Sometimes I get that feeling that the pro-transit (or pro-walking/biking) crowd is uneasy about the subject of electric vehicles, if downright negative. Why? Many transit advocates don’t like cars — viewing them as dangerous to bikers and pedestrians (which they are). They also don’t like how cars chew up the environment and create terrible traffic and isolation.
Not only that, but electric vehicles are frequently cited by transit critics as a reason to continue business-as-usual development patterns, in which we continue to build communities around cars, as opposed to walking- and biking-friendly communities oriented to transit. After all, if we’re moving toward electric and other clean vehicles, who cares any more about the pollution and negative public health effects from sprawl?
Electric vehicles won’t solve this
Certainly the advent of electric vehicles undercuts a key argument in favor of transit and more human-centered communities. It’s true that electric vehicles, if we can get there fast enough, will solve much of the pollution and public health challenges from sprawl. But it will take decades (most likely) to fully transform our existing fleet of cars to electric, as the technology is not fully developed and at this point not appropriate for all types of vehicle usage. So the public health and pollution problems from unabated sprawl will continue. But the writing, I believe, is on the wall for a cleaner transportation system.
So where does that leave public transit advocates in the long term? Well, we have to remember that the arguments against sprawl and in favor of more convenient, connected communities oriented around transit are not just limited to reducing pollution. Traffic is a miserable economic drag on our economy and quality of life. Biking and walking is fun and good for you, and it leads to communities with more social interaction, particularly for children, the elderly, and those who can’t or won’t drive. California’s severe housing shortage and changing patterns of demand argue in favor of building as many homes and jobs as we can around transit. And sprawl continues to eat up our valuable farm land and open space, as well as sensitive ecological areas.
I’m certainly in both camps. I love transit, use it every day, and walk and bike as much as possible. But I also see the need for electric vehicles. Not everyone can rely on non-vehicle forms of mobility for all their needs. Cars are here to stay. So we need to transition our fleets to clean vehicles. We also need to invest in battery technologies as a crucial way to decarbonize the electricity grid. Plus, electric vehicles are fun to drive (this from someone who never cared about cars or driving before).
Ultimately we’ll need both technologies going forward, and I don’t think anyone should hesitate to advocate for both.
The United Kingdom has been a leader on encouraging building owners to upgrade the energy performance of their properties. The country mandates disclosure of building energy performance during sale or lease to make new owners aware of the inefficiencies. And it launched the “Green Deal” program in 2013:
The scheme aimed to encourage millions of households to take out loans to fund the cost of work such as installing insulation or new boilers, with the loans paid back in instalments on their energy bills. It was marketed around the idea that the household would end up better off, because the repayments would be lower than savings the household enjoyed from being more energy efficient.
But things didn’t go as planned:
[I]t has been beset by problems from the outset, with high interest rates on loans widely regarded as unattractive, and ministers forced to admit that savings were not guaranteed. Fewer than 4,000 households had signed up for ‘Green Deals’ by the end of July.
The troubles with the UK program mirror the challenges that California has faced with its Energy Upgrade program:
According to an analysis of state data by the San Francisco Chronicle, California has only supported 12,200 home efficiency retrofits under its Energy Upgrade California program since 2011. The stated goal of the program is to service over 100,000 homes.
The culprit in California is the complex administrative process to qualify for the rebates and incentives. I know from personal experience. When I tried to access the financial incentives from Energy Upgrade California when I wanted to add insulation to my attic, the program required an expensive energy audit both before and after, even though I had already had an audit done the calendar year before. So I just skipped the audit and the incentives entirely but still got the work done.
Cracking this nut is difficult. Each building is different, and even though the savings are potentially significant, many property owners don’t want to deal with the hassle or expense of an upgrade to the building. Maybe California and the UK can learn from each other, because we’re definitely going to need to make the process and incentives as seamless as possible to encourage people to undertake these upgrades.
Some good laws are now in effect on both rooftop solar and electric vehicles in California. I blogged about AB 2188 once it passed the California Legislature, which will require local governments to adopt streamlined ordinances for permitting rooftop solar. The governor signed it, which will be helpful for reducing the cost of installing solar, possibly up to 20 cents per watt.
In addition, as I discussed on KCRW radio on Monday, the governor signed AB 2013 (Murastsuchi) to increase the number of “green stickers” available for partial electric/hybrid vehicles to access carpool lanes, as well as SB 1275 (De Leon) to limit cash rebates for electric vehicles based on income. The latter bill directs the California Air Resources Board to come up with an overall, long-term financial plan for supporting electric vehicles, taking into account anticipated price declines on the vehicles. That plan will likely include a phase-out for the rebates and may explore other options, such as point-of-sale cash rather than having to apply for the rebate after purchase.
With these bills, California is continuing its leadership on renewables and electric vehicles, and hopefully making our public sector incentives more efficient and streamlined in the process. I’m glad the governor signed them, showing that we’re making incremental progress on these vital technologies.
Over the past two days, I attended the Battery Show conference outside of Detroit, Michigan, to hear what the leading entrepreneurs, researchers and automakers have to say about the state of electric vehicle batteries. While I was there to speak on a panel about a new report on repurposing electric vehicle batteries, I picked up some interesting themes about the most important clean technology out there, the battery. Here they are:
Carbon regulations & clean energy policies have been critical for pushing the battery market. Speaker after speaker spoke about the growing global policies on carbon, from California to the US EPA rule on power plants to Japan and China’s new emphasis on reducing pollution. Industry leaders estimate that the carbon regulations will result in a 4% per year rate of change in carbon emissions going forward. But the policies also include non-climate focused efforts, such as the new U.S. fuel economy standards. From 1975 to 2011, CAFE standards required only a 1.3% improvement per year on average, but from 2012 to 2025 they will require a 4.5% per year improvement, greatly benefiting clean vehicle technologies like EVs. And of course California’s leading policies on zero-emission vehicles and energy storage in general is providing a critical market foundation. One speaker said “we wouldn’t be here today talking about these issues without California’s leadership.”
Lithium ion is still the most promising battery technology, with continued price reductions but no overnight breakthroughs. Speaker after speaker praised lithium ion as still the best battery technology out there, given its high energy density and low weight. Nobody foresees any other technology out there to rival it. In terms of cost and advances, it’s clear that costs will continue to decline, although not precipitously. By the end of this decade, most speakers believed Tesla will either achieve or come close to achieving the magic price/range of 200 miles per charge in a $35,000 EV. Improving manufacturing supply chains and automation will help tremendously, as the Tesla Gigafactory will be able to do.
EV drivers want performance, not necessarily environmental benefits. Marketing and survey data clearly show that buyers concerned about fuel economy and environmental performance do not make up a huge percentage of the market. Instead, they want performance, style, and access to technology. Tesla has hit this magic formula well, as they downplay the environmental benefits of going electric. Perhaps Nissan should follow suit and rename the LEAF something less “green” sounding. After all, when I tell people what I like about my electric car, I always start with the superior performance of the electric drive, and then I finish by touting the fuel savings (which are huge) and the environmental benefits. I don’t do this strategically: it’s just the truth about what I’m most excited about with the car.
Repurposing batteries is a big open question, with lots of opportunities but lots of unknowns. Since it was the subject of my report, I was keen to hear people’s take on this topic. Many speakers who addressed the issue felt the potential is huge, noting the amount of energy storage available in electric vehicle batteries on the road today and in the near future. But many felt that these batteries would have to compete with the cost of recycling the batteries, which could become much cheaper through automation. And there are unknowns about how easy and cheap it will be to collect, verify, and stack the batteries for high-performance energy storage. But given the size of the opportunity and the environmental need, I encourage policy makers and industry to start analyzing the opportunities as thoroughly as possible, as outlined in the report.
Overall, it was a well-run conference that attracted an impressive group of speakers and leaders in the field. Cheap batteries will not only revolutionize transportation through electric vehicles, they will clean our grid when coupled with renewable resources. The solar+storage combo may also change the utility world forever: after all, who needs a utility if you and your neighbors can generate and store your own clean power? The disruption continues, while Michigan feels like a dream to me now.
On the heels of the new UC Berkeley/UCLA Law report on harvesting “second life” electric vehicle batteries, the Sacramento Bee is running an op-ed from me today on the topic. You can read it here. As I write in the piece, even with the Tesla Gigafactory going to Nevada,
California still has an opportunity to boost an entirely different battery supply market, one that will also help the state clean our energy supply and reduce the cost of electric vehicles in the process. The answer lies not in manufacturing new batteries, but repurposing used ones.
Let’s hope policy makers take note and take the steps necessary to boosting this new market.
I used to think that the two critical governments working on climate change were China and California. China because its government leaders can snap their fingers and create a national carbon reduction program if they want. And California because of the state’s favorable political climate and history of business and technology innovation.
Das ist wunderbar, Germany!
But I now must add Germany to the mix. The country has long pioneered pro-solar policies, with its generous “feed-in tariff” program (essentially a simple contract that pays a building owner cash for the solar power he or she generates). And of course its transit-friendly towns mean people there are less dependent on cars for mobility.
But as this New York Times article makes clear, Germany is in to win it on bringing down the price of renewables, including solar and wind:
Germany’s relentless push into renewable energy has implications far beyond its shores. By creating huge demand for wind turbines and especially for solar panels, it has helped lure big Chinese manufacturers into the market, and that combination is driving down costs faster than almost anyone thought possible just a few years ago.
As a wealthy, industrialized nation, Germany is well-positioned to lead the world in spurring the development of decarbonizing technologies. They’ve used their wealth for good purposes:
The program has expanded the renewables market and created huge economies of scale, with worldwide sales of solar panels doubling about every 21 months over the past decade, and prices falling roughly 20 percent with each doubling. “The Germans were not really buying power — they were buying price decline,” said Hal Harvey, who heads an energy think tank in San Francisco.
Of course, Germany and the rest of Europe have a huge amount to lose as the climate worsens. But whatever the motivation (and it seems out of genuine concern over carbon emissions), the world may soon be glad Germany it taking these steps.
As California faces an increasing need for more energy storage to integrate variable renewables and provide other grid services, used electric vehicle batteries could be a critical – and inexpensive – part of the solution. Sales of electric vehicles in the United States are heading toward a quarter million, with 100,000 of those purchases in California. The thousands of batteries that will be coming out of the vehicles in the coming years will still retain significant capacity, although not enough to provide a sufficient electric driving range. These used, less expensive batteries can be stacked and repurposed by utilities and building owners to clean the grid and reduce costs. Plus, electric vehicle customers could see lower upfront prices if automakers factor in the long-term resale value of the batteries in the sale price.
UCSD “second life” EV battery demonstration project. Courtesy of UC Regents/Rhett S. Miller.
UCLA and UC Berkeley Schools of Law, with the support of Bank of America, will be releasing a new report next Wednesday on policies needed to help boost this market. The report resulted from a one-day convening at UCLA Law that included major automakers, renewable companies, battery experts, and public officials.
On Friday, September 19th, from 10 to 11am, UC Berkeley Law will host a live webinar, featuring representatives of the Governor’s Office and the California Public Utilities Commission to discuss the report findings. You can register here (space is limited). I hope you can join.
Schwarzenegger, Gov. Brown, and Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols
This morning in Sacramento, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger journeyed back to his old stomping ground to highlight the state’s successes fighting climate change. He joined current governor Jerry Brown and a host of climate experts and business leaders to make the case for the 2015 Paris climate talks that California’s example can be replicated at an international scale.
But for all the dignitaries, politicians, and experts, there was actually very little said about the specific policies that seem to work in California. Nor was there discussion of any of the clean tech businesses that are leading the way to reduce greenhouse gases. Instead, it was a largely symbolic, self-congratulatory event, sprinkled with some useful facts and motivational talks.
First up, the former governator ran through the history of California’s climate fight since he took office, talking about how big business fought the climate agenda at every turn, claiming doom and gloom and seeking to overturn AB 32, the climate law, with a 2010 ballot initiative. “But Californians terminated it” at the polls, he quipped, “saying ‘hasta la vista baby’ to the oil companies.’ Later, Governor Brown echoed this sentiment about big businesses always crying wolf about environmental regulations, noting that Henry Ford himself even came to California to lobby against fuel efficiency standards in the 1970s.
Climate scientists followed, including UC Berkeley’s Dam Kammen and the Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick. Gleick brought home the impacts of climate change on California when he noted that $100 billion worth of 2000-era buildings are threatened by sea level rise, which could displace 480,000 people living on the coastline and jeopardizing 10,000 megawatts worth of power plants, among other calamities.
A business panel followed, although not one with any of the leading clean technology companies. Former EPA head and now Apple Computers Executive Lisa Jackson described the “fun” and “opportunities” of fighting climate change at Apple with their net-zero data centers. Michael Britt of UPS acknowledged that the company is not afraid of higher gas prices under AB 32 and described internal combustion engines as an unsustainable “bridge” to cleaner technologies. The company will deploy 17 fuel cell trucks in the coming months at one-third the maintenance costs of traditional engines.
State Senate President-to-be Kevin De Leon then joined a panel where he discussed his efforts to include low-income Californians in the fight against climate change. His one million constituents live in a district criss-crossed by seven major freeways, and with 40% of the goods in the United States shipped through there, “a little girl’s lungs subsidize” the cheap purchases we make. Moderator Terry Tamminen noted that kids near the port in Los Angeles/Long Beach lose one percent of their lung capacity on average each year. De Leon felt that government should encourage more private investment in clean technologies, because “there isn’t enough public money” to do the job. He specifically cited the need for a stronger state infrastructure bank, one of the few specific policy needs discussed today.
Gov Brown: “the dark shadow of prosperity is climate change”
Finally the current governor spoke, bringing laughs when he said that California’s environmental fight began with a Republican actor turned governor — Ronald Reagan of course, not Schwarzenegger. Brown’s point was that under Reagan and President Nixon, California secured a waiver in the federal Clean Air Act to go beyond federal standards, paving the way for California’s continued leadership on environmental issues. Ultimately, Brown described how we need to look to scientists and entrepreneurs to save us, while government can provide them the incentives.
Missing in the discussion today was exactly that: the businesses and the incentives. For example, no mention of Tesla, the California-bred company that is probably doing the most right now to bring down the costs of the technologies needed to clean our economy. And only a brief mention of the solar rooftop incentives in California and cap-and-trade, with nothing about California’s landmark energy storage law.
If California is going to make a case to the world about the policies needed to reduce carbon, we’ll need to do a better job than what our leaders did today. We can certainly brag about the broad goals California has set, and we should do so. But unless we can demonstrate the specific business and health advantages that the California program has brought, it will all seem pie-and-the-sky to outsiders.
Net zero buildings for everyone!
In last night’s California gubernatorial debate, Republican candidate Neel Kashkari proposed a major reform to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires environmental review of new projects. But rather than gutting CEQA completely, a la State-Senator-turned-Chevron-lobbyist Michael Rubio, Kashkari proposed to give all projects the same breaks that the Sacramento Kings received in last year’s SB 743 (Steinberg). As Kashkari explained:
When the Sacramento Kings were going to leave, and the NBA said we need a new arena…Governor Brown signed an expedited review, gave them a special deal… But instead of just giving it to those who are politically connected who can hire high-priced lobbyists, why don’t we actually adopt that new standard and make it available to everyone?
And from Kashkari’s website:
[A]ll projects that come under CEQA challenge should be afforded the same injunctive relief and expedited review process that the Sacramento arena warranted.
So what exactly did the Sacramento Kings get? As I described at the time:
SB 743 [gave] Sacramento Kings basketball arena proponents accelerated environmental review and immunity from injunctive relief unless the project is found to jeopardize public health, safety, or archaeological resources. In exchange for these benefits, the new stadium must meet strict environmental performance measures, including net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from passenger trips to the stadium, LEED Gold certification, and compliance with the sustainable land use plan for the region under SB 375. In short, basically the same performance standards required for $100 million projects under AB 900 (2011)
So the Sacramento Kings only received the injunctive relief and expedited review upon pledging to meet high environmental standards related to energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. Somehow I don’t think that’s the standard Kashkari wants to apply to all businesses in California. First of all, it’s unworkable given the range of projects covered by CEQA (a transit line, for example, isn’t even eligible for LEED gold certification, which is limited to “buildings”). Secondly, it would ensure greater environmental protection, which Kashkari doesn’t seem to prioritize. Third, it would place a huge burden on the courts to expedite these projects, and Kashkari doesn’t seem likely to spend more money to boost their staffing to be able to handle the additional caseloads.
To echo the governor’s words last night, this “glib” proposal belies the true nature of the deal that the Kings received. Coupled with Kashkari’s plan to shift high speed rail bond funds to additional water storage projects (a move that would be illegal — not to mention a betrayal of the majority of voters who approved those funds in 2008 for high speed rail only), the candidate appears to be playing fast and loose with the facts, at least on environmental issues.
Some California environmentalists may be celebrating now that Tesla has apparently decided to build its $5 billion “gigafactory” in Nevada instead of California. Lawmakers here had toyed with the idea of weakening the state’s signature environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to help expedite review on the factory and therefore encourage Tesla to locate in-state, possibly in Stockton. But those plans fell through last week.
Not California
But Tesla’s decision could be an overall setback for the environment, compared to building a factory in California. To be sure, the idea of a gigafactory is a huge win for the environment overall. The cheaper batteries will encourage more adoption of electric vehicles and also help clean our grid by enabling inexpensive storage of surplus wind and solar energy.
So why is Nevada so bad, compared to California? First, the siting of the gigafactory will likely launch a major manufacturing program, with an attendant industry likely to spring up around it, in a state with much weaker regulation than California. Nevada ranked 20th among US states in a George Mason University survey of the most lax regulatory states when it comes to land use decision-making, with California ranked 49th. And a recent comprehensive survey of business owners gave Nevada an “A” on the impact of environmental regulations on business, which is not a good sign for environmental protection. California of course received an “F.” So the factory itself, as well as any future co-located suppliers, will operate with less future oversight for environmental health and safety protection.
In addition, the thousands of workers who will be employed there will likely end up in new subdivisions that sprawl over the high desert countryside, if Reno’s past growth is any indication. And they will likely commute to work by car, a lifestyle that Californians are rapidly abandoning. California meanwhile is engaging in regional transportation plans that will offer alternative, more environmentally friendly housing and transportation for workers, and its environmental laws are now encouraging growth closer to jobs and services.
Finally, from a shipping perspective, the factory in Nevada will have to transport the batteries by train to the major population centers in San Francisco and Los Angeles, which are the leading markets to buy electric vehicles. Locating the factory in Stockton would have reduced this shipping distance significantly, along with its associated environmental impacts, while placing the factory only a negligibly farther distance from the East Coast markets.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said that he plans to build more such factories. And as I say, the gigafactory is an overall environmental win. Yet while California’s economy would certainly benefit from locating it in-state, the environment would as well, compared to the site announced today.
