Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring environmental justice should go hand in hand. After all, residents of disadvantaged communities have the most to gain from a transition to a clean energy economy — and the most to lose from climate impacts.
Yet too often climate advocates and the environmental justice (EJ) community are at odds, particularly over policies like cap and trade and efforts to site new climate-friendly development, such as clean energy facilities, rail lines, or smart growth. EJ leaders may oppose large-scale climate policies that benefit the environment overall yet fail to protect specific neighborhoods from pollution, and they may resent changes to processes that leave disadvantaged communities without a seat at the table, among other concerns.
Given the dynamics, how can attorneys incorporate climate change concerns into their practice? Is there an ethical or professional responsibility to consider and discuss with clients the climate change implications of their decisions?
Join me at lunch today starting at 11:30am at the Alameda County Witkin Law Library for a talk on these questions. More information available on-line [PDF]. The event will take place at:
Alameda County Law Library
125 12th Street
Hayward-Union City Room, 4th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
You can purchase tickets here for $45.00, with lunch included. One hour of participatory MCLE credit is available for attorneys. Hope to see you there!
The oil industry is wealthy and influential on transportation policy. But when it comes to electric vehicles, they have a natural — and more similarly sized — opponent in electric utilities. Electric utilities stand to make a lot of money selling electricity as fuel to EV drivers, while oil companies will lose market share in the process.
California policy makers deliberately exploited and stoked this rivalry in passing SB 350 (De Leon) in 2015, which allowed utilities to invest billions in charging infrastructure around the state. Other states have followed suit.
We’re now seeing the political fruit of that division pay off, in favor of electric vehicles. Case in point is a recent battle at the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, which convenes conservative lawmakers and private-sector representatives to draft model legislation pushing conservative governance across the country.
Koch brothers-backed oil industry groups tried to push an effort to eliminate state incentives for electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging. But as ClimateWire reported [pay-walled], the oil industry met a worth foe:
The draft resolution, pushed by the Institute for Energy Research and backed by groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, opposed all federal, state and local efforts to subsidize vehicles, fueling infrastructure or fuels. That would have put up major roadblocks for states looking to expand their electric vehicle sales to meet climate or energy independence goals and for utilities looking to build the infrastructure to fuel the new cars.
The Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for utilities, fought the legislation, which was eventually tabled.
It’s perhaps just a small victory for EVs. But it points to the long-term political trend of Big Oil meeting their match in Big Utilities. While economic forces can help make electric vehicles competitive with gas-powered engines, it will also take this kind of political support to accelerate the transition — and weaken the oil industry’s hold over transportation in the U.S.
Yesterday, California and 17 other states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its decision last month to halt Obama-era fuel economy standards for vehicles in model years 2022-25. KTVU News Channel 2 in the Bay Area interviewed me last night as part of their story on the lawsuit:
Tesla’s first mass-market vehicle, the Model 3, continues to be plagued by quality control issues. Charved EVs magazine covered the recent purchase and teardown of two Model 3 copies by Sandy Munro of Munro & Associates, a Detroit consulting firm which dismantles cars and analyzes them in painstaking detail for auto-industry clients. The results were not pretty on some basic manufacturing issues:
As others have, Munro found that Model 3 suffers from poor build quality – panels that don’t line up properly, and in one case, a door liner that seems to have been installed backwards. He also claims to have received “hundreds, maybe a thousand” emails from owners complaining about similar fit-and-finish issues. He surmises that the problems stem from poorly trained assembly line workers and (as others have noted, and Elon Musk has admitted) too much and too-hasty automation.
But the news was not all bad, particularly with Munro’s glowing account of the Model 3’s electronics and battery technology. He compared the circuit board to the “kind of technology you’d find in military-grade hardware.”
Munro also heaped praise on the Tesla battery pack, noting its high power density, superb build quality and minimal current differential between cells. “Nobody can balance batteries that close. Nobody. Nobody’s ever done that.” Munro says that Korean suppliers LG and Samsung have long been considered the best in the battery business, but that the Model 3 pack “blows them both away.”
The positive reviews in some ways underscore the frustration with the quality control challenges. Tesla’s survival as a company will depend on its ability to right this ship, as a poor reputation on quality could sink sales (and a new Bloomberg report indicates that the company could possibly run out of cash later this year, as it reportedly spends more than $6,500 every minute). While the company has thrived by bucking tradition on almost every facet of the automaker industry, its efforts to reinvent manufacturing may have been a step too far.
For more information, check out the in-depth video of Munro’s teardown above.
BAIC EC-Series, the top-selling EV in China
The Trump administration may be pulling back on clean cars, but China is all in. The latest numbers from China on passenger electric vehicles and electric bus sales are impressive, and they point to a future of global dominance for Chinese automakers in the EV world.
First, let’s look at passenger electric vehicle sales, as Clean Technica covered:
After the usual off-season (January and February), March came and electric car sales surged to 59,000 units in China, up 85% year over year (YoY). Quarter 1 2018 sales doubled compared to the same period last year, to over 122,000 units.
Consequently, the 2018 plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) share surged to 1.8%, not that far off from the 2.1% of 2017, and with sales expected to pick up significantly as the year advances, the 2018 PEV share should end north of the 3% threshold.
Last month, the Chinese OEMs represented roughly 40% of all PEVs registered globally, an impressive number that is sure to increase during 2018, possibly even beating its 46% record of last year.
Meanwhile, the Chinese EV automaker BYD had its second-best month ever with 13,100 registrations, just below their 16,000 units sold last December. Analysts expect BYD to start posting 20,000-plus performances in the second half of the year, putting it on par with Tesla’s sales forecasts.
To put those Chinese numbers into perspective, here are the most recent EV sales figures in the U.S. and California since 2011:
So while the entire U.S. has logged 54,423 EV sales in the first 3 months of 2018 (with almost half of that total — 26,771 — from California alone), China hit 59,000 in just one month, with the trend lines only going up.
But it’s not just passenger vehicles. China is heavily investing in electric buses. As Bloomberg reported:
China had about 99 percent of the 385,000 electric buses on the roads worldwide in 2017, accounting for 17 percent of the country’s entire fleet. Every five weeks, Chinese cities add 9,500 of the zero-emissions transporters—the equivalent of London’s entire working fleet, according Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Much of China’s commitment to electric transportation is due to local air quality concerns. But the country’s leadership surely sees a path to economic domination of the transportation technology of the future, just as they dominate manufacturing in other industries.
While China’s commitment to EVs and electric buses is certainly good for the environment and fight against climate change, it means the U.S. federal government is missing out on a golden economic opportunity, let alone environmental one. EVs are here to stay, and at this rate, it will be China cashing in and not the U.S.
Scott Pruitt’s decision earlier this month to rollback Obama-era fuel economy standards has gotten a lot of media attention — rightfully so. In an interview last week with The Real News Network out of Baltimore, two other panelists and I had an opportunity to discuss the implications:
For those unable to watch the video, a transcript is available.
A few weeks ago, UC Berkeley Law released the report Delivering the Goods, with recommendations for how California could achieve a more sustainable freight system. Goods movement in the state is a major economic driver but also a significant source of pollution.
To accompany the report release, the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) at Berkeley Law held a webinar to highlight key findings. The discussion featured these experts:
- Elizabeth Fretheim of Walmart
- Adrian Martinez of Earthjustice
- Chris Schmidt of Caltrans
Video from the webinar is now available, for those who couldn’t attend at the time or would like to review portions:
And if you’d like to learn more about sustainable freight at Southern California’s ports, please register for the free June 8th conference at UCLA on the prospects for deploying zero-emission technologies there, featuring experts from industry, government and advocacy groups.
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach bring more goods into the U.S. than any other ports in the country. Yet together the ports are the single largest source of air pollution in Southern California.
Harbor commissioners have adopted an ambitious plan to transition to cleaner fuels for goods movement in and around the ports in the next two decades. But achieving the vision for clean air will require answers to important questions:
- What are the prospects and potential for various zero-emission technologies – including battery electrification – to reduce pollution?
- How can finance, permitting and community engagement support the transition to cleaner fuels?
- What new policy and industry actions are needed for cost-effective deployment?
To address these questions, UCLA Law and UC Berkeley Law, with sponsorship from Bank of America, are hosting a free, daylong conference at UCLA Covel Commons on June 8, 2018. Panelists will examine the prospects and policy needs to move to a zero-emission future of goods movement in and around the ports. Speakers include the president of BYD Motors, CEO of ProTerra, CEO of Total Transportation Services, Inc. (TTSI) and CEO of the Coalition for Clean Air.
Also included will be representatives from:
- Bank of America
- California Trucking Association
- Earthjustice
- Port of Long Beach
- Southern California Edison
- Tesla Motors
- Union of Concerned Scientists
They will focus on steps that industry, government and civil society leaders must take to achieve zero-emission goods movement at the ports.
The event is free and open to the public, but advance registration is required, as space is limited. Please see the agenda and registration for more information.
Hope to see you there!
California can’t meet its long-term climate goals without reducing its overall driving miles, per a state analysis of greenhouse gas emissions through 2050. This point was echoed in a recent New York Times article on SB 827, the measure to lift local restrictions on transit-adjacent housing. In the Times piece, bill author State Senator Scott Wiener said:
We can have all the electric vehicles and solar panels in the world, but we won’t meet our climate goals without making it easier for people to live near where they work, and live near transit and drive less.
Wiener isn’t just making that claim up. According to the California Air Resources Board’s staff report on regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, the state will need a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through 2035 and 2050, even with more zero-emission vehicles sold and renewable energy deployed. They have a simple chart showing the calculations:
Basically, if by 2035 half of all new cars sales are zero emission, with half of all electricity (and thus transportation fuels) coming from renewable sources, we will still need a 7.5% reduction in baseline VMT.
The good news is all that clean technology means there would be slightly less pressure to reduce driving miles. But as the staff report pointed out:
The GHG emissions reduction contribution from VMT is a comparatively smaller in share than the GHG emissions reductions called for by advances in technology and fuels, but necessary for GHG emissions reductions in other sectors such as upstream energy production facilities and natural and working lands, and are also anticipated to lead to important co-benefits such as improved public health.
My one critique of the analysis is that it is conservative on the renewable mix by 2035. California has a statutory requirement to achieve 50% renewables by 2030, and we’re already over 35%. I would guess we’ll be at 60% renewables by 2030 and maybe 65% by 2035, not including greenhouse-gas free hydropower. In addition, bullish estimates of zero-emission vehicles could have the state at 75% battery electric vehicle sales by 2035.
Still, the point remains that VMT reductions are crucial. And worse, these VMT efforts could be badly undermined by autonomous vehicles, which could encourage more driving as people take advantage of having robot chauffeurs for every little errand and trip.
All of this analysis points to the need for much more housing production near transit and jobs — an outcome that SB 827 would directly promote. Because clean technology alone won’t be sufficient when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Tesla has been in the news recently for its falling stock prices and corporate troubles. The company’s stock has slid from a high that matched Ford Motor Company, even though Ford sold 64 times the number of vehicles as Tesla last year.
Tesla’s high valuation was based on its projected future market value. Unlike traditional auto companies, Tesla’s vision, if successful, would turn the company into your electric utility, gas station and auto dealer all rolled into one, through separate investments in solar and standalone batteries. Much of the hype was based on the profitability of its supposed first mass-market electric vehicle, the Model 3.
Demand is high for the vehicle, but the company can’t deliver. As Bill Saporito writes in the New York Times:
Tesla can’t seem to run an auto production line, something that the Detroit auto companies that Mr. Musk mocks are very good at. Ford’s electric vehicles and hybrids, such as the Fusion Energi, may not match the Tesla Model X in style or speed, but Ford can knock out millions of fenders and hoods in its stamping operations with absolute certainty and to tight specifications.
Tesla is operating out of the former G.M./Toyota joint venture plant in Fremont, Calif., which produced more than 400,000 cars annually at its peak. Tesla has been running at a quarter of that rate, and has had to resort to pulling cars off the line and finishing them by hand. That’s not what you call mass production; more like mass confusion.
The other problem is that the Model 3 isn’t really a mass-market vehicle. The company is only rolling out the higher-end version, which is priced at about $50,000 before incentives. Who knows if the cheaper version originally promised to consumers will be available at all this year?
Yet as Saporito points out, the global demand for — and investment in — electric vehicles is surging. The market overall is getting stronger, as battery prices fall precipitously.
Whether Tesla can participate in that coming boom will depend not only on its ability to mass produce Model 3s, but to ensure that they are of reliable quality. Otherwise, investor appetite in Tesla will start to wane, particularly as other automakers around the world catch up to the EV vision that Tesla helped pioneer.
