and we are not talking about cars.

Hybrid renewable energy systems combine multiple renewable energy and/or energy storage technologies into a single plant, and they represent an important subset of the broader hybrid systems universe. These integrated power systems are increasingly being lauded as key to unlocking maximum efficiency and cost savings in future decarbonized grids — but a growing collection of National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) analysis indicates there are still challenges in evaluating the benefits of hybrids with the tools used to help plan those future grids.

In comparing hybrids to standalone alternatives, it is important to tackle questions like: Is it always beneficial to combine renewable and storage technologies, instead of siting each technology where their individual contributions to the grid can be maximized? Or are only certain hybrid designs beneficial? Does the energy research community consistently represent the characteristics of hybrids in power system models? And are we using common definitions when studying hybrids and their potential impacts?

Turning over a Magic 8-Ball might bring up the response: Concentrate and ask again.

“At NREL, we’re working to represent hybrid systems in our models in a more nuanced, detailed way to try to answer these questions — and ultimately advance the state of modeling to ensure consistency in how hybrids are treated across different tools,” said Caitlin Murphy, NREL senior analyst and lead author of several recent studies of hybrid systems. “With growing interest in these systems that can be designed and sized in lots of different ways, it’s crucial to determine the value they provide to the grid — in the form of energy, capacity, and ancillary services — particularly relative to deploying each technology separately.”

The results of this body of work highlight some gaps between what different models show and what many in the energy community have — perhaps prematurely — proclaimed when it comes to the value of hybrid systems to the future grid.

“Hybridization creates opportunities and challenges for the design, operation, and regulation of energy markets and policies — and current data, methods, and analysis tools are insufficient for fully representing the costs, value, and system impacts of hybrid energy systems,” said Paul Denholm, NREL principal energy analyst and coauthor. “Ultimately, our research points to a need for increased coordination across the research community and with industry, to encourage consistency and collaboration as we work toward answers.”

First, What Do We Mean When We Talk About Hybrid Systems? NREL Proposes a Taxonomy To Delineate What Makes a System a True Hybrid

Finding answers starts with speaking the same language. To help researchers move toward a shared vocabulary around systems that link renewable energy and storage technologies, Murphy and fellow NREL analysts Anna Schleifer and Kelly Eurek published a paper proposing a new taxonomy.

Schematic showing several proposed technology combinations for hybrid energy systems. NREL’s literature review identified several proposed technology combinations. Blue nodes represent variable renewable energy (VRE) technologies, green nodes represent energy storage technology types, and orange nodes represent less-variable renewable energy (RE) technologies or systems; arcs indicate technology pairs that have been proposed in the literature. PV: photovoltaic; RoR: run-of-river; HESS: hybrid energy storage system; CSP + TES: concentrating solar power with thermal energy storage; the Mechanical storage icon encompasses compressed air energy storage and flywheels, both of which ultimately convert the stored energy to electricity. Source: “A Taxonomy of Systems that Combine Utility-Scale Renewable Energy and Energy Storage Technologies

“Our ability to quantify hybrids’ potential impacts could be hindered by inconsistent treatment of these systems, as well as an incomplete understanding of which aspects of hybridization will have the greatest influence,” Murphy said. “Ultimately, we hope our proposed taxonomy will encourage consistency in how the energy community thinks about and evaluates hybrids’ costs, values, and potential.”

After a thorough literature review, the team developed a new organization scheme for utility-scale systems that combine renewable and energy storage technologies — only a subset of which can truly be called “hybrids.” They came up with three categories based on whether the systems involve locational or operational linkages, or both.

“We found that technology combinations do not represent a meaningful delineation between hybrids and non-hybrids — the nature of the linkages are more important distinctions,” Murphy said.

The resulting categories can help inform policy considerations, as they define system characteristics that could challenge existing permitting, siting, interconnection process, and policy implementations. The taxonomy is also helpful in informing model development efforts, as the categories identify the unique characteristics that must be reflected to adequately represent hybrid systems in a model — including the effects of the linkages on both a project’s costs and the values it can deliver to the grid.

That is where NREL’s next set of analyses comes in.

In a series of recent reports, NREL analysts homed in on a set of technology combinations and linkages that are consistent with a true hybrid system — co-optimizing the design and self-scheduling of linked technologies to maximize net economic benefits.

To do this, NREL modeled hybrid systems using three different tools that underpin many of the laboratory’s forward-looking power system studies. These analyses focus on DC-coupled solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage (PV+battery) hybrids, which are increasingly being proposed for the power system.

Can We Improve How Capacity Expansion Models Assess the Value of PV+Battery Hybrids? “Signs Point to Yes.”

Combining PV and battery technologies into a single hybrid system could lower costs and increase energy output relative to separate systems — but accurately assessing PV+battery systems’ market potential requires improved methods for estimating the cost and value contribution in capacity expansion models, including those that utilities use for integrated resource planning.

In Representing DC-Coupled PV+Battery Hybrids in a Capacity Expansion Model, Eurek, Murphy, and Schleifer teamed up with fellow NREL analysts Wesley Cole, Will Frazier, and Patrick Brown to demonstrate a new method for incorporating PV+battery systems in NREL’s publicly available Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) capacity expansion model.

“The method leverages ReEDS’ existing treatment of separate PV and battery technologies, so the focus is on capturing the interactions between them for a hybrid with a shared bidirectional inverter,” Eurek said. “While we apply this method to ReEDS, we anticipate that our approach can be useful for informing PV+battery method development in other capacity expansion models.”

The research team used the method to explore a range of scenarios for the United States through 2050, using different cost assumptions that are uncertain and expected to influence how competitive PV+battery hybrids will be. These include the cost of hybrid systems relative to separate PV and battery projects, the battery component’s qualification for the solar investment tax credit (ITC), and future cost trajectories for PV and battery systems.

“From the full suite of scenarios, we find that the future deployment of utility-scale PV+battery hybrids depends strongly on the level of cost savings that can be achieved through hybridization. So, greater sharing of balance-of-system costs, reductions in financial risk, or modularity can all lead to greater PV+battery hybrid deployment,” Eurek said. “Deployment is also highly sensitive to the battery component’s ability to arbitrage, based on charging from the grid when prices are low and selling back to the grid when prices are high.”

In all scenarios explored, the synergistic value in a PV+battery hybrid helps it capture a greater share of generation, which primarily displaces separate PV and battery projects. In other words, the model results indicate that there is strong competition between PV+battery hybrids and separate PV and battery deployments — although it is important to note that the modeling does not reflect the faster and simpler interconnection process for hybrid projects, which could shift the competition with other resource types as well. In addition, if the PV+battery hybrid is designed and operated to ensure the battery component can qualify for the solar ITC, that could accelerate near-term deployment of PV+battery hybrids.

The team notes several ways in which future PV+battery system modeling could be improved — regardless of which capacity expansion model is used. A top priority is improving the representation of the battery component, including operations-dependent degradation — which may be distinct for hybrid versus standalone battery systems — and temporary operational restrictions associated with its qualification for the solar ITC. In addition, modeling retrofits of existing PV systems to add batteries may be especially important, since this is often considered one of the fastest ways to get PV+battery hybrids onto the grid.

What About Hybrids’ System-Level Operational Benefits? “Outlook Good.”

The operation and value of PV+battery hybrids have been extensively studied from the perspective of project developers through analyses that maximize plant-level revenue. But hybrid systems’ operational characteristics have rarely been studied from the perspective of grid operators, who work to maintain reliability and maximize affordability by optimizing the performance of a suite of generation and storage assets.

In Evaluating Utility-Scale PV-Battery Hybrids in an Operational Model for the Bulk Power System, NREL analysts Venkat Durvasulu, Murphy, and Denholm present a new approach for representing and evaluating PV+battery hybrids in the PLEXOS production cost model, which can be used to optimize the operational dispatch of generation and storage capacity to meet load across the U.S. bulk power system.

Production cost models are an important tool used by utilities and other power system planners to analyze the reliability, affordability, and sustainability associated with proposed resource plans. Here, NREL demonstrated a technique to enhance a production cost model to represent the operational synergies of PV+battery hybrids.

“We used a test system developed for NREL’s recent Los Angeles 100% Renewable Energy Study — replacing existing PV and battery generators on this modeled system with PV+battery hybrids,” Denholm said.

The research team analyzed different scenarios that were designed to isolate the various drivers of operational strategies for PV+battery hybrids — including how the technologies are coupled, the overall PV penetration on the system, and different inverter loading ratios (or degrees of over-sizing the PV array relative to its interconnection limit).

Results show multiple system-level benefits, as the growing availability of PV energy with increasing inverter loading ratio resulted in increased utilization of the inverter (i.e., resulting in a higher capacity factor), a reduction in grid charging (in favor of charging from the local PV, which is more efficient), and a decrease in system-wide production cost.

This chart shows the destination of all PV direct-current (DC) energy collected over the course of a year for simulated PV+battery hybrids as a function of inverter load ratio (ILR). In addition to demonstrating the growing availability of PV DC energy with increasing ILR, the breakdown of utilized PV DC energy indicates that most is sent directly to the grid and 15%–25% is used to charge the local battery. AC = alternating current. Source: Evaluating Utility-Scale PV-Battery Hybrids in Operational Models for the Bulk Power System

“The approach we present here can be used in any production cost modeling study of PV+battery hybrids as a resource in different power system configurations and services,” Durvasulu said. “This is a critical step toward being able to evaluate the system-level benefits these hybrids can provide, and improving our understanding of how a grid operator might call on and use such systems.”

How Could the Value of Hybrids Evolve Over Time? “Reply Hazy, Try Again.”

The third report in the series brings yet another modeling method to the table: price-taker modeling, which quantifies the value that can be realized by PV+battery systems — and explores how this value varies across multiple dimensions.

In “The Evolving Energy and Capacity Values of Utility-Scale PV-Plus-Battery Hybrid System Architectures,” Schleifer, Murphy, Cole, and Denholm explore how the value of PV+battery hybrids could evolve over time — with highly varied results.

Using a price-taker model with synthetic hourly electricity prices from now to 2050 (based on outputs from the ReEDS and PLEXOS models), NREL simulated the revenue-maximizing dispatch of three PV+battery architectures in three locations. The architectures vary in terms of whether the PV+battery systems have separate inverters or a shared inverter and whether the battery can charge from the grid. The locations vary in terms of the quality of the solar resource and the grid mix, both of which influence the potential value of PV+battery hybrids.

“We found that the highest-value architecture today varies largely based on PV penetration and peak-price periods, including when they occur and how extreme they are,” Schleifer said. “Across all the systems we studied, we found that hybridization could either improve or hurt project economics. And no single architecture was the clear winner — in some cases, you want to take advantage of a shared inverter, and in other cases, separate inverters and grid charging are too valuable to give up.”

The results of this price-taker analysis show that a primary benefit of coupling the studied technologies is reduced costs from shared equipment, materials, labor, and infrastructure. But in the absence of oversizing the PV array, hybridization does not offer more value than separate PV and battery systems. In fact, hybridization can actually reduce value if the systems are not appropriately configured — which means appropriately sizing and coupling the battery and likely oversizing the PV array relative to the inverter or interconnection limit.

Another important finding is that both subcomponents stand to benefit from hybridization. As PV penetration grows, the additional energy and capacity value of a new PV system declines rapidly — but coupling the PV with battery storage helps to maintain the value of PV by allowing it to be shifted to periods where the system can provide greater value. In addition, coupled PV can help increase the total revenue of the battery by displacing grid-charged energy, which typically has non-zero cost.

“As the role of PV+battery hybrids on the bulk power system continues to grow, it will be increasingly important to understand the impact of design parameters on economic performance,” Schleifer said. “Additional analysis is needed to tease out the factors that impact the performance and economics of PV+battery hybrid systems — and give system planners and researchers clearer answers about their possible benefits.”

Working Toward “Without a Doubt:” A Call for Coordination To Resolve the Remaining Unknowns

Looking at this collection of work, one thing is clear: No current model is an accurate Magic 8-Ball for predicting hybrids’ future value — but coordinated efforts to improve our models can bring the research community a step closer to a clear outlook.

And momentum is building: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has convened the DOE Hybrids Task Force — which worked with NREL, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and seven other national laboratories to develop the recently released Hybrid Energy Systems: Opportunities for Coordinated Research, which highlights innovative opportunities to spur joint research on hybrid energy systems in three research areas. That effort touches on the PV+battery hybrids described in this article, and it also considers additional technology combinations that could have a growing role in the future, including PV+windnuclear+electrolysis, and other low-emitting hybrid systems.

“While the power system was originally developed as single-technology plants, and many of our research efforts have been siloed to individual technologies, the DOE Hybrid Task Force represents a step toward collaboration,” Murphy said. “We were able to identify several high-priority research opportunities that span multiple technologies, establish common priorities, and lay a foundation for further dialogue.”

In the days ahead, NREL is uniquely poised to further the validation of hybrid system performance and operation with the Advanced Research on Integrated Energy Systems (ARIES) research platform. ARIES introduces both a physical and a near-real-world virtual emulation environment with high-fidelity, physics-based, real-time models that facilitate the connection between hundreds of real hardware devices and tens of millions of simulated devices.

Integrated energy pathways modernizes our grid to support a broad selection of generation types, encourages consumer participation, and expands our options for transportation electrification.

Ultimately, advancing hybrid systems research at NREL and other national laboratories will require more coordination with industry. The DOE Hybrids Task Force report identified the need for a multistakeholder workshop to take a deep dive into what is motivating different stakeholders to propose and deploy different types of hybrid systems.

“By creating opportunities to directly solicit insights from industry, utility planners, and other stakeholders, we can move toward a deeper understanding of what sources of value are driving industry interest in hybrids,” Murphy said. “Is there inherent value that can only be unlocked through hybridization, or is some of the value embedded in the familiar? By adding storage to variable resources, we can make them look and participate more like the controllable resources we are used to having on the power system.

“Bringing the key players together will help us as researchers to recognize these motivations — some of which we might not currently understand — and close the gap in how to represent them in our models.”

Learn more about NREL’s energy analysis and grid modernization research.

Article courtesy of the NREL, the U.S. Department of Energy

Featured photo by Ramón Salinero on Unsplash


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Global energy giant RWE halts US offshore wind because of Trump

Published

on

By

Global energy giant RWE halts US offshore wind because of Trump

Global renewable developer and energy giant RWE has halted its US offshore wind operations “for the time being” because of the “political environment” the Trump administration has created.

RWE, Germany’s biggest electricity producer, said in March that it had dialed back its US offshore wind activities. But now, CEO Marcus Krebber said in a speech transcript, which he’ll deliver at the company’s Annual General Meeting in Essen on April 30, that its US offshore wind business is now closed (but it wasn’t all bad news): 

In the US, where we have stopped our offshore activities for the time being, our business in onshore wind, solar energy, and battery storage has so far been developing very dynamically. At the start of this year, we reached an important milestone when our US generation capacity hit the 10 gigawatt mark. The construction of a further 4 gigawatts is secured.

He went on to say that renewables have created regional value and jobs, but that the company remains “cautious given the political developments.” RWE has introduced more stringent requirements for future US investments:

All necessary federal permits must be in place. Tax credits must be safe harbored and all relevant tariff risks mitigated. In addition, onshore wind and solar projects must have secured offtake at the time of the investment decision. Only if these conditions are met will further investments be possible, given the political environment.

About half of RWE’s installed renewable capacity is in the US, where it’s the third-largest renewable energy company through its subsidiary, RWE Clean Energy. RWE holds the rights to develop US offshore wind projects in New York, Louisiana, and California.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

RWE paid $1.1 billion for the New York lease area in 2022, where it’s meant to develop the 3 gigawatt (GW) Community Offshore Wind with the UK’s National Grid. Community Offshore Wind was projected to come online in the early 2030s and expected to power more than a million homes.

The developer paid $5.6 billion for the Louisiana lease in the Gulf of Mexico in 2023 as the lone bidder for development rights, and the Canopy Offshore Wind project off Northern California was not expected to be completed for another decade.

Read more: Trump admin halts $5 billion NY offshore wind project mid-build


Now is a great time to begin your solar journey so your system is installed in time for those longer sunny days. If you want to make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20 to 30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate partner

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump’s memecoin dinner contest earns insiders $900,000 in two days

Published

on

By

Trump's memecoin dinner contest earns insiders 0,000 in two days

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump and his allies have raked in nearly $900,000 in trading fees over the past two days from the president’s $TRUMP cryptocurrency token, according to Chainalysis, a blockchain data company. 

The surge came after a Wednesday announcement in which the top 220 holders of the token were promised dinner with the president.

“Have Dinner in Washington, D.C. With President Trump,” reads a message on the front page of the Trump coin’s website. The event, which is black tie optional and hosted at the president’s private club in the Washington area, is scheduled for May 22, with a reception for the top 25 holders. A “VIP White House Tour” will take place the following day, the site says. The website also hosts an active leaderboard displaying the usernames of top buyers.

The $TRUMP memecoin jumped more than 50% on the dinner news, boosting its total market value to $2.7 billion. It was met with fierce criticism from some of Trump’s political opponents who said the move was further evidence that the president was using crypto to enrich himself. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a prominent Trump critic, wrote on X that the sale was “the most brazenly corrupt thing a President has ever done. Not close.”

Roughly 80% of the $TRUMP token supply is controlled by the Trump Organization and affiliates, according to the project’s website. Since its launch in January, trading activity has generated about $324.5 million in trading fees for insiders, Chainalysis found. These fees are generated through the token’s built-in mechanism that routes a percentage of each trade to wallets controlled by the project — wallets that, according to the website, are linked to the coin’s creators.

Memecoins, often referred to as meme tokens, are a subset of digital assets that use blockchain technology and derive their value largely from internet culture, memes and social media hype rather than from an underlying utility or asset. The originators of memecoins can make fees when their coins are bought and sold.

They have grown in popularity in recent years as speculative assets, with some coins including dogecoin and fartcoin amassing total market values in excess of $1 billion.

Most of the $TRUMP supply remains locked under a three-year vesting plan, with coins gradually becoming available over time. Lockups like these are meant to protect investors by preventing insiders from cashing out all at once — a scheme commonly known in the crypto world as a “rug pull.” Vesting schedules aim to give retail buyers confidence that early holders won’t overwhelm the market and tank the token’s value.

Still, the dinner contest is being viewed by critics as an unusually explicit attempt to monetize presidential access. 

As CNBC reported Friday, Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are urging the U.S. Office of Government Ethics to investigate whether the promotion constitutes “pay to play” corruption.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The company behind the memecoin also did not respond to a request for comment.

Delaney Marsco, the director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit focused on campaign finance and government accountability, told NBC News the coin and dinner contest amounted to an unprecedented ethics breach — though it is unlikely to be illegal.

“Criminal conflicts of interest statutes don’t apply to the President,” she said. “That has allowed him to go against decades of of norms that every modern president since Carter has adhered to, which is to divest your financial interests, rid yourself of your businesses, and kind of go in to the presidency with a clean financial slate so that no one could accuse you of manipulating policy decisions or using your position in order to enrich yourself.” 

“The fact that he is not barred by the law from having these financial interests like this meme coin allows him to engage in a lot of seemingly corrupt activity. It has the appearance of a pay to play, so the President is apparently selling access to himself,” Marsco added.

Molly White, an independent crypto researcher, told NBC News that the leaderboard only shows top $TRUMP holders — and then only by their chosen screen name, making it difficult to identify who is paying to potentially join the dinner.

Schiff and Warren have cited public reports showing that some $TRUMP investors have ties to foreign exchanges or received funds from crypto platforms banned in the U.S., including Binance.

White also noted that at least one top $TRUMP owner has an account on Binance, a cryptocurrency company that doesn’t allow American users.

Trump was elected with significant help from the cryptocurrency industry, which poured tens of millions of dollars into the 2024 election, outpacing corporate donations from traditional sectors like banking and oil. After opposing digital assets during his first term, Trump pivoted in 2024 to campaign as a champion of cryptocurrency, casting Democrats as hostile to innovation and as advocating for tighter regulation. 

The $TRUMP token itself offers no product or service, according to the project’s website. It is part of a broader push by the Trump family into digital assets, despite the market’s volatility and regulatory risks.

In addition to the $TRUMP and $MELANIA meme coins, the family is backing World Liberty Financial, a decentralized finance venture that has raised $550 million across two token sales since last October. Buyers are barred from reselling their tokens and receive no share of profits — but a Trump-affiliated entity is entitled to 75% of net revenue, including token sale proceeds.

Together, these projects have created new streams of revenue for Trump and his inner circle at a time when regulatory oversight of cryptocurrency has weakened sharply under his administration.

Continue Reading

Environment

Drive Electric Earth Month, continues this weekend, get your EV Qs answered

Published

on

By

Drive Electric Earth Month, continues this weekend, get your EV Qs answered

It’s that time of year again, time for events across the country to show off electric vehicles at Drive Electric Earth Month.

Drive Electric Earth Month is an offshoot of Drive Electric Week, a long-running annual tradition hosting meetups mostly in the US, but also occasionally in other countries. It started as Drive Electric Earth Day, but since not every event can happen on the same day, they went ahead and extended it to encompass “Earth Month” events that happen across the month of April. It’s all organized by Plug In America, the Sierra Club, the Electric Vehicle Association, EV Hybrid Noire, and Drive Electric USA.

Events consist of general Earth Day-style community celebrations, EV Ride & Drives where you can test drive several EVs in one place, and opportunities to talk to EV owners and ask them questions about what it’s like to live with an EV, away from the pressure of a dealership.

This month, there are 158 events registered across the US and 1 in Mexico (including one online webinar about things to consider when purchasing an EV).

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Events have been happening all month, but the biggest weekend is this upcoming one, APril 26-27.

One really neat event was the Asheville event, which showcased the resiliency of EVs in an area devastated by Hurricane Helene, which was made more severe by climate change. That event was attended by the Rivian R1T which famously got dragged 100 feet submerged in mud and came out running fine.

But the bulk of the events happened on the weekends surrounding Earth Day, April 22, so there were several last weekend and will be even more this upcoming weekend.

There are plenty of events in the big cities where you’d expect, but Plug In America wanted to highlight a few of the events in smaller places around the country. Here’s a sampling of upcoming events:

  • Big Island EV – Cruise and Picnic in Waimea, HI on April 26, 10am-1pm – EV drivers will congregate in various places around the Big Island (Kona, Waimea, Waikoloa and Hilo), then drive up Saddle Road to the Gil Kahele Recreation Area on Mauna Kea for a potluck and a chance to talk about the experience of owning EVs on the Big Island.
  • Santa Barbara Earth Day 2025 and Green Car Show in Santa Barbara, CA on April 26-27, 11am-8pm – This is part of Santa Barbara’s Earth Day celebration, which routinely attracts 30,000 participants and is one of the longest-running Earth Day celebrations on the planet. The Green Car Show includes ride & drives and an “Owners Corner” where owners can showcase their EVs and attendees can check them out and ask questions.
  • Earth Day’25 – EV’s role in a sustainable future in Queretaro City, Mexico on April 26, 9am-4pm – The sole Mexican event, this is a combined in-person/online seminar at the Querétaro Institute of Technology.
  • Norman Earth Day Festival in Norman, OK on April 27, 12-5pm – Another municipal Earth Day festival, with hands-on activities for kids to learn about the environment. A portion of the parking lot reserved for an EV car show for EV owners who pre-register to show off their vehicles.
  • Oregon Electric Vehicle Association Test Drive & Information Expo in Portland, OR on April 27, 10am-4pm – This one is at Daimler Truck’s North American HQ, and will have several EVs for test drives, owner displays (including DIY gas-to-EV conversions), and keynote presentations by EV experts. They’ll even have a 1914 Detroit Electric EV available for test rides!
  • And, we at Electrek want to give a shoutout to Rove’s EV Drive Days in Santa Ana 10am-3pm April 28 – ROVE is the company behind the “full-service” EV charging concept that we’ve talked about several times here on Electrek, and we like what they’re doing for EV charging. They’ve hosted a few community events, and this is their contribution to Earth Month.

Each event has a different assortment of activities (e.g. test drives won’t be available at every event, generally just the larger ones attended by local dealerships), so be sure to check the events page to see what the plan is for your local event.

These events have offered a great way to connect with owners and see the newest electric vehicle tech, and even get a chance to do test rides and drives in person. Attendees got to hear unfiltered information from actual owners about the benefits and trials of owning EVs, allowing for longer and more genuine (and often more knowledgeable) conversations than one might normally encounter at a dealership.

And if you’re an owner – you can show off your car and answer those questions for interested onlookers.

To view all the events and see what’s happening in your area, you can check out the list of events or the events map. You can also sign up to volunteer at your local events, and if you plan to show off your electric car, you can RSVP on each event page and list the vehicle that you plan to show (or see what other vehicles have already registered).


Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending