New UC Berkeley/UCLA Law report discusses policy solutions to accelerate investment in nature-based climate solutions in California. Register for a free webinar on Wednesday, June 16 from 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM Pacific Time with an expert panel to learn about the top findings.
This post is co-authored by Katie Segal and Ted Lamm.
Some of the most promising, cost-effective climate change solutions are in our own backyards. Trees, plants, soils, and ecosystems like wetlands can store and ultimately bury carbon, helping California and other jurisdictions achieve the “negative emissions” needed to meet long-term carbon neutrality goals.
These nature-based solutions also can reduce emissions from the land sector, such as emissions from agricultural practices. In addition, they can generate significant benefits beyond storing carbon, such as cleaning water, enriching biodiversity, providing more equitable access to urban green spaces, improving public health outcomes, and creating opportunities for COVID-19 economic recovery.
Yet nature-based climate solutions can be difficult to deploy because of various funding and financing barriers, despite the potential for reliable returns for a range of stakeholders. Resource managers and landowners may have high-quality projects in mind—from sustainable forest and vegetation management to urban greening—but struggle to connect with the right financing or funding pathways to development. Similarly, investors may wish to direct resources toward environmentally beneficial projects but lack sufficient information to identify best-fit vehicles and model returns.
Specific barriers to investment include failure of markets to recognize the benefits of nature-based carbon sequestration, lack of adequate data and metrics to inform investment decisions, and misalignment between project structures, public processes, and investment needs. As a result, despite rapidly growing understanding of the need to fund nature-based climate and resilience projects, experts have identified a biodiversity funding gap in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
A new report released today by UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) and the UCLA Law Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Seeding Capital, proposes several policy solutions and innovations to tackle these challenges, including:
- Aligning nature-based investment products with existing international standards and labels
- Leveraging California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mitigation to fund projects on natural and working lands
- Standardizing accounting practices for measuring greenhouse gas impacts, environmental impacts, and community impacts
- Conducting advance planning and permitting for multiple potential projects to create “portfolios” for grantors and investors to finance
The report is sponsored by Bank of America and informed by an expert stakeholder convening facilitated by the law schools. Ultimately, implementing these solutions will require consistent and strategic alignment among various sectors, including financial leaders, state and local leaders, philanthropy, and various utility districts, among others.
To discuss the report’s findings and recommendations to bolster investment in nature-based solutions, Berkeley and UCLA Law will host a free webinar on Wednesday, June 16 from 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM Pacific Time with an expert panel, including:
- Newsha Ajami – Director of Urban Water Policy and Senior Research Scholar at Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment
- Amanda Hansen – Deputy Secretary for Climate Change at the California Natural Resources Agency
- Zach Knight – CEO and Co-Founder of Blue Forest Conservation
You can RSVP for the webinar here.
Download the report here.
As infrastructure talks heat up in Washington, some Bay Area advocates are wondering if there will be money to tear down the 980 Freeway, which bisects downtown Oakland from West Oakland. Joining us to discuss tonight on State of the Bay are Nico Savidge, reporter, East Bay Times & Chris Sensenig, founder, Connect Oakland.
Also, no one knows San Francisco better than historian and San Francisco Chronicle contributor Gary Kamiya. We’ll talk to him about his book “Spirits of San Francisco” and the anthology “End of the Golden Gate,” which he edited. He’ll tell us why he’s vowed to never leave San Francisco.
And finally poet Giovanna Lomanto reads her poem “Gold Digger” and talks about her process.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. Call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show!
This week, Ford unveiled an electric “lightning” version of its best-selling F-150 truck. Why is this potentially a big deal? This truck is America’s most popular vehicle, and has been for 40 years. Ford sold more than 203,000 F-series trucks in the first quarter of this year, compared with a combined total of 98,000 electric vehicles in the same period.
Perhaps more significantly, electric vehicles have yet to be introduced for the truck market, although Tesla, GM, and start-up Rivian all plan to introduce one. So this vehicle finally fills an important void in the market.
There are two other significant upsides to the vehicle. First, it’s relatively low priced, at least the basic model, at about $40,000. Add in $7,500 in federal tax credits, plus possibly $2,000 in saved fueling costs each year, and the vehicle is competitive with most low-end gas-powered trucks. Of course, the high-end version is almost $90,000.
Another potential upside is the fact that Ford is partnering with solar-and-battery installer Sunrun to allow the vehicle to provide backup power to homes. That means the battery in the vehicle can also power your house during outages, a topic of greater interest after recent outages in California due to wildfires and extreme heat and in Texas due to record cold. Automakers have otherwise been reluctant to provide this customer access to the vehicle’s batteries, out of concern over impact to battery life and potentially, at least for Tesla, due to its possible negative impact on sales of their stationary batteries (the PowerWall).
This added home-backup feature could help jump start competition among EV automakers to allow vehicle batteries to power buildings, which would be a good thing. It taps into an additional benefit of EVs, so consumers can assume they’re not just buying a car but a home generator. It also can help build in society-wide resilience to extreme weather and potentially help reduce grid emissions if people power their homes off the vehicle during times of electricity supply constraints that might otherwise be met by dirty power.
But two concerns remain with the F-150. First, some customers buy trucks to haul heavy stuff. But these big loads can greatly reduce battery range. Ford is trying to be transparent in calculating how weight will impact range. But given the lack of public fast-power charging infrastructure, will this inhibit sales? Truck buyers may not want to wait around 30 minutes to repower the vehicle every 100 miles, if they can even conveniently find a charging station.
Second, while the home battery backup option is intriguing, will it become functionally impractical for most consumers, if it requires expensive upgrades to building electrical panels? The truck power will require at least 80 amps of available capacity on a home service box, but most homes have between 100 and 200 amp capacity to start. So there may be little extra capacity available for wiring in a load of that size, without a costly upgrade.
We’ll have to wait and see, but it’s encouraging that a new type of electric vehicle model is now on the market. Especially one that can appeal to a much broader range of consumer, such as those in conservative states that have historically been anti-EV and generally opposed to clean energy technology. Yet it’s just the tip of the iceberg on electric trucks, as Ford will soon find itself competing head-to-head with Tesla, Rivian and GM in this lucrative e-truck market.
But at least one consumer already seems sold on the electric F-150. Here’s President Biden taking a spin on Ford’s test track this week:
If you follow the press releases of some traditional automakers these days, you might think they are fully committed to an all-electric vehicle future. Since the election of President Biden, companies like General Motors and Ford for example have pledged billions toward electrifying their entire lineup of vehicles.
Yet sales data, company behavior, and policy advocacy reveal a different story. They show a legacy auto industry struggling to compete in a future of all-electric vehicles, with EV products that are falling behind industry-leader Tesla and a generally weak commitment to the needed policies and infrastructure investment.
First, look at the sales data. Legacy automakers badly trail Tesla, both in California and nationwide. As a snapshot in California during the first quarter of 2021, as compiled from state agency data by the nonprofit Veloz, Tesla’s Model Y (see photo below) was the top-selling electric vehicle model in the state at 15,265 units sold, with the Model 3 second at 14,536. Next up is the Chevrolet Bolt EV, a vehicle that has remained virtually unimproved since its debut four years ago (though slated to get a minor upgrade this year), at a distant third with 5,252 units sold. The plug-in hybrid (not a true all-electric model) Toyota Prius Prime was fourth at 4,081 sales.
Nationwide, the sales gap is just as stark, according to Car and Driver. The Model Y was again the number one selling EV at 33,629 units in first quarter 2021, more than all other non-Tesla EVs combined. Next was Tesla’s Model 3 at 23,110 units. The Chevy Bolt came in a distant third again at 9,025 units, with the newcomer Ford Mustang Mach-E fourth at 6,614 units sold. Next was Tesla’s Model X at 5,106 (potentially seeing a demand pause ahead of an anticipated update), Audi e-tron and e-tron Sportback at 4,324, and then the Tesla Model S at 4,155 (also ahead of an update and range boost). Notably, the once market-leading EV Nissan Leaf, which like the Bolt has seen little improvement in the decade since it was introduced, clocked in at just 2,925 units sold.
Why are legacy automakers so far behind Tesla in this crucial new technology? Unfortunately, their products and technology are not keeping up with Tesla, though they do tend to have superior reliability and build quality. Most of the traditional automakers’ EV products have shorter range on a single charge, slower charging, and more limited access to EV charging stations. And yet some of these vehicles are actually priced higher than lower-priced Tesla’s, with the companies relying instead on continued access to federal EV tax credits, which have reached their limit for Tesla buyers.
By contrast, Tesla’s leadership had the vision and commitment early on to develop electric vehicle products that consumers want, while investing aggressively in electric vehicle infrastructure and battery and charging technology innovation. For example, Tesla paid for their high-powered Supercharger stations as loss leaders to help sell the vehicles, recognizing that concern over limited access to public charging was a major issue for potential customers. And these Supercharger stations can typically charge the vehicles at a much faster rate than what most non-Tesla EVs can handle.
Despite the press releases on EVs, legacy automakers continue to invest heavily in manufacturing and selling large gas-guzzling SUVs. As General Motors CEO Mary Barra commented recently via Reuters:
Barra added the No. 1 U.S. automaker was focused on maximizing production of high-demand vehicles like the full-sized Chevrolet Silverado pickup, and GMC Yukon, Chevy Suburban and Cadillac Escalade SUVs.
Those polluting trucks and SUVs are a far cry from the all-electric, clean future Barra promises to other audiences. And on infrastructure, these automakers have largely refused to help pay for the charging stations needed to compete in this new field to sell their vehicles, instead relying on third parties and public subsidies.
The companies’ behavior on policy similarly mirrors this weak commitment to EVs. Most if not all traditional automakers have resisted zero emission vehicles policies from the get-go, including fighting California’s landmark zero-emission vehicle mandate from its inception in the 1990s. Up until the most recent presidential election, companies like General Motors and Toyota were eager to side with Trump Administration’s attempted rollbacks of national clean vehicle policy (though notably Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW sided with California). That rollback (now stopped by Biden) would have been a significant setback to the pace of vehicle electrification and climate policy in this country.
But is it all doom and gloom for these companies? Yes and no. Some may now be so far behind on electrification that they might eventually go the way of Kodak and Radio Shack, as hard as it may be to believe now. Others are rapidly trying to pivot and adapt. For example, Volkswagen, after getting caught cheating on its vehicle emissions data, has now been forced to develop new EV product lines, and its new ID 4 crossover vehicle may hold some promise. Other new models, including electric trucks, may also soon prove popular.
But it’s difficult to imagine where the U.S. and the broader electric vehicle industry would be on transportation electrification without Tesla. If not for Tesla, EV sales would be paltry. Legacy companies would likely continue to build the bare-minimum “compliance” cars needed to meet California’s zero-emission vehicle mandate. Automakers would probably still be complaining that EVs are unrealistic, infeasible and not want consumers want. As a result, it would be impossible to meet long-term climate goals, given how much the transportation sector contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Fortunately, we’re in a better place now with electric vehicles. Plug-in electric vehicles constituted 9 percent of new car sales in California, the largest EV market in the U.S., with approximately half of nationwide sales (see chart below). It’s decent progress toward a statewide goal of 100% zero-emission vehicles sales by 2035. By comparison, 20% of new car sales in China’s major cities are plug-in vehicles, as Bloomberg reported, with the European Union as a whole at 6.7% market share in 2020, projected to rise to 8.5% this year, per Forbes.
Thanks to this progress, EVs have now broken into the mainstream, providing the credibility to underpin Biden’s new infrastructure plan for boosting them, which includes significant new subsidies and incentives for electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.
But we’ll need many companies to get in on vehicle electrification, including the legacy automakers, both to provide sufficient products for the market and also ensure competition to keep prices low and encourage innovation. At this rate, it’s an open question whether traditional automakers can rebound for the long haul, or if the automakers of the future will instead come from new EV players that follow in Tesla’s footsteps.
Because while the electrification of vehicles is inevitable, the future of the auto industry is decidedly not.
Dr. Martin Wachs, who passed away Sunday evening, was California’s preeminent transportation scholar. He knew both Northern and Southern California well, having joined UCLA’s urban planning department in 1971 and founded its Institute of Transportation Studies, while also spending a decade at UC Berkeley in the interim, where he chaired that’s schools transportation studies program. Much of our knowledge about the history of the state’s transportation system and our ability to evaluate its efficacy comes from his prolific scholarship and role as a public commenter on major transportation decisions.
But more than that, he was a humble and generous person with boundless curiosity and intellect. I first met him when I was researching the history of the Los Angeles Metro Rail system, back in 2007. His influence on Los Angeles transit debates was all over the archival and media documents I found from the 1970s and 1980s, from his scholarship to his op-eds to his conference appearances. Los Angeles elected leaders took his research seriously, even if they didn’t like his skepticism about rail transit in a city as spread out as Los Angeles.
I had originally approached the book as a rail enthusiast, and when I met him in his then-RAND office a few blocks from my Santa Monica apartment, he seemed aghast that I would set out to write a book that would promote rail. But he nonetheless provided me with contact information for a former student who had researched Metro Rail history, along with a few large binders of research for my files. I thanked him profusely and relied on his research for much of the discussion in the book on L.A.’s rail history. In fact, much of what we know about the demise of the Pacific Electric streetcar system in Southern California and its myth-busting conclusion that it was not a car company conspiracy is due to his groundbreaking research.
When my book Railtown was finally published seven years later in 2014, Marty was invited to co-present with me on its findings at an event at UC Berkeley. Top faculty at the school lined up to greet him, like fans seeking autographs at a celebrity book signing. It was an impressive indication of his impact and role as a longtime mentor and generous colleague to so many of them. He was like a returning rock star in his field.
While I was a bit worried how he would react to the book, his comments that evening were thoughtful and ultimately complimentary. I chronicled them at the time on this blog. They are worth reading for anyone interested in his take on rail. What stood out to me was his comment that the book showed him how little politicians actually heeded the advice of transportation scholars, as they forged a path for rail investments despite the caution of experts. And as a recent member of the high speed rail peer advisory group, he was finding a similar dynamic at play, with politicians making short-sighted decisions on this crucial California infrastructure project that have come back to haunt and potentially torpedo its progress.
After that evening in 2014, we kept in touch, even co-authoring an article series on the pros and cons of rail transit investments. If I ever had any questions or needed advice or resources, Marty would jump at the chance, providing thoughtful responses, lists of resources to review, and people to contact. Hundreds of others could say the same thing — his legions of former students now working on urban planning issues, his colleagues, and countless leaders and readers who have benefited from his scholarship and thinking on these complicated issues. You can read some of their tributes (and find out how to honor his memory) on this UCLA website.
Just a few months ago I contacted him about a new rail transit study we’re conducting at UC Berkeley Law. Typical Marty, he immediately offered to schedule a Zoom with our team, providing invaluable advice. But what I remember now is his initial email back to me, where he reflected on his life during the pandemic times. Like most of us, he was home-bound, and he missed his children and grandkids. But he was enjoying his work (including a manuscript in progress that I hope will be finished somehow) and took solace in his garden.
I pictured him in the warm Southern California sun tending to his plants and wonder now who will care for them with his absence? It’s just a small example of the giant hole his death leaves in our world. But Marty’s amazing legacy — beyond the scholarship and influence on public debates — includes his many former students, colleagues, and friends. He trained and supported so many well, who can do their best now to carry on the work he advanced, on issues that affect so many people’s daily lives.
Rest in peace, Marty, and thank you.
Tonight at 6pm PT on State of the Bay, we’ll check in with Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf about the city’s school re-opening plans and other news.
Then we’ll hear from Dr. Allison Briscoe-Smith and Dr. Ralina Joseph about their new book, Generation Mixed Goes to School, Radically Listening to Multiracial Kids.
We’ll also get some arts and events recommendations from Johnny Hayes, better known as Johnny Funcheap, of sf.funcheap.com.
What would you like to ask our guests? Tweet us @StateofBay or send an email or voicemail to StateofBay@gmail.com.
Tune in at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area and streaming live. Call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show!
Co-authored by Ted Lamm and Katie Segal and cross-posted on Legal Planet.
How would you spend $25 million to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire through vegetation management? Sonoma County leaders found themselves facing this question and enlisted UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) for help. Today, CLEE is releasing a report with specific recommendations for Sonoma County, which we hope can serve as a model for other local and state governments and community groups as they work to address the increasing risk from wildfires.
Where did Sonoma County get this funding? In 2017, 2019, and 2020, wildfires ravaged the county, burning approximately one-third of the total land area, destroying thousands of structures, and taking dozens of lives. In the aftermath of the 2017 fires, several California governments (including Sonoma County agencies) sued Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)—the electric and gas utility—based on evidence that the company’s electrical equipment played a role in igniting the fires. In 2020, PG&E and Sonoma County reached a $149 million settlement, with the expectation that funds will be allocated towards a variety of wildfire recovery and prevention activities. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors ultimately directed at least $25 million of the total $149 million towards vegetation management efforts.
County leaders engaged CLEE to deliver recommendations on how to spend the dollars effectively. Through two expert convenings and stakeholder outreach, CLEE gathered input from leaders in wildfire science, public finance, planning, and vegetation management, among other areas of expertise. One of the convenings focused entirely on local experts, leveraging the wealth of knowledge within Sonoma County and learning from local organizations’ experiences. The other convening included state-level experts who could speak to broader experiences and priorities throughout California.
Both groups’ priorities and insights led to several key recommendations to guide vegetation management spending in Sonoma County. Driving most of these was the fact that a limited pool of near-term funds cannot adequately address the County’s long-term, recurring vegetation management needs; thus, leaders should invest in financing mechanisms, workforce development, and community outreach efforts that can generate new funds and incentivize private action. That said, a portion of funds – approximately one third – should be directed toward the highest-priority actions that can be taken in advance of coming fire seasons, to help reduce near-term risk and accelerate existing initiatives. And, to support effective and efficient long-term investments, the County should create a vegetation management governance capacity. Ultimately, $25 million is insufficient to cover the scale of the need. But it can help jumpstart demonstration projects, fund immediate needs, and leverage additional funds. The key recommendations and principles to guide vegetation management in Sonoma County include:
- Funding immediate vegetation management activities, especially in high-risk and high-priority areas and near key ecosystems. Initial activities should consider specific project zones (such as densely populated areas or areas that burned in recent fires), as well as project types (such as defensible space near buildings or understory thinning in forested areas).
- Centralizing stakeholder coordination and governance to improve efficiency and ensure that the right projects are funded as quickly as possible, especially early action projects before the upcoming fire season.
- Prioritizing equity, community outreach, and education so that all communities benefit from and understand their role in vegetation management actions. Understanding different stakeholders’ needs and keeping open lines of communication will be crucial components of successful vegetation management and are also cost-effective methods of scaling up projects.
- Maintaining relevant and up-to-date data sources for planning and evaluation, so that various analytical efforts and interactive tools draw from the most recent information. Monitoring and evaluation are also critical to tracking vegetation management projects’ impact and scope over time, allowing project managers to adjust implementation as needed.
- Leveraging long-term financial sustainability, so that funds are replenished and Sonoma County can transform the initial $25 million allocation into a much larger, continually renewing source for ongoing vegetation management activities. Options include a revolving fund, financing districts, resilience bonds, new local sales or parcel tax revenue, and leveraging federal and state dollars, among other options.
- Building the local workforce will help Sonoma County tackle both short- and long-term vegetation management needs while creating high-quality local jobs. Workforce development options include a multi-year training program, partnerships with local conservation corps and educational institutions, apprenticeship programs, and labor share programs, among several other options.
Participants also developed a set of principles to guide County vegetation management decisions, including:
- Prioritizing vulnerable communities (including lower-income residents, elders, renters, communities of color, and those most affected by air quality impacts), along with critical infrastructure and special assets
- Incorporating and supporting robust public outreach, engagement, and education at every step
- Accomplishing multiple forest and ecosystem health objectives by performing and monitoring high-quality, science-based treatments
- Recognizing effective vegetation management requires continuous, dedicated implementation in an adaptive management framework
- Leveraging by seeking other funding opportunities and creating sustainable funding mechanisms
While every California county—and indeed every wildfire-prone region in the world—has different circumstances and resources, these ideas could help inform vegetation management conversations beyond Sonoma County’s borders. Wildfires are part of natural systems, but development expanding into wildland areas and hotter, drier conditions caused by climate change increase the likelihood and severity of fire across the state. These worsening conditions, combined with decades of fire suppression, position California for a future of more catastrophic wildfires unless there is a dedicated, coordinated, and locally tailored vegetation management effort to address risks facing forests, ecosystems, and communities.
We hope this report will help Sonoma County and leaders across California take immediate action to mitigate risks during the upcoming fire season and implement a long-term strategy to reduce the severity of wildfires in the years to come.
You can download the report here.
We will be presenting the report findings at the virtual Sonoma County Board of Supervisors meeting today (Tuesday), March 23, 2021, which starts at 8:30 am Pacific Time. You can access the agenda here, which includes Zoom login information, to listen in or offer your own comments.
President Biden campaigned on a goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions for the United States by 2050. But this goal will only be achievable by deploying technologies and practices that pull greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and securely store it underground.
California can pioneer one type of technology that could make this national goal feasible, as a new Capitol Weekly op-ed I co-authored with Berkeley Law’s climate fellow Katie Segal argues. Specifically, engineered carbon removal can capture carbon emissions from the air or smokestacks of industrial facilities that have few viable alternatives and inject the carbon underground or in long-lived products like concrete.
The op-ed offers key policy needs for decision-makers to consider, based on a UC Berkeley/UCLA Law report we issued on this subject in December. As with so many other climate-fighting technologies, California once again has the chance to lead on this next generation of sequestration tools — if we seize the opportunity to do so.
Electric vehicle critics have directed a lot of misinformation at EV batteries, in an effort to make the (dishonest) case that they’re just as bad as gas engines. But not only are EVs far less polluting than internal combustion engines, the United States has a strong economic and environmental interest in bolstering a domestic supply chain.
My new op-ed in The Hill has recommendations on steps that federal and state leaders should take to seize the opportunity. At stake are not only a lot of potential jobs, but also a more reliable and sustainable supply of the batteries that will soon be powering most of our transportation needs.
And for more about the EV battery supply chain, check out a recent talk I gave on this subject for Berkeley Lab’s Lithium Resource Research and Innovation Center:
One of the concerns often raised about electric vehicles is the risk of battery fires. Lithium ion batteries can certainly catch fire on occasion. But how much should consumers take into account this risk when buying electric vehicles, particularly given that internal combustion engine alternatives also catch fire?
Turns out, not too much.
According to the research, the fire risk in an EV is no greater than the fire risk in a gas-powered car. For example, a U.S. Department of Transportation-funded study found that EVs are “somewhat comparable or perhaps slightly less” prone to fires compared with gas-powered cars.
Industry data bear this out, in an encouraging fashion. Tesla, the leading EV manufacturer in the US, claims that internal combustion engines are roughly 11 times more likely to catch fire than one of their EVs. And the data seem to support their claim: Teslas have to date registered roughly five fires for every billion miles driven, compared to a rate of 55 fires per billion miles traveled for gasoline cars. And more generally, lithium-ion battery cells fail at a rate of only 1 in every 12 million.
So the bottom line is that vehicles of all types are vulnerable to fires, and that risk is potentially much less in an electric vehicle, or at the very least just comparable. It’s good news, since we need electric vehicles to reduce transportation emissions and fight climate change. The main challenge going forward is preparing firefighters with the training they need to adapt to fighting battery fires, which burn differently than gasoline fires.
So if you’re considering buying an electric vehicle, don’t let the media smoke from a few battery fires obscure the truth. The climate is counting on it.
