Over the weekend the Washington Spectator published my essay, Diary of a Transit Miracle, recounting the arduous march of NYC congestion pricing from a gleam in a trio of prominent New Yorkers’ eyes at the end of the 1960s, to the verge of startup at the upcoming stroke of midnight June 30, the startup time announced by the MTA last Friday.
Landing page for this post’s original version.
I’m cross-posting it here — the third post on the subject in this space in the past 12 months (following this in December and this post last June) — because the advent of congestion pricing in the U.S. is “a really big deal,” as a number of friends and colleagues have told me in recent weeks. As my new essay makes clear, charging motorists to drive into the heart of Manhattan isn’t just a rejection of unconstrained motordom, it’s a new beachhead in “externality pricing” — social-cost surcharging — of which carbon taxes are the ultimate form.
The essay features two governors, two mayors — one of whom I served a half-century ago as a lowly but admiring data cruncher — a civic “Walter Cronkite,” a Nobel economist, raucous transit activists, a gridlock guru and yours truly, plus a cameo appearance by Robert Moses. It includes footage of the historic 1969 press conference in which Mayor John Lindsay and two distinguished associates enunciated the core idea of using externality pricing to better balance automobiles and mass transit that animated the arduous but ultimately triumphant congestion pricing campaign.
— C.K., April 29, 2024
Diary of a Transit Miracle
A miracle is coming to New York City. Beginning on July 1, and barring a last-minute hitch, motorists will soon pay a hefty $15 to enter the southern half of Manhattan — the area bounded by the Hudson River, the East River and 60th Street.
An anticipated 15 percent or so of drivers will switch to transit, unsnarling roads within the “congestion zone” and routes leading to it. The other 80 or 90 percent will grumble but continue driving. That is by design. The toll bounty, a billion dollars a year, will finance subway enhancements like station elevators and digital signals that will increase train throughput and lure more car trips onto trains.
The result will be faster, smoother commutes, especially for car drivers and taxicab and Uber passengers, who will pay a modest surcharge of $1.25 to $2.50 per trip. Drivers of for-hire vehicles will benefit as well, as lesser gridlock leads to more fares.1
The miracle is three-fold: Winners will vastly outnumber losers; New York will be made healthier, calmer and more prosperous; and that this salutary measure is happening at all, after a half-century of setbacks.
Obstacles to congestion pricing
Congestion pricing, as the policy is known, faced formidable obstacles even beyond the difficulty inherent in asking a group of people to start forking over a billion dollars a year for something that’s always been free.
Congestion pricing also had to contend with: an ingrained pro-motoring ideology that casts any restraint on driving as a betrayal of the American Dream; a general aversion to social-cost surcharges (what economists call “externality pricing”); exasperation over the region’s balkanized and convoluted toll and transit regimes; and, of late, a decline in social solidarity and appeals to the common good.
The advent of congestion pricing in New York is, thus, cause not just for celebration but wonderment. How did this wonky yet radical idea advance to the verge of enactment?
Origins
The trail begins in the waning days of 1969, when newly re-elected mayor John Lindsay recruited two well-regarded New Yorkers to devise a plan to fend off a 50 percent rise in subway and bus fares.
William Vickrey, a Canadian transplant teaching at Columbia and a future Nobel economics laureate, was a protean theorist of externality pricing. New York-bred mediator Theodore Kheel was admired as a civic Walter Cronkite for his plain-spoken common sense.
Lindsay, too often dismissed as a lightweight, understood mass transit as key to loosening automobiles’ spreading chokehold over the city. He had made combating air pollution a pillar of his first term and was fast becoming an exemplar of urban environmentalism. From his municipal engineers, Lindsay knew that technology to clean up tailpipes still lay in the future. A transit fare hike that would add yet more vehicles to city streets imperiled his clean-air agenda.
The triumvirate proposed a suite of motorist fees to preserve the fare. Their program ― higher registration fees and gasoline taxes, a parking garage tax, doubled tolls ― though mild in today’s terms, threatened powerful bureaucracies and their auto allies. Newly dethroned “master-builder” Robert Moses opined that Kheel, in his zeal to save the fare, had “gone berserk over bridge and tunnel tolls.”2 The program went nowhere.
L to R: Kheel, Lindsay, Vickrey. Click arrow to view (please excuse two brief garbled passages toward end).
Moses was right to be alarmed. From a City Hall podium on Dec. 16, 1969, Mayor Lindsay showcased Kheel’s and Vickrey’s respective reports, “A Balanced System of Transportation is a Must” and “A Transit Fare Increase is Costly Revenue.” (Click link in still photo above to view 27-minute video.) The trio propounded a new urban doctrine rebalancing automobiles and public transportation: “Automobiles are strangling our cities… Starving mass transit imposes costs that are difficult to measure, yet real… Correcting the fiscal imbalance between transit and the automobile is key to enhancing our environment and quality of life…”
Their remarks set generations of urbanists on course toward congestion pricing.
Setbacks
Quantifying those precepts became my research agenda 40 years later. In the interim, two creditable attempts to enact congestion pricing crashed and burned.
The central element of Lindsay’s 1973 “transportation control plan” was tolls on the city’s East River bridges, a measure designed to eliminate enough traffic to satisfy federal clean-air standards. Though the plan’s formal demise didn’t come until 1977, in legislation written by liberal lawmakers from Brooklyn and Queens, the toll idea never stood a chance. Electronic tolling was 20 years away, and adding stop-and-go toll booths seemed more likely to compound vehicular exhaust than to cut it.
Three decades later, in 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked Albany to toll not just the same East River bridges but also the more-trafficked 60th Street “portal” to mid-Manhattan. Predictably, faux-populist legislators saw Bloomberg’s billionaire wealth as an invitation to denounce the congestion fee as an affront to the little guy.
The mayor may have hurt his cause by presenting congestion pricing primarily as a climate and pollution measure. The pollution rationale was no longer compelling in the way it had been in Lindsay’s day, as automotive engineers had slashed rates of toxic vehicle exhaust ten-fold. Appeals tied to global warming also fell flat; remember, congestion pricing contemplated that most drivers would stay in their fossil-fuel burning cars.
This isn’t to say that congestion pricing confers no climate benefits. Rather, the benefits are subtler ones that can be hard to convey to voters, such as making climate-friendly urban living more attractive. A further benefit may come as congestion pricing demonstrates the unique power of externality pricing, as explained below.
From the Rubble
Even as Bloomberg’s toll plan was faltering in Albany, new loci of support were germinating in the city.
Changing times demanded not just the intellectual leadership of think-tanks like the Regional Plan Association and the good-government Straphangers Campaign, but gritty, grassroots transit organizing. Enter the newly-minted Riders Alliance.
2017 subway handbill exemplified new militancy targeting Gov. Andrew Cuomo for failing transit.
As subway service began cratering in 2015, the inevitable result of budget-raiding by a skein of governors, the Alliance posted crowd-sourced photos of stalled trains and jammed platforms alongside demands for improved service from “#CuomosMTA.” Before long, the papers were pointing the finger at the governor not just in “Why Your Commute Is Bad” explainers but in tear-jerkers like the Times’ May 2017 classic, “Money Out of Your Pocket”: New Yorkers Tell of Subway Delay Woes.
The drumbeat was deafening. Cuomo finally blinked. On a Sunday in August 2017, he phoned the Times’ Albany bureau chief and handed him a scoop for the next day’s front page: Cuomo Calls Manhattan Traffic Plan an Idea ‘Whose Time Has Come’.
The “traffic plan” was congestion pricing.
Data Cruncher
Two months later, Cuomo’s staff summoned me to the midtown office of the consulting firm they had retained to “scope” congestion pricing ― essentially, to compute how much revenue tolls could generate. They wanted to see if an Excel spreadsheet model I had constructed and refined over the prior decade could aid their scoping process.
The model was called the Balanced Transportation Analyzer, a name bestowed in 2007 by Ted Kheel.
Ted, in his nineties, had recruited me to determine whether a large enough congestion toll could pay to make city transit free. The idea worked on paper but foundered politically. Nevertheless, Ted saw in my Excel modeling a way to capture phenomena like “rebound effects” (motorists driving more as road space frees up) and “mode switching” between cars, trains, buses and taxicabs, that he and Prof. Vickrey had identified in their 1969 work but lacked the computing ability to quantify.
Ted’s philanthropy enabled me over the next decade to expand, test and update my transportation modeling. With a hundred “tabs” and 160,000 equations, the “BTA” can instantly answer almost any conceivable question about New York congestion pricing, as well as these two central ones: how much revenue it will yield, and how much time will travelers save in lightened traffic and better transit.3
The BTA model aced its 2017 audition and became the computational engine for the congestion pricing legislation the governor’s team enacted into law in 2019. Its impact has been even broader.4 “Having the model helped make the case with the public, journalists, elected officials and others,” Eric McClure, director of the livable-streets advocacy group StreetsPAC, wrote recently, in part by helping congestion pricing proponents push back on opponents’ exaggerated claims of disastrous outcomes and their incessant demands for special treatment. The model may also have influenced the detailed toll design adopted by the MTA board earlier this year, which hewed close to the toll design I had recommended last summer.5
The BTA also provided sustenance during congestion pricing’s seven lean years ― the 2009-2016 period in which the torch was kept lit by a new triumvirate known as “Move NY” ― traffic guru “Gridlock” Sam Schwartz, the very able campaign strategist Alex Matthiessen, and myself. The model helped our team evangelize congestion pricing’s transformative benefits to elected officials and the public. This, I believe, was a key element in mustering the critical mass of support that ultimately swayed not one but two governors.
The Hochul Factor
New York Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul’s ascension to governor in August 2021 could have been congestion pricing’s death knell. The toll plan was adrift in the federal bureaucracy, and its latter-day champion Andrew Cuomo had exited in “me-too” disgrace. His successor, from distant Buffalo, wasn’t beholden to New York or congestion pricing.
Hochul, who as governor controls city and regional transit, could have disowned congestion pricing as convoluted, bureaucratic and tainted. Instead, she became a resolute and enthusiastic backer. Her spirited support, both in public and behind the scenes, became the decisive ingredient in shepherding congestion pricing to safety.
Why the new governor went all-in on congestion pricing awaits a future journalist or historian. Had she spurned it, the opprobrium from downstate transit advocates would have been intense; but there doubtless would have been cries of “good riddance” as well. Vickrey, Kheel and Riders Alliance notwithstanding, it’s not clear how closely New Yorkers — including transit users — connect congestion tolls to improved travel and a better city.
What makes Hochul’s embrace especially impressive is that congestion pricing is, in a real sense, an attack on a jealously guarded entitlement: the right to inconvenience others by usurping public space for one’s vehicle. The classic lament about entitlements’ iron grip is that “losers cry louder than winners sing.”6 Yet in this case, it seems, potential losers — actual and aspiring zone-bound drivers — are being out-sung by transit interests seeking, in Kheel’s 1969 words, a better balance between public transportation and automobiles.
Credits and Prospects
Let us now praise Andrew Cuomo’s crafting of the legislation that teed up congestion pricing’s successful run.
Rather than specifying a dollar price for the tolls, or a precise traffic reduction, his 2019 bill established a revenue target: sufficient earnings to bond $15 billion in transit investment — which equates to $1 billion a year to cover debt service. This device trained the public’s focus on the gain from congestion pricing (better transit) instead of the pain (the toll). Equally important, with this deft stroke, any toll exemption that a vocal minority might seek would mathematically trigger higher tolls for everyone else. The effect was vastly heightened scrutiny of requests for carve-outs.
Which cities will follow on New York’s heels? No U.S. urban area comes close to our trifecta of gridlock, transit and wealth. Sprawling Los Angeles or Houston, or even Chicago for that matter, might be better served by more granulated traffic tolls than New York’s all-or-none model.
Perhaps Asia’s megalopolises will be swept up in our wake. In the meantime, my focus will be on the holy grail of externality pricing: taxing carbon emissions. Every economist knows that the surest and fastest way to cut down on a “bad” is by taxing it rather than subsidizing possible alternatives. Yet that approach remains counter-intuitive and even anathema to nearly everyone else.
A huge and important legacy that New York congestion pricing could provide is to prove that intelligently taxing societal harms need not be electoral suicide. This proof could help unlock a treasure-trove of prosperity-enhancing pricing reforms including, most prominently, robust carbon taxing.
The author, a policy analyst based in New York City, worked in Mayor Lindsay’s Environmental Protection Administration in 1972-1974. He met Bill Vickrey in 1991 and worked closely with Ted Kheel from 2007 to 2010.
Endnotes
- The new passenger surcharges of $1.25 for taxicabs and $2.50 for “ride-hails” (principally Ubers) apply to trips touching the congestion zone. These will be partially offset by lower fares owing to shorter wait-time charges due to faster travel speeds.
- Quote is from Moses’ August 23, 1969 guest essay in Newsday, “Is Rubber to Pay for Rails?” (not digitally available).
- The current version of the BTA is publicly available at this link: (18 MB Excel file).
- See Fix NYC Advisory Panel Report, Appendix B, 2019.
- A Congestion Toll New York Can Live With, July 2023, by Charles Komanoff, co-authored with Columbia Business School economist Gernot Wagner.
- As pronounced by University of Michigan economist Joel Slemrod, in Goodbye, My Sweet Deduction, New York Times, by Eduardo Porter and David Leonhardt, Nov. 3, 2005.
Carbon Footprint
How BESS and Lithium Demand Are Shaping Energy Storage: Global Shipments to Surge 50% in 2025
Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals Inc.
The global Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) market is growing at a rapid pace. The expansion is driven by the rise of renewable energy, the increasing need for grid stability, and the growth of electric vehicles (EVs).
BESS allows electricity to be stored when supply exceeds demand and released when demand is higher than supply. This technology is becoming essential for utilities, commercial users, and residential applications.
Powering Demand: EVs and Energy Storage Drive Growth
J.P. Morgan’s recent analysis shows that shipments of stationary energy storage batteries will rise by 50% in 2025 and 43% in 2026. This surge is causing the lithium supply to move into a deficit.
Analysts estimate that BESS will account for about 30% of global lithium demand by 2026, rising to 36% by 2030. Global lithium demand in lithium-carbonate-equivalent (LCE) terms could reach ~2.8 million tonnes by 2030.
Demand is rising not only from energy storage but also from the EV sector. J.P. Morgan has increased its forecast for EV-related lithium demand by 3–5% for the years 2025 to 2030. This change shows that more people are adopting electric vehicles globally.
The rising demand is further amplified by policies encouraging renewable energy adoption. Many countries are setting goals for renewable energy and cleaner grids. This opens up new chances for energy storage.
Utilities are using BESS more widely. They do this to manage peak loads, integrate renewable energy, and offer services like frequency regulation and black-start capability.
Price Sparks: Lithium Supply and Market Tightness
Despite growing demand, supply faces significant constraints. Many lithium producers hesitate to restart idle production. They want prices to rise enough for them to profit.
J.P. Morgan highlights that prices of $1,200–1,500 per tonne of spodumene are needed to bring new supply online. Spot prices have already risen from around $800/t to ~ $950/t, highlighting tightness in the market.
Lithium price forecasts have also been upgraded to reflect these market conditions:
- 2026/27: $1,100–1,200/t
- Long-term: $1,300/t
Higher price levels boost the economics of lithium projects. This benefits companies with strong ties to the BESS market. Higher prices also create incentives for new players to enter the market and expand existing projects.
Key Market Trends for BESS
The BESS market is evolving rapidly with several structural trends:
- Grid-scale storage growth: Large-scale BESS deployments are increasing to help utilities manage intermittent renewable generation and maintain grid stability.
- Distributed energy storage: Behind-the-meter storage for commercial, industrial, and residential users is rising as battery costs fall.
- Advances in battery technology: Lithium-ion battery performance is improving, with longer lifespans, higher efficiency, and better safety.
- Policy support: Governments worldwide are providing incentives and creating regulations that encourage energy storage adoption.
- Supply-chain risks: Lithium, nickel, cobalt, and other critical minerals remain a bottleneck, and securing a reliable supply is a key challenge for the industry.
J.P. Morgan says that high demand and limited supply are creating a structural deficit in the lithium market. This is pushing prices up and making companies that supply lithium for BESS applications more appealing.
Spotlight on Surge Battery Metals: A Rising Player
Surge Battery Metals (TSXV: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF) is advancing the highest-grade lithium clay resource currently reported in the United States. With this level of grade and consistency, the Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) represents the type of high-quality, domestic lithium supply that battery makers and grid-scale energy storage developers have been looking for – an “American-made” resource that strengthens U.S. supply chains and reduces dependence on imported material.
With the lithium market emerging from a prolonged downturn, high-quality projects with strong fundamentals are beginning to stand out. Surge Battery Metals is well-positioned in this environment as the company has:
- BLM approval for its Exploration Plan of Operations,
- Hosts the highest-grade lithium clay resource currently reported in the USA, and
- Maintains a strong treasury to advance the NNLP. NNLP holds an inferred resource of 11.24 Mt of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at 3,010 ppm Li, showcasing the scale and potential quality of its lithium assets.
These advantages – combined with a high-grade, near-surface deposit located in mining-friendly Nevada – position Surge as one of the few lithium explorers with the potential to advance meaningfully toward production as market conditions improve. Demand for BESS is rising quickly, which boosts its potential advantage.
Forecasts and Industry Analysis: Lithium and BESS Outlook
The BESS market is expected to continue growing sharply over the next decade. According to J.P. Morgan, stationary energy storage will account for 30–36% of lithium demand by 2030. Utility-scale projects will lead this growth. However, commercial and residential installations will also play a big role.
Price trends are likely to remain supportive for suppliers. Spot prices are near $950/t, with long-term forecasts at $1,300/t. Companies that produce and supply lithium efficiently can capture significant value.
Industry analysts also highlight several emerging trends:
- Integration of smart-grid technology: AI and software solutions are being deployed to optimize energy storage and distribution.
- Hybrid energy storage solutions: Combining batteries with other forms of storage, such as pumped hydro or thermal storage, is becoming more common.
- Recycling and secondary supply chains: As BESS adoption grows, recycling lithium and other critical metals will become increasingly important.
These trends should boost the flexibility, efficiency, and sustainability of power networks globally.
Strategic Moves: Surge’s Path to Market Leadership
Surge Battery Metals is positioned to benefit from these industry dynamics. Its focus on high-quality lithium assets aligns with the rising demand for BESS. Key strategic considerations for the company include:
- Advancing projects efficiently to meet growing market demand.
- Forming strategic partnerships with battery manufacturers and utility companies to secure offtake agreements.
- Maintaining operational discipline and cost efficiency to maximize project returns.
Surge Battery Metals is currently advancing lithium exploration at its Nevada North Lithium Project with the goal of defining resources that could support future production. Its metallurgical testing has shown promising results. These include lithium carbonate of 99% purity, but the company is still working toward a full feasibility study. If development proceeds as planned, Surge could become a significant future supplier for the BESS market, although current supply remains limited.
The Bright Future of Energy Storage
Battery Energy Storage Systems are no longer a niche market. The growing use of renewable energy, the rise of electric vehicles, and updates to the grid are increasing the demand for lithium and other battery materials.
Moreover, the outlook for BESS is positive. Demand growth, tech improvements, and policy support all suggest the market will keep expanding. Supply limits and higher prices are opening doors for companies that can deliver lithium effectively.
By 2030, BESS could account for more than one-third of global lithium demand. Surge Battery Metals and similar companies are key to this shift. They help create cleaner, stronger, and more efficient electricity systems.
As the market grows, execution, timing, and partnerships will decide which companies benefit the most. Surge Battery Metals can shine in the energy storage market by focusing on high-quality lithium resources, smart development, and staying aligned with market trends.
- READ MORE: Lithium’s Surge: Why Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) Is Outperforming NVIDIA Stock in 2025
DISCLAIMER
New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Surge Battery Metals Inc. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $50,000 to provide marketing services for a term of two months. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.
This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.
Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.
It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.
These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.
Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.
There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2024, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.
The post How BESS and Lithium Demand Are Shaping Energy Storage: Global Shipments to Surge 50% in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
In 2025, China’s automotive maker BYD became the world’s largest seller of electric vehicles (EVs), overtaking U.S. EV pioneer Tesla for the first time. Data from multiple industry trackers shows that BYD sold about 2.26 million battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in 2025.
In contrast, Tesla delivered about 1.64 million EVs in the same year, marking a decline from its 2024 figures. This shift marks a major change in the global EV market.
From Challenger to Market Leader: BYD’s Breakthrough Year
BYD’s EV sales showed strong momentum throughout 2025. Its pure battery electric vehicle deliveries rose by roughly 28% year on year, reaching more than 2.25 million units worldwide. This steady growth allowed BYD to move ahead of Tesla in total annual BEV sales.
Tesla, by comparison, reported a decline of about 9-10% in overall vehicle deliveries versus the previous year. As a result, 2025 marked the first full calendar year in which BYD sold more battery electric vehicles than Tesla.
The gap became more visible in the second half of the year. Demand for EVs softened in some of Tesla’s key markets, particularly as higher interest rates and reduced incentives affected consumer spending. BYD, however, continued to benefit from strong demand in China and improving sales abroad.
By year’s end, the gap in total EV deliveries between the two companies grew to several hundred thousand units. This marked a clear shift in market leadership.
Quarterly data reinforced this trend. In the fourth quarter of 2025, Tesla delivered around 418,000 vehicles, representing a 15–16% drop from the same period in 2024. This decline reflected slower sales growth and increased competition.
BYD’s fourth-quarter BEV deliveries, in contrast, continued to rise. Its consistent quarterly growth helped push its full-year sales past Tesla’s and confirmed its position as the world’s largest EV seller by volume.
Why China’s EV Champion Is Scaling Faster
Several factors helped drive BYD’s expansion in global EV sales during 2025. A key driver was strong domestic demand in China, the world’s largest electric vehicle market.
Chinese automakers lead in local EV sales. This is thanks to consumer trust in domestic brands and a strong charging network in big cities. BYD benefited directly from this environment.
From January to November, industry estimates China’s NEV wholesale sales are about 13.78 million units. This shows a 29% increase compared to last year, and BYD captured a dominant 32% domestic share. This home-market strength fueled its global BEV leadership.
The product range also played an important role. BYD offers a wide lineup of EV models, including many lower-priced options that appeal to cost-conscious buyers. These vehicles attracted customers looking for practical electric cars rather than premium models. This broader appeal helped BYD reach a larger customer base than some competitors.
At the same time, BYD’s exports hit 1.05 million units in 2025, up 200% from the previous year. Europe and Latin America are key drivers of this growth. Globally, BYD claimed 12.1% of the BEV market in 2025, ahead of Tesla’s 8.8% and Volkswagen’s 5.2%, cementing the competitive shift.
Competitive pricing and improving vehicle quality helped BYD gain traction in these markets. Policy support also contributed, as incentives and trade policies in several regions made imported EVs more competitive.
Together, these factors allowed BYD to sustain sales growth even as demand softened for some rival brands.
Tesla Under Pressure in a Crowded EV Arena
Tesla’s sales declines in 2025 were linked to several challenges, including:
- Reduced demand after EV tax incentives ended in the United States, particularly the federal EV tax credit that expired in late 2025. This had encouraged buyers to purchase earlier in the year.
- Stronger competition from Chinese brands, not only BYD but also other manufacturers, is entering global markets.
- Market saturation in some regions, where potential customers postponed purchases or chose alternatives.
Tesla remains a major EV maker, but it saw its first consecutive annual drop in deliveries. By contrast, BYD increased its volume while expanding into new regions.
The EV Market Is Still Growing—But Leadership Is Shifting
The global EV market continues to grow, with total EV sales rising annually as more countries push toward cleaner transport. Analysts see strong demand for electric cars continuing this decade. Climate goals and stricter emissions rules in many areas support this trend.
Industry forecasts say global EV deliveries might keep growing until 2030. This growth is due to lower battery costs and more models from various automakers.
Industry forecasts project global EV sales reaching 40–50% of total car sales by 2030, up from ~20 million units in 2025. Battery pack prices have fallen to $115/kWh in 2024. They could further drop to $80–$99/kWh by 2026 (50% decline), enabling price parity with gas cars.
Nations in Europe and Asia are pushing zero‑emission vehicle targets as part of their climate commitments, which may further expand EV adoption.
Europe targets 90% CO2 cut by 2035 for new cars (easing from 100%, allowing some e-fuels/PHEVs). China aims for ~60–90% EV/NEV sales by 2030.
Still, challenges remain. EV buyer incentives vary by country and can affect sales patterns, as seen in the U.S. when federal credits expired. Some regions face infrastructure gaps, like limited charging networks, which can slow growth. Continued cost reductions and broader infrastructure rollouts will be key to sustaining EV adoption long term.
Emissions, Energy, and the Bigger Climate Picture
Electric vehicles are central to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport by 70–90% over their lifecycle compared to gasoline cars. This holds even with current grids.
- For EVs, emissions range from 200–500 gCO2/km, while ICEVs emit 200–300 gCO2/km.
Global transport represents 24% of CO2 emissions (8 GtCO2e). EVs could slash this by 40% by 2030 at 40% adoption. Clean grids, renewables >60% by 2030, boost EV advantage to near-total decarbonization.
Also, EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions and can lower overall carbon output when charged with renewable electricity. As more power grids shift toward clean energy sources, the lifetime emissions advantage of EVs grows.
BYD’s sales surge contributes to this global transition. As one of the largest EV producers, its growth means more EVs are on the road worldwide. This supports international efforts to cut emissions from passenger cars, which remain a major source of global greenhouse gases.
However, the environmental impact of EV manufacturing, especially battery production, remains a focus of industry and policy discussions. Sustainable practices in sourcing materials and recycling batteries will be crucial to maximizing the environmental benefits of EV growth.
A New Global Auto Order Takes Shape
BYD’s rise to the top reflects broader changes in the global auto sector:
- Chinese carmakers are gaining ground internationally, not just in their home market.
- Competition in EV segments is increasing, pushing companies to innovate faster on cost, range, and technology.
- Tesla’s leadership is challenged, even as it pushes into areas like autonomous driving and energy products.
The shift also highlights how consumer preferences are evolving, with buyers showing strong interest in different EV brands and models beyond traditional market leaders. As EV technology matures, more brands are expected to capture market share and expand globally.
The post BYD Overtakes Tesla as World’s Biggest EV Seller in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The United States is taking a decisive step to rebuild its nuclear fuel supply chain. The Department of Energy has announced a $2.7 billion investment over the next decade to expand domestic uranium enrichment. This move aims to strengthen energy security, reduce dependence on foreign suppliers, and support the next phase of nuclear power growth.
The announcement also reflects a shift in how the U.S. views nuclear energy. Once seen mainly as a legacy power source, nuclear is now positioned as a strategic solution for rising electricity demand, artificial intelligence growth, industrial resilience, and long-term climate goals.
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said:
“President Trump is catalyzing a resurgence in the nation’s nuclear energy sector to strengthen American security and prosperity. “Today’s awards show that this Administration is committed to restoring a secure domestic nuclear fuel supply chain capable of producing the nuclear fuels needed to power the reactors of today and the advanced reactors of tomorrow.”
To understand why this matters, it helps to look at how DOE is deploying the funding and at where the U.S. stands today.
How the DOE Is Deploying the Funding
Last year, the DOE signed contracts with six enrichment companies, allowing them to compete for future work. Now, the department has awarded task orders to three companies under a strict milestone-based structure to ensure accountability.
- American Centrifuge Operating received $900 million to establish domestic HALEU enrichment capacity.
- General Matter also received $900 million to develop HALEU production.
- Orano Federal Services secured $900 million to expand LEU enrichment within the United States.
Together, these projects will help maintain fuel supplies for the nation’s 94 operating nuclear reactors. At the same time, they will create a foundation for future advanced reactors that are still moving through development and licensing.
Importantly, this funding not only supports fuel production. It also drives job creation, strengthens domestic manufacturing, and restores confidence in the U.S. nuclear ecosystem.
HALEU Changes the Nuclear Equation and the U.S. Must Act on Uranium Enrichment
Uranium enrichment plays a critical role in nuclear power. Most U.S. reactors operate on low-enriched uranium, or LEU. However, advanced reactors, including small modular reactors and next-generation designs, require high-assay low-enriched uranium, known as HALEU.
For years, the U.S. relied heavily on foreign enrichment services. In fact, the country currently performs less than 1% of global uranium enrichment. This reliance has raised serious concerns about energy security and supply reliability, especially as new rules will restrict imports of Russian uranium starting in 2028.
As a result, rebuilding domestic enrichment capacity has become urgent. The DOE’s $2.7 billion investment directly addresses this vulnerability by accelerating U.S.-based production of both LEU and HALEU.
Upstream Supply Remains a Weak Link
While enrichment capacity is expanding, upstream uranium production still faces challenges.
EIA revealed that, in the third quarter of 2025, U.S. uranium concentrate production fell to 329,623 pounds of U₃O₈, a sharp drop from the previous quarter. Production came from only six facilities, mainly located in Wyoming and Texas.
This decline highlights a broader issue. Rebuilding the full nuclear fuel cycle requires coordinated growth across mining, processing, enrichment, and fuel fabrication. Progress in one area must be matched by investment in others.
Orano’s Oak Ridge Project Anchors to DOE Funding
One of the most significant projects tied to the DOE funding is Orano’s planned enrichment facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Known as the IKE project, the facility will provide a new domestic source of enriched uranium. Orano plans to finalize contracts and submit its license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the first half of 2026.
Once operational, the plant will help U.S. utilities comply with regulations that ban Russian uranium imports after 2028. It will also support rising electricity demand linked to AI, data centers, and broader electrification.
Nicolas Maes, Chief Executive Officer of Orano, commented,
“This is excellent news for Orano and a decisive step forward on our project for an enrichment plant in the USA! This recognition by the US authorities is an illustration of the confidence they have in our expertise and our capacity to deploy our technology to ensure robust security of supply to our customers.”
AI Growth Shows Why Nuclear Matters
Beyond energy security, another powerful force is shaping this investment: artificial intelligence.
As AI systems grow more complex, demand for computing power continues to surge. Data centers require vast amounts of electricity that must be reliable, affordable, and available around the clock. Renewable energy alone often cannot meet this need without firm backup power.
This is where advanced nuclear reactors come into play. General Matter has highlighted that AI leadership depends on expanding both compute capacity and electricity production. Gen IV small modular reactors, fueled by HALEU, can provide steady power either directly to data centers or through the grid.
By powering AI infrastructure behind the meter, nuclear reactors reduce pressure on public grids while delivering low-carbon electricity. As a result, nuclear fuel is increasingly seen as a critical input for the digital economy.
Keeps Industry and Remote Sites Running
Nuclear energy powers U.S. manufacturing, supplying factories, refineries, and heavy industries with stable, affordable electricity. Disruptions can slow production and raise costs, so a reliable LEU supply is essential. Today, reactors provide nearly 20% of U.S. electricity and almost half of emissions-free power.
Small, containerized microreactors fueled by HALEU are emerging for remote or harsh locations, including military bases, mining sites, and disaster zones. These systems run long with minimal maintenance, delivering dependable power and driving demand for HALEU, strengthening America’s domestic nuclear fuel infrastructure.
The Future of Enrichment Goes Laser-Fast
To support long-term innovation, the DOE also awarded $28 million to Global Laser Enrichment (GLE). The company is advancing the SILEX laser enrichment technology, which promises higher efficiency and lower energy use compared to traditional methods.
GLE has reached Technology Readiness Level 6 and has submitted a full license application for its Paducah facility. If deployed commercially, laser enrichment could significantly improve the economics and flexibility of nuclear fuel production.
Taken together, these developments signal a strategic reset. The DOE’s $2.7 billion investment reflects a clear decision to treat nuclear fuel as a national priority. By strengthening domestic enrichment, supporting advanced reactors, and backing innovation, the U.S. is positioning nuclear energy as a cornerstone of its future energy system.
In an era defined by AI growth, rising electricity demand, and climate pressure, nuclear power is no longer just part of the mix. It is becoming a central pillar of American progress.
The post DOE’s $2.7 Billion Push for Uranium Enrichment Rebuilds U.S. Energy Security appeared first on Carbon Credits.
DeBriefed 9 January 2026: US to exit global climate treaty; Venezuelan oil ‘uncertainty’; ‘Hardest truth’ for Africa’s energy transition
DeBriefed 9 January 2026: US to exit global climate treaty; Venezuelan oil ‘uncertainty’; ‘Hardest truth’ for Africa’s energy transition
Q&A: What Trump’s US exit from UNFCCC and IPCC could mean for climate action
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Greenhouse Gases5 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change5 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval