Yesterday I appeared on two radio shows, now available for streaming or podcast download. First, on KQED Forum, I was on a panel discussing what climate efforts may look like during a Trump Administration, and how California will respond. Joining me was:
- Lisa Friedman, reporter on the climate desk, New York Times
- Jesse Jenkins, assistant professor, engineering, Princeton University
- Aru Shiney-Ajay, Executive Director, Sunrise movement, a grassroots organization of students and young people focused on climate change
You can stream it here.
Then last night I hosted State of the Bay on KALW, where I spoke to UC Berkeley Professor of Chemistry Omar Yaghi about a newly developed carbon-capturing material that has the potential to transform how we address climate change.
Then, we broke down local election results and discussed what they tell us about the priorities and concerns of Bay Area residents with San Francisco Chronicle opinion columnist and editorial writer, Emily Hoeven.
And finally, we talked with Rae Black of Oakland’s For the Win Boxing, a boxing gym that offers professional coaching for women and non-binary people who want to pursue “the sweet science” of boxing.
You can listen to that show here.
California will need a significant build-out of new high-voltage transmission lines to meet state goals for renewable energy deployment and a decarbonized grid by 2045, which requires quadrupling its current in-state solar and wind capacity. But if this new infrastructure is paid for solely through electricity rates, it could increase them significantly, when they have already increased roughly 50% over the past three years for investor-owned utility customers.
In response, UC Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) is releasing today the policy report Improving Transmission Financing in California: Alternative Models and Policy Strategies to Increase Affordability. It contains a variety of strategies available to policymakers for financing new high-voltage power transmission in California, with the dual goals of 1) reducing costs to ratepayers and 2) accelerating transmission development. The report was developed with the support of Net-Zero California and Clean Air Task Force.
Among the key findings:
- Some form of public-private partnership (P3) could provide significant benefits to deploying lower-cost transmission, due to cost-savings potential and the ability to leverage existing institutions and structures. A number of possibilities and considerations exist, and the form of P3 may depend on the particular transmission line, developers, and other project-specific circumstances.
- Policymakers could endow an existing entity with transmission financing and related P3 authorities, rather than create a new entity. Currently, California has multiple entities with at least some role in transmission. Creating a wholly new public entity, or endowing an existing agency, in California to finance and oversee transmission would entail administrative and procedural changes, which may be more significant for a new public entity.
- State leaders could focus on demonstrating alternative financing arrangements for four to six key transmission regions and lines in the California Independent System Operator’s 20-year transmission outlook that most stakeholders agree are essential. The Governor’s Office could designate a coordinator for high-priority lines and support a process to speed implementation and financing.
- State leaders could minimize risk for the entity or entities owning new transmission lines, including establishing a liability backstop and developing insurance, contract, indemnity, and first loss protection, and other mechanisms, subject to negotiation and legislation.
These and other findings, as well as more detail on selected financing options and their specific challenges, can be found in the new report.
To learn more, register for the CLEE webinar “Financing California’s Transmission Needs” on Wednesday, November 13, from 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Pacific. Keynote remarks will be provided by:
- Le-Quyen Nguyen, Acting Senior Advisor for Energy for Governor Gavin Newsom
- Cliff Rechtschaffen, California Air Resources Board member and former California Public Utilities Commissioner
In addition, CLEE will discuss the report findings, along with representatives from Net Zero California, Clean Air Task Force, and DH Infrastructure.
Tonight on State of the Bay we’ll talk with pollster Mark Baldassare, Statewide Survey Director of the California Public Policy Institute, to find out who the likely voters are in this November’s election and how they feel about the statewide ballot measures.
Then we’ll talk to Tom Steyer, climate investor and 2020 presidential candidate, about his new book Cheaper, Faster, Better: How We’ll Win the Climate War.
Then we’ll hear from Rahsaan Thomas, executive director of Empowerment Ave, a Bay Area organization that helps incarcerated people put their art out in the world.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 6pm PT. What comments or questions do you have for our guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
In the race to scale up a global supply chain for electric vehicle batteries, mining justice advocates have sought to ensure that the ongoing clean technology minerals boom does not exacerbate longstanding negative impacts from the global mining industry. Chief among these are corruption risks.
To provide guidance to electric vehicle purchasers (particularly fleets), advocates, and leaders in “downstream” markets about how to support anti-corruption measures in the battery supply chain, Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) partnered with the Natural Resource Governance Institute to issue a new policy brief: Corruption Risks in the EV Battery Supply Chain: What Advocates, Automakers and Fleet Purchasers Can Do.
The brief presents a set of actions for “downstream” markets, such as in the United State and European Union. Among the steps that the report recommends these actors take:
- Battery manufacturers, automakers, and fleet purchasers could integrate checks on corruption risks into responsible sourcing and due diligence systems. Risks from supply chain relationships may directly affect company operations, and companies can leverage their influence to promote better practices and policies. When necessary, they should be willing to disengage or suspend engagement with suppliers.
- Manufacturers, automakers and purchasers could also encourage project-level contract, payment, commodity trading, and beneficial ownership transparency and robust ethics and compliance policies from suppliers. Companies could look for comprehensive project or sale-level disclosure of contracts and licenses, payments to governments, and verified beneficial ownership information, internal oversight and independence of ethics and compliance procedures, robust disciplinary and remediation procedures.
- Electrification and sustainable mining advocates in North America and Europe could emphasize the importance of governance and anti-corruption measures in their advocacy. Specifically, advocates can better incorporate anticorruption into benchmarks or reports that assess companies’ sustainability provisions and/or responsible sourcing.
- Advocates could push for governments to incorporate strong anticorruption provisions into sustainability criteria for mining projects, in policies and legislation addressing responsible sourcing or due diligence, and in partnerships or trade deals with mineral-producing countries.
Ultimately, corruption is not a victimless crime. It undermines trust in government and deprives the public of needed revenues from mining projects. It can also jeopardize supply chain affordability and reliability as the world makes this critical transition to a cleaner transportation system. With the steps outlined in Corruption Risks in the EV Battery Supply Chain: What Advocates, Automakers and Fleet Purchasers Can Do, advocates, purchasers and downstream market leaders have an opportunity to ensure that the electric vehicle mining boom doesn’t replicate past and ongoing harms from the global mining sector.
We need electric vehicles to fight climate change, and that means a lot of mining for minerals like lithium and graphite for the batteries. It’s better if that mining happens in the US rather than overseas, where worker and environmental protections may be weaker. But we still need to improve mining processes here.
My new op-ed in The Hill has recommendations on how to do so, following the release of a new federal interagency report on mining. The report calls for permitting agencies to conduct better upfront planning to ensure new mining activity is not sited in sensitive areas that would likely produce conflict, litigation and delay. To do this, I argue:
Specifically, the country can take its cue from California, where a public-private partnership among state government, academic institutions and nonprofits pioneered a stakeholder-led process to map lands for large-scale solar development in key regions in the state. That process resulted in the identification of hundreds of thousands of “least conflict” acres, which participants as diverse as Tribes, ranchers, endangered species advocates and developers agreed would be feasible to develop without harming communities or important resources. This approach is now being replicated in other states.
If we can pull this process off in this country, the result would be fewer conflicts, a more sustainable supply chain for EV batteries, and economic and environmental wins for the communities surrounding mines, including many tribal and rural communities. And maybe it could provide a model for other jurisdictions to follow suit, as the world undergoes a dramatic and badly needed transformation in its vehicle fleet to EVs.
The electric vehicle (EV) market is growing rapidly, but with this growth comes public pressure to ensure supply chains for EV batteries are sustainable. The soaring demand for batteries relies heavily on the extraction and refinement of critical minerals, processes that have far-reaching environmental and social impacts. Moreover, the global distribution of these operations leaves them susceptible to geopolitical instability, further complicating the supply chain.
At the same time, this growth in mining and manufacturing also presents an opportunity to avoid recreating the harms of past mining and industrial activities. While individual EV buyers have little leverage over the industry, fleet purchasers of EVs instead have an opportunity to use their combined market power to ensure upstream suppliers adhere to strong sustainability standards. Corporate fleets can wield their collective influence and purchasing power to drive change on a large scale.
With that market power in mind, our climate program at Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) has partnered with the nonprofit Ceres and its Corporate Electric Vehicle Alliance (CEVA), a collaborative group of companies focused on accelerating the transition to EVs, to release a new report with recommendations for major corporate EV fleet purchasers for how they can help ensure supply chain sustainability.
Among other solutions, the report recommends that corporate actors looking to make EV fleet purchases:
- Join the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) in order to publicly demonstrate commitment to responsible sourcing; and add political momentum and end-user economic clout to IRMA’s efforts to engage and audit the mining industry
- Advocate for domestic mining reform that expands mining only as much as necessary while ensuring responsible environmental management and clean up as well as community and Tribal engagement
- Participate in extended producer responsibility schemes and build partnerships with second life and recycling entities.
- Advocate for federal policy to standardize EV battery labeling and traceability through an open-source, interoperable digital product passport with requirements designed to improve environmental and human impacts, carbon footprint, and end of life opportunities.
- Advocate for federal policy to standardize EV battery labeling and traceability through an open-source, interoperable digital product passport with requirements designed to improve environmental and human impacts, carbon footprint, and end of life opportunities.
While the report’s primary focus is on U.S. companies operating electric vehicle fleets, the information and recommendations can also benefit other companies involved in the EV supply chain. The goal is to highlight areas where corporate advocacy and procurement practices can have the most impact in promoting a sustainable EV industry.
Ensuring a sustainable EV battery supply chain—one that maximizes benefits for communities, industry, and the environment—will require long-term, coordinated action by stakeholders across the globe. Large fleets and major companies can leverage their purchasing power and engagement with industry to incentivize manufacturers and mining operators to prioritize sustainability and responsible practices. The recommendations in this guidebook offer a roadmap for corporate procurement practices, supplier engagement, and support for policies and initiatives that aim to make ethical sourcing and environmental stewardship the industry norm.
Access the full report here: Electric Vehicle Batteries: A Guidebook for Responsible Corporate Engagement Throughout the Supply Chain
This post is co-authored with Shruti Sarode and cross-posted on Legal Planet.
Can California become a global center for lithium production for EV batteries? How sustainable is the global battery supply chain? I’ll be a guest on KQED Forum today at 10am PT to discuss, as part of the show’s “In Transit” series.
Today, Australia, Chile and China are the top three sources of worldwide lithium production. But California’s Imperial Valley contains a vast underground reserve near the Salton Sea, with enough lithium potentially to meet all of U.S. future demand and more than one-third of global demand.
Along with me to discuss this potential will be Eduardo Garcia, Assemblymember, representing California’s 36th State Assembly District in eastern Riverside County and Imperial County.
Tune in on KQED radio or stream live at 10am PT!
To achieve a sustainable supply chain for electric vehicles, especially from the mining of key battery inputs, we’ll need global reforms on how mining is conducted. These reforms will need to be everything everywhere all at once, and I offer some suggestions how in this new op-ed in The Hill:
Advocates can help…by supporting laws that require automakers (and energy storage companies) to source battery minerals from companies and countries that adhere to strict standards to protect local communities, such as [the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, or IRMA]. Advocates and philanthropies can also support local advocates in key mineral-producing countries, by arming them with the resources they need to effect change within their jurisdictions, including via anti-corruption measures such as improved transparency requirements and whistleblower protections. Finally, policymakers can work to reduce the overall demand for new mining, such as through mandates and infrastructure planning for battery reuse and recycling, as well as promote demand reduction through more public transit, walking and biking — an important complement to electrifying transportation.
Meanwhile, the situation has only become more urgent with proposed deep sea mining that could happen as soon as later this year, if an international agency charged with regulating the seafloor outside of national boundaries doesn’t take action. I discussed this prospect recently with the Washington Post and KCBS radio in San Francisco.
Ultimately, the success of electric vehicles is a good thing. But we can’t repeat the mistakes of the past with harmful fossil fuel extraction. Sustainable supply chains, including responsible mining, must be a top priority for reformers around the world.
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!
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.
