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.
As part of Trump’s effort to restore U.S. manufacturing (and probably undercut clean energy rivals to his fossil fuel supporters), he instituted in January 30% tariffs on imported solar photovoltaic modules and cells, declining 5% per year to 15% in 2022.
At the time, the solar manufacturing industry cried doom-and-gloom about supposedly massive job layoffs and lost solar panel deployment. For example, Solar Energy Industries Association president Abigail Hopper claimed the tariffs would lead to a “crisis” for the industry and potentially cost 260,000 American jobs.
But so far the evidence is underwhelming about the impacts to the industry. As Utility Dive reported:
But while the tariffs are having some negative impacts, the industry and its customers now say their concerns were exaggerated. This is largely because solar installed costs have fallen so far and so fast, especially for utility-scale solar, that the relatively small increase in the module price due to the tariffs is having less of an impact than anticipated.
The examples of specific companies are particularly illuminating:
Recurrent Energy, a leading utility-scale solar developer which opposed the tariffs, has reported no project changes. First Solar, an equally important utility-scale scale developer which endorsed the tariffs, has also announced no major changes.
National residential installer Sunnova and California residential installer Spice Solar both told Utility Dive the falling installed cost has offset the tariffs.
Meanwhile, solar installers are working on legislation to repeal the tariffs, introduced recently by Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-NV).
Tariffs on solar certainly aren’t helpful to the industry. But the reaction so far in the first and most severe year of the tariffs is certainly encouraging. Based on what we’ve seen, it sounds like even Trump’s hostility to clean energy isn’t enough to slow the pace of deployment.
For those attending the Advanced Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo in Long Beach this week, I’ll be presenting this morning on a panel from 10:30am to noon on the prospects and policy needs for repurposing used electric vehicle batteries.
As Berkeley and UCLA Law covered in our 2014 report Reuse and Repower, used electric vehicle batteries have the potential to provide a lot of inexpensive energy storage:
Assuming 50 percent of the battery packs on the road in 2014 can be repurposed, with 75 percent of their original capacity, these second-life batteries could store and dispatch up to 850 megawatt hours of electricity (one megawatt hour is roughly equivalent to the amount of electricity used by about 330 homes over one hour). The aggregated capacity is also equal to 425 megawatts worth of power (one megawatt can provide sufficient power in any given moment to approximately 750 households) – almost one-third of the energy storage capacity that utilities are required to procure by 2020 under a recent California mandate.
Holding this market back from developing are factors such as uncertainty about second-life battery value, complex and adverse regulatory structures, liability concerns about which entity is responsible for second-life batteries, and lack of data about battery performance in both first and second life applications.
Key solutions include:
- Improved and expanded second-life battery pilot projects to demonstrate market potential;
- An industry-led regulatory working group to identify and address regulatory conflicts and needs that limit market development;
- Industry-developed technical performance standards for second-life battery certification that policy makers can use to clarify product liability; and
- Increased funding and incentives for data collection and dissemination on second-life battery projects.
More details can be found in our report and at the Expo, which promises to host some interesting discussions and off-site tours all week.
Could climate deniers be more likely to change their minds if they are told of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change? My guess would be no, as the issue has become one of tribalism and identity that transcends fact-based analyses.
But researchers from Yale University, University of Cambridge, University of California Santa Barbara, and Utah State University appear to have found that messaging on the scientific consensus actually can make a difference in opening minds. They published their results in the journal Nature, describing the perception conundrum:
[D]espite the fact that over 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening, only 11% of the US public correctly estimate the scientific consensus on climate change as higher than 90%.
Using a national survey, the researchers buried questions about climate change among other issues, prompting some respondents with information about the scientific consensus but not others (the control group). The top line finding?
Exposing the survey respondents to the message about the scientific consensus increases their perception of the scientific norm by 16.2 percentage points on a 100-point scale.
So messaging about the consensus may be helpful after all for climate advocates.
But the results were not uniform across the country:
We find the largest messaging effects in states with the lowest pre-treatment belief in the scientific consensus, such as West Virginia, Wyoming and North Dakota. States with more pro-climate publics (for example, California and Hawaii) have some of the lowest effect sizes, because respondent’s initial estimates of the consensus were substantially higher than those in more conservative states…
So basically, the messaging on the scientific consensus worked best in places where climate deniers had little prior exposure to information about climate science. As a result, advocates could use this information to tailor climate communications in those parts of the country especially.
The battle to win “hearts and minds” on climate science will probably take some combination of additional extreme weather events, business and other elites signaling acceptance to their climate denier “tribes,” and generational/population shifts. But every little bit of framing assistance, such as discussed in this study, can surely help in the meantime.
Rendering of proposed gondola to Dodgers Stadium
Who knew gondolas and baseball games could be a thing? But now we have two major league baseball teams — the Oakland A’s and Los Angeles Dodgers — exploring options to build gondolas to ferry fans from rail transit stations to the park.
As Jenna Chandler at Curbed L.A. reported, the Dodgers are working with a private company to submit plans for an “aerial tram” to link the major transit and train hub of Union Station near Downtown L.A. across the freeway to Dodgers Stadium in Chavez Ravine.
The project is estimated to cost $125 million and would be privately funded, with unclear support required from L.A. Metro to provide procedural assistance and right-of-way selection. The tram could potentially be operational by 2022.
Meanwhile, the Oakland A’s hope a gondola could solve the transportation challenges at one of their best remaining sites for a new ballpark, on the waterfront near Jack London Square. The problem with the site is that — like Dodger Stadium — it’s across the freeway and more than a mile away from the nearest BART station in Downtown Oakland. A BART or streetcar extension is too costly, so the team is also examining the gondola option.
A gondola can be a fun way to get around, and the prospect of an elevated ride over the freeways with nice views of the surrounding California hills and neighborhoods could entice a lot of fans. But gondolas can’t carry a lot of people. For example, the Dodgers gondola would only move 5,000 people an hour, while the A’s one has been estimated at 8,000 an hour at the most. That’s pretty puny for games that could routinely attract 30,000 or more fans. The lines and backup would be massive.
But at the same time, if 5,000 Dodgers fans came by gondola, that’s almost 10 percent of a sellout crowd. That 10 percent reduction in traffic and parking volumes could be significant for the team and fans who drive.
The A’s gondola plan would have the additional benefit of providing year-round service to the shops, bars, and homes at Jack London Square. Chavez Ravine, by contrast, is a parking lot wasteland when there aren’t events going on. So that should be a mark in favor of the A’s plan, as the gondola there might be more likely to have sufficient ridership year-round to justify the costs.
Either way, both of these proposals appear to have private backing, which means taxpayers wouldn’t necessarily be on the hook. If the gondola option can work logistically and financially, it could be an interesting transit option for baseball fans — and potentially be a transit boon for the surrounding neighborhoods, too.
Coffee makers lost a high-profile preliminary court decision in California recently over their unwillingness to disclose the chemical acrylamide in their product. Under the state’s voter-approved Prop 65, industries with harmful chemicals must disclose those health risks to the public. In this case, acrylamide, formed during coffee bean roasting, is a known animal carcinogen and possible human carcinogen, too.
My colleague Claudia Polsky, who runs Berkeley Law’s environmental law clinic, takes the media and industry to task in a recent Sacramento Bee op-ed for mocking the preliminary ruling:
Litigation motivates industries otherwise unresponsive to toxicity data; with acrylamide in processed foods, it has happened already. Litigation to compel the potato chip industry to warn about high acrylamide levels in its product nearly a decade ago was met with broad media ridicule – only to trigger changes in potato chip manufacture that lowered acrylamide levels, obviated the need to warn, and induced a press mea culpa. Proposition 65 enforcement can similarly help us have our coffee and improve it too.
It’s easy to demagogue a court case like this as another example of litigation run amok. But often the underlying facts are more nuanced than the headlines might indicate, and the ultimate benefits for society under-appreciated.
This case still has a ways to go before any final decisions are reached. And in the worst case scenario for industry, they’ll simply have to disclose the chemical, not eliminate it. So coffee drinkers don’t need to panic — unless they happen to be worried about the health effects of acrylamide.
The killing of SB 827 in committee on Tuesday received a lot of media attention, which hopefully furthers this important dialogue. Here are some noteworthy pieces:
San Jose Mercury News: Why did California’s major housing bill fail so quickly?:
The proposal was not the typical stuff of wonky housing policy. A new analysis by the data firm UrbanFootprint found that if every parcel of land along the 45-mile El Camino Real corridor was redeveloped according to the new height limits allowed under SB 827, the number of homes along the route — from San Bruno to San Jose — would triple to 453,000.
But it also found that a potentially less contentious alternative, adding homes to commercial developments along the same corridor, would nearly double the housing stock.
E&E News: Plan to build housing — and cut CO2 — fails in Legislature:
Other housing bills this session that are still moving include Wiener’s S.B. 828, to tighten regional planning requirements for affordable housing, and S.B. 829, which would streamline permitting for farmworker housing. Another that environmentalists are watching is A.B. 2923, which would require the Bay Area Rapid Transit system and local jurisdictions to up zone land within a half-mile of station entrances.
San Francisco Chronicle: Yelp CEO calls on Google, Facebook to help housing crisis:
Wiener vowed to bring it back next year. He wouldn’t say in what form, except that “I don’t believe the bill should be further scaled back in terms of density and geography.”
KPCC AirTalk: Senator behind California’s most ambitious housing bill debriefs on its defeat in committee
Interestingly, Sen. Wiener describes in this interview how he was really just one vote short in committee, as one of the “no” votes would have favored it if the votes were otherwise there to pass it.
New York Magazine (Jonathan Chait): The Urban Housing Crisis Is a Test for Progressive Politics:
“The zoning crisis is ultimately a question of whether the most prosperous parts of blue America can be opened up to new entrants, or whether they will remain closed off and increasingly unaffordable.”
Gimmme Shelter housing podcast with Matt Levin and Liam Dillon:
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.
Yesterday afternoon, SB 827 was killed in its first committee. Though a number of legislators acknowledged California’s severe housing shortage, few were willing to risk the political backlash of taking on the local government lobby.
The bill needed 7 votes on the 13-member Senate Transportation and Housing Committee but only got 4. Here were the votes in favor, from the San Francisco Chronicle tally:
- Sen. Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado Hills: Yes
- Sen. Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County): Yes
- Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley: Yes
- Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco: Yes
Notably, the bill pulled in two Republican representatives (Sen. Gaines and Morrell) from inland areas, as I suspected. Politically, they should have an interest in keeping displaced liberal voters from moving into their districts for super-commutes and cheaper housing. Meanwhile, Sen. Skinner was a bill co-author and Sen. Wiener of course authored the bill.
Then the “no” votes:
- Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose (chair): No
- Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres (Stanislaus County) (vice chair): No
- Sen. Benjamin Allen, D-Santa Monica: No
- Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa: No
- Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg: No
Most of these senators represent upscale areas with affluent homeowners. Most are Democrats. Surprisingly, Republican Sen. Cannella voted against it, even though the bill only affected 2.4 square miles (or 0.0%) of his entire district. Sen. McGuire and Dodd’s districts were also barely affected by the legislation. Notably, Sen. Allen represents transit-rich Santa Monica, a predominantly wealthy homeowner enclave, while Sen. Beall represents some exclusive neighborhoods in the San Jose area.
And for reasons that are unclear to me, these senators did not vote:
- Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton: Not voting
- Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside: Not voting
- Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford (Kings County): Not voting
- Sen. Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont: Not voting
Given these votes, it’s clear SB 827 has a long way to go (politically speaking) to convince state legislators that even a relatively modest check on local zoning authority to allow more housing near transit is needed.
The fallout from the vote should be obvious. Any hope for big sweeping changes in local restrictions on homebuilding will not happen anytime soon. I’m sure businesses around the state and country have taken note, when it comes to deciding whether to stay in California or locate a new business here. The message from the legislature is now clear: California is not serious about solving its housing shortage anytime soon.
And it’s a tough message for those struggling to pay rent or start a life here. It was always going to take years to repair the damage from decades of under-building homes in the state. And now we’re delayed yet another year or longer from getting going on real solutions.
The displacement problem will also worsen. Despite opposition from tenants rights groups, SB 827 was their best hope at addressing the root causes. The bill would have helped reduce regional housing shortages that push wealthier residents to buy up existing units in the absence of new ones, and, as this letter from noted fair housing experts explains, it would have helped open up wealthier, racially homogeneous enclaves to more diverse residents. Instead, tenants rights groups focused on boosting rent control as a solution. But this policy is really just a last-ditch effort to protect the dwindling low-income renters left in our cities, hanging on against the tide of gentrification unleashed by the regional housing shortage.
The result is the further exodus from the state of middle class residents, as well as the displacement to the fringe of our megacities of our working class residents. From these exurban areas, they’ll continue “super-commuting” into job-rich city centers, spewing air pollution from their cars, congesting our freeways, and sprawling out in cheap housing over former farmland and open space.
And this isn’t some dystopian future. This dynamic is already happening right now. The failure of SB 827 just means we’ve locked this future into place for years to come.
So what is the path forward? Big reform is likely dead. Incrementalism will replace it. But the basic approach shouldn’t change, because the problem (housing shortages with high demand) and its cause (local government restrictions on housing) will persist.
Here are some options:
- Focus an SB 827-type approach on allowing more housing on commercial and mixed-use zones near transit. Since these lands are commercial in nature, there won’t be any concerns about displacement of existing residents. Think redevelopment of strip malls and parking lots to allow housing and mixed-use development as the highest and best use.
- Narrow the scope of SB 827 to major rail transit stops only. The original bill included high-quality bus stops, which greatly expanded the geography of the bill, thus expanding an opponent base of hostile local governments. Conceivably, a narrower scope might help the chances of passage (although the “no” votes of representatives with almost no land affected by the bill in their districts should provide some caution on this point).
- Move forward incrementally with parking and density relaxations near transit. The bill originally included these provisions but also allowed higher height limits. Neighbors tend to react most reflexively against taller buildings, in my experience. A focus on parking and density may be less controversial (although previous efforts to deregulate local parking requirements failed, so this would by no means be an easy lift).
I’m sure other ideas will come forward in the days and months ahead. Pro-housing advocates will only grow in rank and intensity as the housing affordability problem worsens, and they’ll be back with new proposals. The setback yesterday was decisive but temporary.
Credit is due to Sen. Wiener and the co-authors: they have finally gotten Californians to focus on the true source of the housing problem. And the first step to solving any problem is identifying its cause. With all the national attention and conversation, SB 827 certainly accomplished that goal.
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.
