IEA points to electrification gains as researchers warn of barriers

Energy cost, security and cleanliness are converging

IEA head Fatih Birol said energy security, economic cost and environmental impact are becoming more closely aligned, an important change for global electrification. He linked part of this shift to the Iran war, which has increased fuel prices and heightened concerns about energy security. Birol said the alignment remains incomplete and still requires trade-offs.

The IEA's 2025 global averages show substantial advantages for electric technologies. An internal-combustion-engine car could travel 862 miles on $100 worth of gasoline, while an electric vehicle could travel 2,310 miles on the same amount of electricity. A gas boiler could provide 30 days of home heating with $100 worth of fuel, compared with 42 days from a heat pump powered with $100 worth of electricity.

Electricity's share of global final energy, meaning energy consumed by end users, rose from 16.7 percent in 2000 to 23.4 percent in 2025. China recorded the largest change, while North America was among the smallest. The IEA attributed much of the difference to variations in renewable energy use and electric-vehicle adoption.

The transition will not be uniform or automatic

University of California, San Diego professor David Victor said he does not expect a rapid shift to electrification for heavy trucks, maritime transport or aircraft. He also sees trade barriers as an obstacle because countries may prefer to manufacture goods domestically rather than depend on imports such as Chinese solar panels.

Political decisions and the interests of established industries can also slow the transition. Notre Dame energy systems researcher Emily Grubert said some decision-makers favor the profits of industries using coal, natural gas and oil. Kenneth Medlock III of Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy argued for evaluating total costs and benefits, diversifying energy choices and supply chains, and minimizing costs.

Medlock said electrification arguments often do not account sufficiently for the expense of building new systems. Wind and solar have low operating costs but are expensive to construct. Fossil-fuel power plants are also costly to build, illustrating that each energy option involves disadvantages.

Financing and policy will determine where electrification works

University of Bristol professor Chuks Okereke said the case for electrification is more difficult outside the wealthiest economies because optimistic assessments can overlook local conditions. His June paper in Energy Economics found that fossil fuels and highly polluting development can offer short-term economic benefits in Nigeria compared with cleaner alternatives.

High upfront infrastructure costs were identified as one reason. Okereke said richer countries and international organizations would need to provide assistance for Nigeria's energy transition to produce net economic benefits.

Birol highlighted a goal of reaching 35 percent electrification of final energy by 2035. Climate policymakers discussed the target in Bonn in June, and it is on the agenda for COP31 in Antalya in November. He said agreement would provide a strong signal about the transition's direction, while acknowledging that replacing coal, oil and gas systems and transforming the grid to use carbon-free sources will remain difficult.