On tonight’s State of the Bay, we’ll discuss California’s role at the just-concluded United Nations Climate Conference (COP 28) and dig into what the agreement to begin reducing global consumption of fossil fuels might mean for Bay Area refineries. Plus, we’ll take a tour through the WPA murals of Coit Tower.
First, we’ll talk with Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, representing California’s 16th Assembly District in the East Bay, about the role of California and the Bay Area in this year’s COP.
Then, we’ll look at how the agreement reached at COP 28 to begin reducing global consumption of fossil fuels might mean for Bay Area refineries. Joining us will be:
- Ann Alexander, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council
- Greg Karras, independent consultant, senior scientist for Communities for a Better Environment and author of “Decommissioning California Refineries: Climate and Health Paths in an Oil State.”
Finally, we’ll take a tour through the WPA murals at San Francisco’s Coit Tower with Charlie Goldman.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 6pm PT. What comments or questions do you have for our guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
In the race to scale up a global supply chain for electric vehicle batteries, mining justice advocates have sought to ensure that the ongoing clean technology minerals boom does not exacerbate longstanding negative impacts from the global mining industry. Chief among these are corruption risks.
To provide guidance to electric vehicle purchasers (particularly fleets), advocates, and leaders in “downstream” markets about how to support anti-corruption measures in the battery supply chain, Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) partnered with the Natural Resource Governance Institute to issue a new policy brief: Corruption Risks in the EV Battery Supply Chain: What Advocates, Automakers and Fleet Purchasers Can Do.
The brief presents a set of actions for “downstream” markets, such as in the United State and European Union. Among the steps that the report recommends these actors take:
- Battery manufacturers, automakers, and fleet purchasers could integrate checks on corruption risks into responsible sourcing and due diligence systems. Risks from supply chain relationships may directly affect company operations, and companies can leverage their influence to promote better practices and policies. When necessary, they should be willing to disengage or suspend engagement with suppliers.
- Manufacturers, automakers and purchasers could also encourage project-level contract, payment, commodity trading, and beneficial ownership transparency and robust ethics and compliance policies from suppliers. Companies could look for comprehensive project or sale-level disclosure of contracts and licenses, payments to governments, and verified beneficial ownership information, internal oversight and independence of ethics and compliance procedures, robust disciplinary and remediation procedures.
- Electrification and sustainable mining advocates in North America and Europe could emphasize the importance of governance and anti-corruption measures in their advocacy. Specifically, advocates can better incorporate anticorruption into benchmarks or reports that assess companies’ sustainability provisions and/or responsible sourcing.
- Advocates could push for governments to incorporate strong anticorruption provisions into sustainability criteria for mining projects, in policies and legislation addressing responsible sourcing or due diligence, and in partnerships or trade deals with mineral-producing countries.
Ultimately, corruption is not a victimless crime. It undermines trust in government and deprives the public of needed revenues from mining projects. It can also jeopardize supply chain affordability and reliability as the world makes this critical transition to a cleaner transportation system. With the steps outlined in Corruption Risks in the EV Battery Supply Chain: What Advocates, Automakers and Fleet Purchasers Can Do, advocates, purchasers and downstream market leaders have an opportunity to ensure that the electric vehicle mining boom doesn’t replicate past and ongoing harms from the global mining sector.
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are major polluters in the region but also potential models for climate action — if they can electrify their equipment, from fork lifts to cranes. A new report released by UCLA Law’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and UC Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) —A Heavy Lift: Policy Solutions to Accelerate Deployment of Zero-Emission Cargo Handling Equipment at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and Beyond—surveys the biggest obstacles to speedy electrification and makes some recommendations.
Greenhouse gas emissions at the Ports come from three main sources: ships, heavy-duty vehicles, and cargo handling equipment (“CHE”). Cargo handling equipment is the third largest source of emissions accounting for approximately 14 percent of the Ports’ total greenhouse gas emissions. The Ports have replaced some fossil-fuel powered equipment with zero-emission models as they work toward goals set forth in their Clean Air Action Plan, including a goal to transition to 100 percent zero-emission CHE by 2030. However, more work is needed to fully transition the Ports large CHE fleet to zero-emission models. While some consider cargo handling equipment the “low hanging fruit” of port emissions reductions, there remain challenges for the transition to zero emissions. Some of the needed ZE technology is still being developed, and communities and workers have raised concerns around the potential for job loss.
To address these concerns, the law schools hosted a convening of experts from a variety of industries, including environmental, public health, environmental justice, labor, business, and government sectors. We discussed the challenges and opportunities of decarbonizing cargo handling equipment at the Ports. The report discusses the top barriers to transitioning to electric CHE models and proposes solutions to overcome these barriers.
The report dives into the following barriers:
- Inadequate grid and charging infrastructure to support zero-emission cargo handling equipment and lack of substantial planning and funding to install necessary and timely infrastructure.
- Evolving zero-emission technology for some types of cargo handling equipment and high upfront costs.
- Fear among communities and workers of job loss and of increased emissions from expanded port activities.
The report then recommends several solutions, including:
- The Ports and utilities, chiefly Southern California Edison and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, could proactively deploy “no regret” infrastructure, including increasing grid capacity and upgrading distribution networks that will be needed regardless of how zero-emission cargo handling equipment is powered.
- The California Legislature; the Air Resources Board; and/or the South Coast Air Quality Management District, using their existing authority grounded in air pollution control, could create technology-forcing mandates and clear, enforceable implementation deadlines, with penalties for non-compliance, to catalyze the zero-emission cargo handling equipment transition. Where technology is not readily commercially available, regulations could incorporate adequate flexibility and sufficient lead time for entities to meet the mandate.
- State and local government could implement policies to promote job preservation, local job creation, and worker training, such as programs that encourage ports and terminal operators to partner with local training organizations to upskill and reskill the workforce to use the new vehicles and technologies.
Given the importance of the Ports to worldwide commerce, they could help inform climate action at ports around the globe, if they and policy makers can collaborate to achieve these zero-emission goals.
If you want to dive into this topic further, join us for a webinar discussion today, Thursday, November 16th at 1pm PT when we’ll discuss solutions with panelists from Southern California Edison, the Port of Los Angeles, and Earthjustice (RSVP here).
This report is ultimately part of a series on business solutions to address climate change. Read more: A Heavy Lift: Policy Solutions to Accelerate Deployment of Zero-Emission Cargo Handling Equipment at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and Beyond.
This post was co-authored by Beth Kent and Gabi Rosenfeld.
On tonight’s State of the Bay, I’ll be speaking with Ricardo Cano, transportation reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, about why state regulators have revoked permits for Cruise’s driverless autonomous vehicles. What are the implications for the autonomous vehicle industry here in California and beyond?
We’ll also hear from Los Angeles Times environmental reporter and author Rosanne Xia about her new book “California Against the Sea: Visions for Our Vanishing Coastline.”
And finally, we’ll sit down with Emily Pilloton-Lam, founder and executive director of the Berkeley non-profit Girls Garage.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 6pm PT. What comments or questions do you have for our guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
We need electric vehicles to fight climate change, and that means a lot of mining for minerals like lithium and graphite for the batteries. It’s better if that mining happens in the US rather than overseas, where worker and environmental protections may be weaker. But we still need to improve mining processes here.
My new op-ed in The Hill has recommendations on how to do so, following the release of a new federal interagency report on mining. The report calls for permitting agencies to conduct better upfront planning to ensure new mining activity is not sited in sensitive areas that would likely produce conflict, litigation and delay. To do this, I argue:
Specifically, the country can take its cue from California, where a public-private partnership among state government, academic institutions and nonprofits pioneered a stakeholder-led process to map lands for large-scale solar development in key regions in the state. That process resulted in the identification of hundreds of thousands of “least conflict” acres, which participants as diverse as Tribes, ranchers, endangered species advocates and developers agreed would be feasible to develop without harming communities or important resources. This approach is now being replicated in other states.
If we can pull this process off in this country, the result would be fewer conflicts, a more sustainable supply chain for EV batteries, and economic and environmental wins for the communities surrounding mines, including many tribal and rural communities. And maybe it could provide a model for other jurisdictions to follow suit, as the world undergoes a dramatic and badly needed transformation in its vehicle fleet to EVs.
The electric vehicle (EV) market is growing rapidly, but with this growth comes public pressure to ensure supply chains for EV batteries are sustainable. The soaring demand for batteries relies heavily on the extraction and refinement of critical minerals, processes that have far-reaching environmental and social impacts. Moreover, the global distribution of these operations leaves them susceptible to geopolitical instability, further complicating the supply chain.
At the same time, this growth in mining and manufacturing also presents an opportunity to avoid recreating the harms of past mining and industrial activities. While individual EV buyers have little leverage over the industry, fleet purchasers of EVs instead have an opportunity to use their combined market power to ensure upstream suppliers adhere to strong sustainability standards. Corporate fleets can wield their collective influence and purchasing power to drive change on a large scale.
With that market power in mind, our climate program at Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) has partnered with the nonprofit Ceres and its Corporate Electric Vehicle Alliance (CEVA), a collaborative group of companies focused on accelerating the transition to EVs, to release a new report with recommendations for major corporate EV fleet purchasers for how they can help ensure supply chain sustainability.
Among other solutions, the report recommends that corporate actors looking to make EV fleet purchases:
- Join the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) in order to publicly demonstrate commitment to responsible sourcing; and add political momentum and end-user economic clout to IRMA’s efforts to engage and audit the mining industry
- Advocate for domestic mining reform that expands mining only as much as necessary while ensuring responsible environmental management and clean up as well as community and Tribal engagement
- Participate in extended producer responsibility schemes and build partnerships with second life and recycling entities.
- Advocate for federal policy to standardize EV battery labeling and traceability through an open-source, interoperable digital product passport with requirements designed to improve environmental and human impacts, carbon footprint, and end of life opportunities.
- Advocate for federal policy to standardize EV battery labeling and traceability through an open-source, interoperable digital product passport with requirements designed to improve environmental and human impacts, carbon footprint, and end of life opportunities.
While the report’s primary focus is on U.S. companies operating electric vehicle fleets, the information and recommendations can also benefit other companies involved in the EV supply chain. The goal is to highlight areas where corporate advocacy and procurement practices can have the most impact in promoting a sustainable EV industry.
Ensuring a sustainable EV battery supply chain—one that maximizes benefits for communities, industry, and the environment—will require long-term, coordinated action by stakeholders across the globe. Large fleets and major companies can leverage their purchasing power and engagement with industry to incentivize manufacturers and mining operators to prioritize sustainability and responsible practices. The recommendations in this guidebook offer a roadmap for corporate procurement practices, supplier engagement, and support for policies and initiatives that aim to make ethical sourcing and environmental stewardship the industry norm.
Access the full report here: Electric Vehicle Batteries: A Guidebook for Responsible Corporate Engagement Throughout the Supply Chain
This post is co-authored with Shruti Sarode and cross-posted on Legal Planet.
Like the proverbial Betamax vs. VHS technology competition of the 1980s, EV fast charging has been caught up in a wasteful turf war involving three different formats, basically boiling down to Japan versus Europe/North America vs. Tesla. But now we suddenly have a winner, as first Ford and then General Motors and startup Rivian have all pledged in the past few weeks to adopt the Tesla charging standard in their vehicles starting next year, with adapters available for consumers this year.
It couldn’t happen soon enough. The differing charging formats means EV drivers are limited where they can get fast charging or have to carry adapters, while non-Tesla charging stations had to have multiple plugs available for different formats.
The other problem is that non-Tesla chargers are basically awful. They’re unreliable, clunky and often with low power. While legacy automakers dithered and refused to invest in a network of chargers, Tesla instead built a user-friendly, ubiquitous network. The company is now poised to reap the economic benefits, from its position as a dominant market leader in vehicle sales.
One of the big questions now is what happens to all the soon-to-be-obsolete chargers out there? Companies like EVgo and Electrify America have built thousands of fast-charger stations with formats that are now zombie technology. Worse, the public has invested significantly in these stations, with EVgo a creation of a $100 million legal settlement from the California energy crisis circa 2000, while Electrify America was funded with dollars from the Volkswagen “dieselgate” emissions cheating settlement, to the tune of almost $1 billion in California alone.
All will not be lost, as the stations can be retrofitted in some cases. The wiring is sometimes the hard part, so charger replacement by itself may not be too expensive. But in some cases, retrofits may be uneconomical. And ultimately, these companies are likely to go out of business, unless they can get access to Tesla’s intellectual property to build their own versions of a Tesla SuperCharger.
If not, Tesla will have a monopoly on charging stations, which will create its own long-term problems. But for now, the charging format wars have ended, in favor of a far superior product.
That’s something that both EV advocates and drivers can finally celebrate.
Can California become a global center for lithium production for EV batteries? How sustainable is the global battery supply chain? I’ll be a guest on KQED Forum today at 10am PT to discuss, as part of the show’s “In Transit” series.
Today, Australia, Chile and China are the top three sources of worldwide lithium production. But California’s Imperial Valley contains a vast underground reserve near the Salton Sea, with enough lithium potentially to meet all of U.S. future demand and more than one-third of global demand.
Along with me to discuss this potential will be Eduardo Garcia, Assemblymember, representing California’s 36th State Assembly District in eastern Riverside County and Imperial County.
Tune in on KQED radio or stream live at 10am PT!
Electric vehicles are a big win over internal combustion engine models in so many ways: superior performance and reduced fueling and maintenance costs. But one area where they lag is higher auto insurance rates.
Moody’s just released an analysis of the problem. Here’s their chart showing the disparity in costs for some of the best-selling EVs compared to their gas counterparts:
As the chart shows, the disparity can range from up to 54 percent insurance cost increase between the Tesla Model Y and Mercedes GLE to 18 percent increase between the Chevrolet Bolt and Jeep Compass — lower but still more than the gas version.
Why is this happening? It’s mostly attributable to higher repair costs when there is an accident. In short, the battery is the most expensive part of the vehicle and therefore costly to replace. As a result, many EVs are declared a total loss after a collision. And while EVs have a lower risk of fires than gas cars, EV fires are harder to extinguish. They also tend to happen when a vehicle is parked, meaning the damage can spread to garages and other buildings.
In addition, EVs are heavier than gas cars and can therefore cause more damage in a collision. Finally, many auto repair shops don’t have the expertise and equipment to repair electric vehicles, which drives up cost.
But this added cost is not necessarily a permanent feature. As battery prices decrease, replacement will be less of a burden after a collision. And more repair shops will be able to handle the work, which will decrease costs as well. Both of these factors should eventually help address the insurance issue, which is a somewhat hidden but important financial challenge to address if we want to see EVs available to all.
To achieve a sustainable supply chain for electric vehicles, especially from the mining of key battery inputs, we’ll need global reforms on how mining is conducted. These reforms will need to be everything everywhere all at once, and I offer some suggestions how in this new op-ed in The Hill:
Advocates can help…by supporting laws that require automakers (and energy storage companies) to source battery minerals from companies and countries that adhere to strict standards to protect local communities, such as [the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, or IRMA]. Advocates and philanthropies can also support local advocates in key mineral-producing countries, by arming them with the resources they need to effect change within their jurisdictions, including via anti-corruption measures such as improved transparency requirements and whistleblower protections. Finally, policymakers can work to reduce the overall demand for new mining, such as through mandates and infrastructure planning for battery reuse and recycling, as well as promote demand reduction through more public transit, walking and biking — an important complement to electrifying transportation.
Meanwhile, the situation has only become more urgent with proposed deep sea mining that could happen as soon as later this year, if an international agency charged with regulating the seafloor outside of national boundaries doesn’t take action. I discussed this prospect recently with the Washington Post and KCBS radio in San Francisco.
Ultimately, the success of electric vehicles is a good thing. But we can’t repeat the mistakes of the past with harmful fossil fuel extraction. Sustainable supply chains, including responsible mining, must be a top priority for reformers around the world.
