Tonight on KALW’s State of the Bay, we’ll discuss a new legislative proposal (SB 532, Wiener) to increase San Francisco’s bridge tolls to help pay for Bay Area public transit. Joining us will be Laura Tolkoff of SPUR.
Then we’ll have a one-on-one with San Francisco District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani to talk about the issues most pressing to San Francisco residents, including homelessness, public safety, and more. What should we be asking her about?
And finally, for our series “Have You Met…”, you’ll meet Peter Kaisin, who leads free sea shanty sing-a-longs at Aquatic Park.
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!
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.
Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll discuss the potential Oakland A’s move to Las Vegas with the “Bay Area Sports guy,” Steve Berman of The Athletic. He’ll also share his latest analysis of the Warriors/Kings playoff series, the state of the Giants, and more.
Plus, we’ll talk about a new report on preparing the Bay Area for rising sea levels, with an estimate that it will cost a staggering one hundred and ten billion dollars. We’ll dig into the feasibility of this. Guests will include:
- Dana Brechwald, Assistant Planning Director for Climate Adaptation at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, or, BCDC.
- Adrian Covert, Senior Vice President of Public Policy for the Bay Area Council, or BAC.
Finally, we’ll start our series “Have you met”…where we talk to Bay Area folks that we think you should know. So have you met Chris Chatmon? Find out why you should.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
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.
A major new piece of housing and climate legislation was introduced in California this month, and it’s been a long time coming. AB 68 (Ward) finally sets forth a powerful template for where the state should encourage new housing and where it should avoid planning for more, based on climate and environmental hazards. It represents the culmination of a long-sought alliance between major housing advocates like California YIMBY and conservation groups like The Nature Conservancy.
So where should the state build more housing, according to AB 68? It defines those places in the following “climate smart” ways:
- In a high or moderate income area, as defined by state affordable housing tax credit maps, to prioritize more housing in high-opportunity and well-resourced areas and minimize displacement of low-income renters
- Within 1/2 mile of major transit or an area where residents drive below-average distances on a per capita average, in order to reduce overall driving miles in the state
- Within a mile of a cluster of at least six types of locations like restaurants, bars, coffee shops, supermarkets, parks and hardware stores, among others, to ensure rural and exurban infill areas aren’t left out, as well as places without access to transit.
If a housing development is proposed in these areas, the project gets “ministerial” approval (i.e. exempt from environmental review), and a local government cannot limit the development beyond any of the following:
- Setback greater than four feet from any side
- Height limit less than 50 feet
- Maximum lot coverage of less than 60 percent
- Minimum parking requirement
- Floor area ratios (i.e. the building’s total floor area in relation to the size of the lot/parcel, indicating overall density) less than 1.0. to 1.5, depending on criteria met
There are additional requirements to protect existing affordable housing and ensure consistency with SB 375 plans, among others.
And where should planning for denser development in the state be limited? AB 68 describes these “climate risk lands” as within high-severity wildfire and flood zones, or having a sea level rise risk according to the latest science. They also must be not currently zoned for housing or have existing urbanized communities on them.
In these areas, local governments cannot increase existing housing densities or allow subdivisions, and they cannot approve any extension of water or sewer services, unless certain exceptions can be met, such as an approved housing element and a statement of housing necessity, among other conditions.
In short, AB 68 finally provides the much-needed, legislatively endorsed map for where the state should grow and where it should avoid putting more people into harm’s way. If successful, AB 68 will arguably be the single biggest climate bill that the state has passed in over a decade, given the centrality of land use and housing to meeting our climate goals. The fight to pass it will not be easy, but AB 68 has a powerful coalition to support it, along with a well-conceived solution to the state’s urgent and related challenges of climate and housing.
California and other jurisdictions have been moving to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a climate solution. Yet some pro-sprawl interests question whether this is necessary, given the advent of electric vehicles. It’s fair to ask: if all vehicles are “zero emission,” do we really need to care any more about how much driving we do, in terms of the climate impact?
The answer is unequivocally yes, and here are the top five reasons:
- Gas cars will be with us for a long time. As the California Air Resources Board noted in the 2022 scoping plan appendix, even with a goal to have only zero-emission vehicles sold in the state by 2035, approximately 30 percent of light-duty vehicles on the road in 2045 will still burn fossil fuels. The less of that we burn through reduced driving, the better.
- Clean electricity generation still has a carbon cost. Even if we move to 100% electric vehicles, that energy has to come from somewhere. And if it’s large-scale solar or wind facilities, they come with their own energy inputs to manufacture, as well as land use impacts to deploy. For example, some studies conservatively estimate it takes 10 acres of solar panels to generate one megawatt of electricity, an hour of which could potentially power about 3,500 driving miles collectively. Using that land for electricity and not food production, carbon sequestration, or open space comes with significant climate costs.
- Low-VMT development patterns reduce carbon pollution from buildings. As CARB noted, infill development (as opposed to sprawl served by publicly-subsidized highways) uses an estimated 10 to 20 percent less residential energy, due to smaller unit types, sizes, and locations — not to mention reduced water use from less outdoor irrigation requirements, which come with their own energy footprint to ship and treat the water.
- Reducing sprawl and VMT preserves open space and working lands as a carbon sink. To achieve carbon neutrality by mid century or sooner, we’re going to need to bury carbon. Natural and working lands are a key part of that equation, as they provide opportunities to bury carbon in soils through natural processes. Developing these lands instead for high VMT sprawl can permanently foreclose that opportunity.
- Electric vehicles come with their own carbon footprint and pollution costs. While dramatically better for the environment than fossil fuel-powered cars, EVs still require significant energy to manufacture, and their use on the road can create particulate matter pollution through wear on the tires and brakes and by kicking up particulate matter from the road. They also require large-scale mining of lithium, graphite and other minerals, which creates local environmental and energy impacts.
I could also mention non-climate reasons for wanting to reduce VMT, such as the equity benefits of building more housing closer to jobs and services in order to reduce transportation costs that disproportionately hurt low-income residents. But I’ll stick with the climate benefits for now.
Overall, we do need to electrify 100% of our transportation modes from a climate perspective. But we also need to simultaneously reduce the demand for transportation by building better and smarter communities in walkable, affordable, and transit-friendly areas.
Without that reduced driving, our climate goals will be much harder to achieve.
Climate change news is often quite depressing, with frequent stories on the science and ever-worsening impacts. What gets lost in this otherwise important coverage is the amazing and inspiring tales of innovation and solutions happening all around us, in every sector and walk of life.
That’s why Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE), in partnership with the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, launched the podcast Climate Break, which tells stories of climate solutions in less than two minutes. Climate Break features interviews with compelling scientists, innovators, organizers, and leaders discussing breakthroughs, new approaches, and examples of progress on climate change. And it’s almost entirely student run.
Over the past two years, we have recorded interviews with climate leaders like former California governor Jerry Brown and Arizona governor (and former Homeland Security secretary) Janet Napolitano, youth activists protesting fossil fuels, corporate leaders pushing for proactive climate lobbying, and entrepreneurs building clean energy facilities in tribal communities and retrofitting internal combustion engine vehicles in Egypt into electric models, among many other solutions.
And as of this year, a new episode of the podcast airs every Thursday on NPR-affiliate KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco, offering listeners “climate solutions in a hurry.” In fact, you can tune in or stream live today at 7:19am and 3:48pm PT to hear our newest episode. We hope to expand to more radio stations soon.
For more on the podcast and its origins, Berkeley Law News profiled me and CLEE Project Climate Director Ken Alex, who had the idea for the program. Ken also serves as the show’s executive producer, along with CLEE senior climate fellow Chandra Middleton, who supervises the student team that helps produce the clips and draft additional information on each topic on our website.
So if you’re looking for inspiring solutions to address the climate crisis in less than two minutes, subscribe to Climate Break today on our website or wherever you get your podcasts!
Trucks are by far the largest source of air pollution from vehicles in California, generating about 80% of carcinogenic diesel soot and 70% of smog-causing pollution, according to the Air Resources Board. And their impacts are unequal: communities of color and low-income communities situated near ports, distribution centers and warehouses — particularly in the Inland Empire — are more likely to bear the health costs.
As part of KQED Forum’s “In Transit” series this morning at 10am PT, I’ll discuss the scope of the problem and new efforts by the state to decarbonize the trucking industry. Joining me on the panel will be:
- Rachel Uranga, reporter covering transportation and mobility, Los Angeles Times
- Amparo Muñoz, former policy director, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) – and co-author of the letter urging Gov. Newsom to “Declare a Public Health State of Emergency in the Inland Empire”
Tune in or stream live!
Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” software was hit with a “recall” by U.S. safety regulators yesterday, due to concerns that the system malfunctions around intersections and does not consistently follow speed limits. I put “recall” in quotes because the company plans to send over-the-air software updates to the 363,000 affected vehicles, so no vehicle will be physically recalled to any service center.
I discussed the implications on KTVU News last night, along with the federal government’s default “hands off” approach when it comes to trusting automakers to follow safety requirements:
Car sales data from 2022 is now out, and the results are encouraging. According to the Wall Street Journal, automakers sold 807,180 fully electric vehicles in the U.S. last year, or 5.8% of all vehicles sold, up from 3.2% a year earlier. And as E&E News reported (paywalled) 19 percent of new car purchases in California were zero-emission vehicles. This is a big increase from the 12 percent in 2021, according to the same California Energy Commission data, and a positive trajectory to a state-mandated goal of 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035.
But only one EV company dominates. Tesla Motors accounted for 65% of total EV sales last year, down from 72% in 2021, but with no real competition in sight. Ford Motor Co. is a distant number 2 in sales at just 7.6% of the U.S. market, with Hyundai and affiliate Kia combined at third with 7.1% market share. In California, the top vehicles sold overall by a large margin were the Tesla Model 3 followed by Model Y, with combined sales of more than half of all EVs sold in the state. What’s more, Tesla earns large profit margins per vehicle compared to other automakers.
Other legacy automakers appear to be asleep at the wheel (so to speak). They are instead largely committed to making money on gas guzzlers, despite press releases and limited EV releases to the contrary. General Motors, for example, is allocating only 10% of a new $860 billion investment into EV development, according to Eletrek.
But not everyone thinks Tesla’s lead will continue. As Paul Krugman wrote in December after a stock price drop:
[I]t’s hard to explain the huge valuation the market put on Tesla before the drop, or even its current value. After all, to be that valuable, Tesla would have to generate huge profits not just for a few years but in a way that could be expected to continue for many years to come.
He cited the lack of obvious attributes that would give Tesla the kind of market dominance that we see with monopolistic companies like Apple or Google in their sectors.
But what Krugman and others miss is the significant technological advantage Tesla has right now over its competitors, in terms of charging speeds and user friendliness of the vehicles (Krugman admits he’s not a “car guy” and so likely hasn’t test driven EVs from different brands before to understand this difference).
But second, and perhaps most importantly, people like Krugman mistake Tesla as just a car company. But it’s not. It’s a fuel station operator, too, with the most significant build out of EV charging infrastructure in the world. What’s more, compared to the competition (third party charging companies rather than other automakers), Tesla’s chargers are higher-powered and more convenient and reliable.
But wait there’s more, as they say on the game shows. Tesla is also an energy storage company, with 152 percent growth last year in its stationary battery business. And it’s a solar roof company, though that latter business has largely been stalled in recent years. So when you package all of these business lines together, you’ll find a vertically integrated monopoly with a significant head start in essentially all of the climate-fighting tech that will dominate the future.
Yes, Tesla stock may be overvalued. But the perception behind it is quite justified. Other automakers need to catch up, as the 2022 sales data reveal, or they will face an existential threat to their survival — much as humans now do, thanks to their gas-guzzling products.
