Union of Concerned ScientistsVehicles – Union of Concerned Scientists https://blog.ucsusa.org a blog on independent science + practical solutions Thu, 14 Dec 2017 20:46:30 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/cropped-favicon-32x32.png Vehicles – Union of Concerned Scientists https://blog.ucsusa.org 32 32 A Billion Dollar Policy for Electric Vehicles that you Probably Haven’t Heard Of https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy-odea/a-billion-dollar-policy-for-electric-vehicles-that-you-probably-havent-heard-of https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy-odea/a-billion-dollar-policy-for-electric-vehicles-that-you-probably-havent-heard-of#respond Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:08:11 +0000 https://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=55525

Combined, Pacific Gas and Electric (16 million people), Southern California Edison (15 million people), and San Diego Gas and Electric (3.6 million people) provide electricity to nearly 90 percent of California’s 39 million people.

Two years ago, California passed Senate Bill 350, requiring 50 percent of electricity to come from renewable energy by 2030. This was big news. Hawaii had just passed a similar bill requiring 40 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. There was a lot of well-deserved excitement around these renewable portfolio standards.

One section of the California bill that didn’t get a lot of attention outside of policy circles, however, requires electric utilities in the state to come up with plans to “accelerate widespread transportation electrification.” The bill recognized the critical role electric cars, trucks, and buses must play to meet air quality, climate, and public health goals.

Fast forward two years and we’re in the middle of what could be the largest single investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the United States to date. Over $1 billion of investments have been proposed over a five-year period by the three large, investor-owned utilities in California: Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E).* For comparison, the Volkswagen “dieselgate” settlement will result in $800 million of charging infrastructure in California over ten years.

The so-called “SB 350 transportation electrification” plans are currently being reviewed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and I’ve been representing UCS in this public process. Here’s a snapshot of the process, which has already spanned several months and several thousand pages of documents.

What’s going on?

In January, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E submitted plans for advancing transportation electrification in their service territories. The plans mostly focus on providing charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. SCE and SDG&E also proposed new charging rates for electric vehicles to address “demand charges,” which increase bills for large draws of electricity at once, but depending on how they are structured, may discourage the use of electric vehicles.

The utilities submitted projects for “priority review” and “standard review.” Priority review projects were designed to speed up decisions on smaller, “non-controversial” projects. These projects were limited to one year in duration, costs of less than $4 million per project, and no more than $20 million in priority review projects per utility. The idea is that lessons learned from these short-term projects can guide future investments. Standard review projects are larger in scope and subject to the full evidentiary hearings typically associated with proceedings at public utility commissions.

Proposals from PG&E and SCE focus mostly on charging infrastructure for trucks, buses, and heavy-duty equipment, while SDG&E’s proposal focuses mostly on residential charging infrastructure. The CPUC made it clear from the onset that utilities’ proposals should not merely be an expansion of existing pilot projects, which focus on light-duty vehicles.

Senate Bill 350 also provided guidance that utilities’ proposals should benefit communities most impacted by air pollution. This also explains the focus on heavy-duty vehicles in proposals from PG&E and SCE. Heavy-duty vehicles disproportionately contribute to air pollution, making up just 7 percent of vehicles in California but 33 percent of NOx emissions (harmful alone but is also a precursor to smog) and emit more particulate matter than all of the state’s power plants combined.

What’s next?

The CPUC recently released a proposed decision on the priority review projects; a final decision is expected as early as the second week of January. The proposed decision would approve 15 of the 17 priority review projects totaling nearly $43 million. Projects proposed for approval include infrastructure for electric school buses, delivery trucks, airport ground equipment, transit buses, truck stops, and park-and-ride parking lots.

A decision on the standard review projects is expected in May 2018. SDG&E’s proposal would support 90,000 residential electric vehicle chargers. Proposals from SCE and PG&E would support charging infrastructure for up to 15,000 and 5,000 electric trucks and buses, respectively. Approval of these projects would be significant, but compared to the 25 million automobiles and 1.5 million trucks and buses operating in California, it would be just one step towards reducing global warming emissions and air pollution to safe amounts.

A major investment in electric vehicle infrastructure couldn’t come at a better time. Sales of passenger electric vehicles are growing. Manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles are offering a wide array of electric vehicles, and fleets such as transit agencies and delivery companies are increasingly adopting electric buses and trucks. In all, availability of charging infrastructure and fair electricity rates is critical to the continued uptake of these clean vehicles.

*Note, publicly-owned utilities are not under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission and thus were not required to submit plans, nor were Community Choice Aggregators (e.g., Marin Clean Energy) who don’t own infrastructure related to electricity generation or distribution. Small, electrical corporations were required to submit plans, which are being considered separately from those of the three large, investor-owned utilities.

Image: California Energy Commission
]]>
https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy-odea/a-billion-dollar-policy-for-electric-vehicles-that-you-probably-havent-heard-of/feed 0
Automakers’ Long List of Fights Against Progress, and Why We Must Demand Better https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/automakers-long-list-of-fights-against-progress-and-why-we-must-demand-better https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/automakers-long-list-of-fights-against-progress-and-why-we-must-demand-better#comments Wed, 06 Dec 2017 16:43:13 +0000 https://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=55420

Today, we are releasing a report documenting the long, sordid past of the auto industry, who has fought regulation tooth and nail at every turn. From pollution control to seatbelts and air bags to fuel economy, the industry has spent the vast majority of the past 7 decades doing whatever it can to wriggle out of government regulations, at the expense of the American public.

Cars have drastically improved, but not without a fight

Time for a U-turn looks at the tactics that automakers consistently deploy to fight against federal rules and standards that deliver better cars to the nation, tactics like exaggeration, misinformation, and influence. It also outlines concrete actions that automakers can take to leave behind their history of intransigence, and ensure that their industry rises to the challenges of the 21st century.

There is no doubt that the cars built today are significantly improved over the vehicles from the 1950s:

  • today’s safety standards require not just airbags and seatbelts but also features like crumple zones which help to minimize occupant injury;
  • tailpipe pollution standards have dramatically reduced the emissions of soot and smog-forming pollutants like volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides; and
  • fuel economy and global warming emissions standards have saved consumers about $4 TRILLION dollars in fuel, severely reducing both the demand for oil and impact on climate change.

It’s clear when put to the task, automotive engineers have been more than capable of meeting whatever challenge is laid in front of them, resulting in a tremendous positive impact for the public.

Unfortunately, the industry has a long history of putting its lobbyists to work instead, promoting misleading claims and interfering politically to weaken or delay the standards that protect the public.

Automotive Chicken Little and a “Can’t Do” Attitude

One of the most frustrating aspects of the volumes of research I did for this report was the sheer repetition of the arguments.  According to the auto industry, any type of regulation would force them out of business…and yet they are still here.  Here are a few examples:

“[I]f GM is forced to introduce catalytic converter systems across the board on 1975 models . . . it is conceivable that complete stoppage of the entire production could occur, with the obvious tremendous loss to the company, shareholders, employees, suppliers, and communities.” – Ernie Starkman (GM) in his push to weaken the 1975 tailpipe emissions standards put in place by the Clean Air Act.

Not only was Starkman wrong that catalytic converters would shut down GM, but they proved so popular that GM actually used them in its advertising in 1975!

“Many of the temporary standards are unreasonable, arbitrary, and technically infeasible. . . . [If] we can’t meet them when they are published we’ll have to close down.” – Henry Ford II (Ford), responding to the first motor vehicle safety standards.

Clearly, Ford did not have to close down.  In fact, Ford proved more than capable of meeting these “unreasonable” requirements by using features like safety glass and seat belts, which are commonplace today.

“We don’t even know how to reach [35 miles per gallon by 2020], not in a viable way.  [It] would break the industry.”  — Susan Cischke (Ford), discussing the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) that have led to the strong standards we have today.

Not only have strong fuel economy standards not broken the industry, but today it is thriving, with three consecutive years of sales over 17 million, an historic first for automakers.  And because of standards that drive improvements across all types of vehicles, we are not only on track to meet the requirements of EISA but doing so in spite of a growing share of SUVs and pick-ups.

Fighting the Science

Of course, even worse than the repetitive “sky is falling” attitude that has proven false at every turn is the assault on science that automakers have used in the past, seeking to eliminate policy action by diminishing either the solution or the problem:

“We believe that the potential impact of [fuel economy standards] on the global issue of planetary warming are [sic] difficult to demonstrate.” – Robert Liberatore (Chrysler)

Believe it or not, after James Hansen’s Congressional testimony in 1988, there was bipartisan support on the Hill to address climate change, including from transportation-related emissions.  Mr. Liberatore used an argument straight out of today’s Heritage Foundation claiming that fuel economy standards in the United States won’t have an impact on a global problem.  This flew in the face of science then, just as it does now.

“The effects of ozone are not that serious . . . what we’re talking about is a temporary loss in lung function of 20 to 30 percent.  That’s not really a health effect.” – Richard Klimisch (American Automobile Manufacturers Association).

In 1996, the EPA was moving forward to strengthen air quality standards for ozone (related to smog) and soot (particulate matter).  In order to push back on this solution, automakers campaigned against there even being a problem to address, claiming that a little loss in lung function wasn’t a big deal.  Needless to say, the EPA ignored this ridiculousness and implemented stronger standards. However, even these stronger standards did not fully address the problem, pushing the Obama administration to move forward on strengthening the standards further still.

Breaking the Cycle?

After the Great Recession, automakers seemed to turn over a new leaf, working closely with the Obama administration to craft stringent fuel economy and emissions standards that would drive efficiency improvements across all types of vehicles, including SUVs and pick-up trucks.

“[The industry has] had a change of heart, but it’s fairly recent. We had data about consumers’ preferences about fuel economy, but we chose to ignore it; we thought it was an anomaly. But it’s by having a bias against fuel economy that we’ve put ourselves in the pickle we’re in now.”  — Walter McManus (ex-GM), speaking about a shift in automaker thinking.

Unfortunately, this awakening seems to have been short-lived, as automakers are now urging the current administration to weaken the standards with the same types of tactics we’ve seen before:

  • Automakers are using direct political influence, sending a letter to the Trump administration to withdraw EPA’s determination that the strong 2025 standards remain appropriate.
  • Automakers are again exaggerating the facts, claiming widespread catastrophe if the EPA does not alter the standards based on a widely debunked study and ignoring the findings of a more thorough (albeit still conservative) report they themselves funded because it doesn’t fit their messaging.
  • Industry is pushing to expand the midterm review to include lowering the 2021 standards while acknowledging that lowering the 2021 standards would have no impact on their product offerings and simply is a form of regulatory relief “any way we can get it” (Chris Nevers, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers).

Despite talking a good game about being “absolutely committed to improving fuel efficiency and reducing emissions for our customers” (Bill Ford, 2017), Ford and other automakers are engaging in the same intransigence we’ve seen over the past seven decades.

It’s time for automakers to end this multidecadal war against regulation and start siding with progress.  To build back trust and leave this history behind, automakers must seize this opportunity and:

  • support strong safety and emissions standards and keep the promises they made to the American people to build cleaner cars;
  • distance themselves from trade groups that seek to undermine today’s standards, and make it clear that these groups do not speak for all automakers on issues of safety and the environment; and
  • cease spreading disinformation about the standards and their impacts.
]]>
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/automakers-long-list-of-fights-against-progress-and-why-we-must-demand-better/feed 1
Pruitt’s War on the Planet and the EPA—and What Congress Can Do About It https://blog.ucsusa.org/ken-kimmell/pruitts-war-on-the-planet-and-the-epa https://blog.ucsusa.org/ken-kimmell/pruitts-war-on-the-planet-and-the-epa#comments Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:26:46 +0000 https://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=55390

We have now endured almost a year with Scott Pruitt as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). His tenure is unprecedented—a full frontal assault on the agency he heads, and a retreat from the mission he is charged by law to advance. And thus far, Administrator Pruitt has not had to account for his actions.

But an accountability moment is nearing: for the first time since his nomination, Mr. Pruitt will appear before Congress to offer an update on the status of work at the agency—first before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on December 7, and next before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on January 31. These oversight hearings offer a critical opportunity for leaders on both sides of the aisle to ask tough questions, demand responsive information rather than platitudes, and voice their disapproval about how Administrator Pruitt has run the EPA.

Here are key topics for our elected representatives to focus on:

Mr. Pruitt’s empty “back to basics” promise

During his nomination hearing last January, Administrator Pruitt knew he would be questioned about his commitment to EPA’s mission and his repeated lawsuits against EPA when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. He came equipped with a clever counter-narrative. He claimed that he would make EPA a more effective agency by de-emphasizing “electives” such as climate change. He promised to steer the agency “back to basics” by focusing on core responsibilities such as enforcing clean air and water laws and cleaning hazardous waste sites.

Members of Congress should compare that promise to Administrator Pruitt’s actions over the past year. Almost immediately after taking office, he signed off on a budget that would cut EPA by 31 percent, despite the absence of any financial exigency requiring such draconian action. A few weeks later, he approved plans to lay off 25 percent of the agency’s employees and eliminate 56 programs. The proposed budget cuts target not only items Pruitt may think of as electives, but also basic bread-and-butter functions. For example, he proposed to strip $330 million from the $1.1 billion Superfund program and cut funding for the Justice Department to enforce cases.

And, in a clear contradiction of his testimony that he would work more cooperatively and effectively with state environmental protection agencies, he proposed to cut the grants that EPA gives to states for enforcement by 20 percent.

We are already starting to see the results of this effort to hollow EPA out from within. Experienced and talented career staff are leaving the agency in droves. The Chicago EPA office, for example, has already lost 61 employees “who account for more than 1,000 years of experience and represent nearly 6 percent of the EPA’s Region 5 staff, which coordinates the agency’s work in six states around the Great Lakes.” This means, among other things, a smaller number of inspectors and likely an increased number of businesses operating out of compliance with clean air and water laws.

With less staff and fewer experienced staff members, it is no surprise that EPA has seen a roughly 60 percent reduction in the penalties it has collected for environmental violations compared with the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations at comparable stages in their respective terms. And while the Obama administration cleaned up and de-listed 60 hazardous waste sites and added 142 sites over eight years, so far the EPA, under Mr. Pruitt, is far off that pace, deleting just two sites and adding only seven.

Perhaps most troubling, civil servants have been deeply demoralized by the combination of proposed cuts and constant statements by the president and Administrator Pruitt denigrating the agency as a job killer, which it is not. As one staffer said in a recent publication entitled EPA under Siege “I think there’s a general consensus among the career people that, at bottom, they’re basically trying to destroy the place.”

Said another: “Quite honestly, the core values of this administration are so divergent from my own, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity [for retirement]….I found it difficult to work for an agency with someone who is so disrespectful of what we do and why we do it.”

Members of Congress should question Mr. Pruitt about his “back to basics” promise. They should ask why he advocated for such deep budget cuts, layoffs, and buyouts, and demand that he explain with specificity how the agency can possibly do better with such drastically reduced resources. Congress should also require Mr. Pruitt to provide clear, apples-to-apples comparisons of the record of environmental enforcement during his tenure with that of his predecessors, as measured by inspections, notices of violation, corrective actions, fines and litigation.

Administrator Pruitt’s “Law and Order” charade

Administrator Pruitt put forth a second narrative during his confirmation hearing. He promised  to restore “law and order” to EPA, claiming that the EPA had strayed beyond its statutory authority during President Obama’s tenure.

The record tells a very different story. In less than a year, Mr. Pruitt’s actions have repeatedly been found by courts to be “unlawful,” “arbitrary,” and “capricious.”

One example is particularly instructive. At the end of the Obama administration, the EPA issued a final rule requiring operators of new oil and gas wells to install controls to capture methane, a highly potent contributor to global warming. The rule was set to go into effect in early 2017. Administrator Pruitt unilaterally put the rule on hold for two years to allow EPA to conduct a sweeping reconsideration. This, the court found, was blatantly illegal, because it attempted to change the compliance date of a rule without going through the necessary rulemaking process.

Unfortunately, this tactic has become a pattern, as Mr. Pruitt has sought to put on hold many other regulations he doesn’t care for, including rules intended to reduce asthma-causing ozone pollutiontoxic mercury contamination in water supplies, and a requirement that state transportation departments monitor greenhouse gas emission levels on national highways and set targets for reducing them. Environmental nonprofit organizations and state attorneys general have had to sue, or threaten to sue, to stop this illegal behavior.

The EPA’s lawlessness is not confined to official acts, but also concerns the administrator personally. In an obvious conflict of interest, Mr. Pruitt played a leading role in the EPA’s proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, the nation’s first-ever limit on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants. Yet, just a few months before taking over at the EPA, Mr. Pruitt had led the legal fight against the rule as Oklahoma’s attorney general.

In effect, he played the role of advocate, then judge and jury, and ultimately executioner, all in a matter of a few months.

In addition, Administrator Pruitt is under investigation for misusing taxpayer dollars for $58,000 worth of private chartered flights, and has wasted $25,000 of taxpayer money to build himself a secret phone booth in his office.

Congress needs to ask Mr. Pruitt how he can be said to have restored respect for the law at the EPA, when the EPA (and perhaps Administrator Pruitt personally) have been flouting it. They need to ask him about what role he played in the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, and how he can square his conflicting loyalties to the state of Oklahoma (which he represented as an attorney) and to the American people (who he is supposed to represent as head of the EPA). Congress should also investigate his personal use of taxpayer funds and his penchant for cutting corners on legally mandated processes.

An “Alice in Wonderland” approach to science

The EPA’s five decades of success rest on its longstanding commitment to the best available science, and to its well-trained professional scientists who deploy that science. Administrator Pruitt has taken a wrecking ball to this scientific foundation.

First, he ignores staff scientists when their conclusions do not support his deregulation agenda. On the crucial scientific question of our time—climate change and what is causing it—Mr. Pruitt says he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary cause. Of course, this statement runs directly counter to the conclusions of EPA scientists (as well as those of the recently issued US Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report). And, in one of his first policy decisions, Administrator Pruitt overturned EPA scientists’ recommendation to ban a pesticide (chlorpyrifos) that presents a clear health risk to farmers, children, and rural families.

But Mr. Pruitt is not only ignoring staff scientists, he is also sidelining and suppressing advice from highly credentialed and respected scientists who advise the EPA. Last summer, he sacked most of the members of the Board of Scientific Counselors, a committee of leading scientific experts that advises the EPA about newly emerging environmental threats and the best use of federal research dollars. And he has used this as an excuse to suspend the board’s work indefinitely.

More recently, he issued a new policy which states that a key outside Science Advisory Board will no longer include academic scientists who have received EPA grants in the past, under the purported theory that the grants render them less objective. Yet, Administrator Pruitt will fill these posts with industry scientists who are paid exclusively by industry, and with scientists who work for state governments that receive grants from the EPA. This new policy has enabled Mr. Pruitt to fill these boards with scientists who are clearly aligned with industry, scientists such as Michael Honeycutt, who has railed against EPA limits on soot and even testified before Congress that “some studies even suggest PM [particulate matter] makes you live longer.”

Administrator Pruitt’s attack on science also includes the EPA deleting vital information from agency websites. For example, the EPA has deleted key information about the Clean Power Plan, even though the agency is in the middle of a public comment process on whether to repeal that rule, and what to replace it with. The EPA has also eliminated information on the “social cost of carbon” and the record of its finding that the emission of greenhouse gases endangers public health.

These deletions seem designed to make it more difficult for the scientific community, and members of the public, to access the scientific information that stands in the way of Mr. Pruitt’s agenda.

Congress needs to probe deeply on these multiple ways that Administrator Pruitt has diminished the role of science at EPA. Representatives and senators should make him explain why he thinks he knows more about climate science and the harms of pesticides than his scientists do. They should demand that he explain why it is a conflict of interest for academic scientists who receive EPA grants to advise the EPA, but not for state and tribal scientists who receive these grants, or industry-paid scientists. And Congress must find out why so much valuable information about climate science, the social cost of carbon, and other matters have vanished from EPA websites.

Making the world safe for polluters

In December 2015, more than 190 countries, including the United States, approved an agreement in Paris to finally tackle the greatest challenge of our time—runaway climate change. Donald Trump pledged to pull the United States out of this agreement when he ran for office, but for six months into his term, he did not act on the pledge, and there was an internal debate within his administration.

Mr. Pruitt led the charge for the US withdrawal from that agreement. He has followed up on this by going after almost every single rule the Obama administration had put in place to cut global warming emissions. This includes the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, the “re-opening” of the current fuel economy standards that are now on target to roughly double cars’ fuel efficiency by 2025, the repeal of data gathering on methane emissions from oil and gas facilities, and tampering with how the EPA calculates the costs of carbon pollution, among many other actions.

But Administrator Pruitt’s rollback of safeguards is not limited to climate-related rules; it also includes cutting or undermining provisions that protect us all from more conventional pollutants. He has started the process of rescinding rules that limit power plants from discharging toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury and lead into public waterways; regulate the disposal of coal ash in waste pits near waterways; and improve safety at facilities housing dangerous chemicals.

The breadth and ferocity of these rollbacks is unprecedented. Congress needs to push back hard. For starters, representatives and senators need to demand that Mr. Pruitt explain how it fits within his job duties to lobby the president against one of the most important environmental protection agreements ever reached. Similarly, they need to highlight the impacts on human health and the environment from all of the rollbacks that Administrator Pruitt has initiated, and force him to explain how the EPA can be advancing its mission by lowering environmental standards.

Congressional oversight is needed now more than ever

Many aspects of Mr. Pruitt’s tenure are truly unprecedented. However, he’s not the first EPA administrator to display fundamental disrespect for the agency’s mission. As one legal scholar has noted, during the Reagan administration there were “pervasive” congressional concerns that former Administrator Anne Gorsuch and other political appointees at the agency “were entering into ‘sweetheart deals’ with industry, manipulating programs for partisan political ends, and crippling the agency through requests for budget reductions.”

Congressional oversight back then was potent: among other things, Congress demanded that the EPA hand over documents about the apparently lax enforcement of the Superfund law requiring cleanups of hazardous waste sites. When the EPA head refused to comply with those demands, Congress held Administrator Gorsuch in contempt. Senators, including Republicans such as Robert Stafford and Lincoln Chaffee, publicly voiced their alarm. Eventually, President Reagan decided Ms. Gorsuch was a liability, and he replaced her with William Ruckelshaus, EPA’s first administrator under President Nixon, and a well-respected moderate who stabilized the agency.

These oversight efforts were “the decisive factor in causing Ms. Gorsuch, as well as most of the other political appointees at the agency, to resign.”

It may be too much to expect that the current, polarized Congress will exhibit the same level of tough, bipartisan oversight it did in the Reagan era. Yet, bipartisan support for vigorous environmental protection remains strong today and some Republican leaders have already called upon Administrator Pruitt to step down. It is high time for Congress to do what it can to ensure that Mr. Pruitt’s EPA does not continue to put the interests of a few industries ahead of the clean air, water, and lands that the agency is mandated to protect.

]]>
https://blog.ucsusa.org/ken-kimmell/pruitts-war-on-the-planet-and-the-epa/feed 2
The EPA Knows Glider Trucks Are Dangerously Dirty: It’s Time to Keep Them Off the Road https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/the-epa-knows-glider-trucks-are-dangerously-dirty-its-time-to-keep-them-off-the-road https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/the-epa-knows-glider-trucks-are-dangerously-dirty-its-time-to-keep-them-off-the-road#comments Mon, 04 Dec 2017 14:07:04 +0000 https://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=55378
That shiny new truck could have a 15-year-old engine that doesn’t meet today’s standards. Photo: Jeremy Rempel. CC-BY-ND 2.0 (Flickr)

Today, I am speaking at a public hearing at EPA to push back on the agency reopening a “zombie truck” loophole. I wrote about the political motivations behind the attack on public health previously, but we now have even more information about exactly how dirty these trucks are from an interesting source: the EPA itself.

A reminder about what is at stake

Glider vehicles are brand new trucks that are powered by a re-manufactured engine.  While they look like every other new truck on the outside, on the inside they have engines which were manufactured under weaker pollution standards than other new trucks. Because they are resurrecting these older, more highly polluting engines from the dead, they are sometimes referred to as “zombie trucks.”

While initially glider trucks were used to replace vehicles whose bodies had been damaged, more recently a cottage industry has sprung up selling about 20 times more trucks than historic levels solely to bypass pollution restrictions.

In the “Phase II” heavy-duty vehicle regulations, the EPA closed the loophole that allowed these awful pollution spewers to be manufactured in the first place. However, Scott Pruitt’s EPA has proposed repealing this action, reopening the loophole primarily to benefit a company with political ties.

Dirty science for dirty trucks

In support of this repeal, Fitzgerald Trucks (the manufacturer requesting the loophole be reopened) submitted the results of a slapdash series of tests it claimed were from independent researchers.  However, the tests were paid for by Fitzgerald and conducted using Fitzgerald’s equipment in Fitzgerald’s facilities.  The results of the tests were incomplete and indicated that the work was sub-standard. However, we didn’t know just how unscientific the research was until EPA technical staff posted a memo detailing a meeting with the researchers.  Here are just a few of the absurd shortcomings in the tests:

  • Researchers did not use industry standard test procedure, so any numerical results could not be directly compared with regulatory requirements or literally any other research in the technical literature.
  • Researchers did not actually take samples of soot during testing, despite the fact that this is not just carcinogenic but one of the specific pollutants at issue with these engines which causes such detrimental health impacts.  Instead, they “visibly inspected” the test probe. Yes, you read that right–they just looked at it to see if it was dirty.
  • Researchers did not test under any “cold start” conditions. Like when you first turn on your car, this is when the engine emits elevated levels of pollution, which is why it is a standard part of regulatory tests for both cars and trucks.

Believe me when I tell you that I could not get my doctorate if my lab work were of that low quality.

Ignoring the EPA’s own technical data

While pointing to the subpar Fitzgerald / Tennessee Tech data, the EPA was actually aware of much higher quality data being done at its own facilities.  Instead of waiting for these tests to be completed, the politicos at EPA moved forward with the proposed repeal anyway.

Well, the results from those tests are in, and they are at least as bad as the EPA’s technical staff feared.  In fact, it may be even worse:

  • According to the test results, it appears that these engines actually exceed the legal limits they were initially designed for.  This means that the “special programming” of the engine Fitzgerald claims to do to the engines may result in greater fuel economy, but it means greater pollution, too.
  • The soot exhausted by these engines is so large that it caused a fault in the EPA’s equipment, after which the EPA had to adjust the throughput.  A good comparison to this is like when you have your volume adjusted for a TV program you like and then suddenly a really loud commercial comes on…except now imagine that commercial just blew out your speakers.

  • The two collectors on the left of this image are what happened when they first tried to collect the pollution from these vehicles; the two collectors on the right are what it looked like before the test.  Now imagine what that experience must be like for the lungs of a child with asthma.

The EPA had already projected that every year of production of glider vehicles at today’s levels would result in as many as 1600 premature deaths–this new data suggests that number could be even higher.

The science is clear, so closing this loophole should be the easy thing to do.

I am speaking today at the hearing against because I want to make sure EPA listens to its own scientists and closes this loophole, to abide by its mission statement and protect human health and the environment.  And today I will be among a chorus of dedicated citizens reminding the agency of its mission.

EPA
]]>
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/the-epa-knows-glider-trucks-are-dangerously-dirty-its-time-to-keep-them-off-the-road/feed 2
Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards—Under Fire? https://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-under-fire https://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-under-fire#respond Fri, 01 Dec 2017 18:53:38 +0000 http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=55202
Photo: Staff Sgt. Jason Colbert, US Air Force

Last year, transportation became the sector with the largest CO2 emissions in the United States. While the electricity industry has experienced a decline in CO2 emissions since 2008 because of a shift from coal to natural gas and renewables, an equivalent turnaround has not yet occurred in transportation. Reducing emissions in this sector is critical to avoiding the effects of extreme climate change, and the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions standards are an important mechanism to do so.

The most recent vehicle standards, which were issued in 2012, are currently undergoing a review. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is initiating a rulemaking process to set fuel economy standards for vehicle model years 2022-2025. At the same time, DOT is also taking comments on its entire policy roster to evaluate their continued necessity (including the CAFE standards).

A number of criticisms have been raised about fuel efficiency standards, some of which are based more in confusion and misinformation than fact. An intelligent debate about the policy depends on separating false criticisms from those that are uncertain and those that are justified.

In fact, as new research I did with Meredith Fowlie of UC Berkeley and Steven Skerlos of University of Michigan shows, the costs of the standards could actually be significantly lower than other policy analyses have found.

Costs and benefits of the regulations

What my co-authors and I have found is that automakers can respond to the standards in ways that lower the costs and increase the benefits.

Many policy analyses do not account for the tradeoffs that automakers can make between fuel economy and other aspects of vehicle performance, particularly acceleration. We studied the role that these tradeoffs play in automaker responses to the regulations and found that, once they are considered, the costs to consumers and producers were about 40% lower, and reductions in fuel use and GHG emissions were many times higher.

The study finds that the fact that automakers can tradeoff fuel economy and acceleration makes both consumers and producers better off. A large percentage of consumers care more about paying relatively lower prices for vehicles than having faster acceleration. Selling relatively cheaper, more fuel-efficient vehicles with slightly lower acceleration rates to those consumers allows manufacturers to meet the standards with significantly lower profit losses. Consumers that are willing to pay for better acceleration can still buy fast cars.

Debunking some common criticisms

One common criticism is that the regulations mandate fuel economy levels that far exceed any vehicles today. This misconception stems from the frequently quoted figure when the regulations were first issued that they would require 54.5 mpg by 2025. But, the regulations do not actually mandate any fixed level of fuel economy in any year. The fuel-economy standards depend on the types of vehicles that are produced each year. If demand for large vehicles is up, the standards become more lenient; if more small vehicles are sold, they become more strict. The 54.5 mpg number was originally estimated by EPA and DOT in 2012 when gas prices were high. EPA has since revised it to 51.4 mpg to reflect lower gas prices and higher sales of large vehicles. Taking into account flexibilities provided in the regulations and the fact that this number is based on EPA’s lab tests, which yield higher fuel economy than drivers experience on the road, the average target for 2025 is equivalent to approximately 36 mpg on the road. Fueleconomy.gov lists 20 different vehicle models that get at least this fuel economy today.

Another common but unjustified criticism of the standards is that they push consumers into small vehicles. The regulations were specifically designed to reduce any incentive for automakers to make vehicles smaller. The standards are set on a sliding scale of targets for fuel economy and GHG emissions that depend on the sizes of the vehicles. As a result, an automaker that sells larger vehicles has less stringent fuel economy and emissions targets than one that sells smaller vehicles. Research has shown that the policy likely creates an incentive for automakers to produce bigger vehicles, not smaller.

Two easy ways to strengthen the fuel economy standards

There are, of course, advantages and drawbacks to any policy, including today’s vehicle standards, which focus entirely on improving the efficiency of new vehicles.  Fortunately, there are improvements that can be made to the CAFE and GHG regulations to increase their effectiveness and lower costs.

The first is ensuring that automakers that violate the standards pay very high penalties. Companies who cheat steal market share from those that follow the standards, effectively raising the regulatory costs for the automakers that are playing fair.

The second improvement involves the way automakers are able to trade “credits” with each other.  These credits were created to equalize regulatory costs across companies. So, if one automaker finds it relatively easy to reduce emissions, it can reduce more than its share and sell credits to another automaker having trouble reducing emissions. This trading is currently negotiated individually by each pair of automakers, which raises the costs of the transaction. Creating a transparent market to trade these credits would help to achieve the target emission reductions at lower costs.

The Department of Transportation (DOT), which implements the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, is currently soliciting comments on regulations “that are good candidates for repeal, replacement, suspension, or modification.” The comment period ends December 1.

 

Dr. Kate Whitefoot is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. She is a member of the NextManufacturing Center for additive manufacturing research and a Faculty Affiliate at the Carnegie Mellon Scott Institute for Energy Innovation. Professor Whitefoot’s research bridges engineering design theory and analysis with that of economics to inform the design and manufacture of products and processes for improved adoption in the marketplace. Her research interests include sustainable transportation and manufacturing systems, the influence of innovation and technology policies on engineering design and production, product lifecycle systems optimization, and automation with human-machine teaming. Prior to her current position, she served as a Senior Program Officer and the Robert A. Pritzker fellow at the National Academy of Engineering where she directed the Academy’s Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation program.

 

Science Network Voices gives Equation readers access to the depth of expertise and broad perspective on current issues that our Science Network members bring to UCS. The views expressed in Science Network posts are those of the author alone.

]]>
https://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-under-fire/feed 0
More Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Coming to Massachusetts https://blog.ucsusa.org/daniel-gatti/more-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-coming-to-massachusetts https://blog.ucsusa.org/daniel-gatti/more-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-coming-to-massachusetts#respond Fri, 01 Dec 2017 15:00:16 +0000 http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=55225

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities today approved a proposed $45 million investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The investments in electric vehicle infrastructure come as part of a complicated rate case that involves a number of important issues related to rate design, energy efficiency and solar energy. But at least on the electric vehicle part, the utilities and the DPU got it right.

Why do we need more investments in electric vehicle infrastructure?

Electric vehicles are a critical part of Massachusetts’ climate and transportation future. Under Massachusetts’ signature climate law, the Global Warming Solutions Act, the state is legally required to reduce our emissions of global warming pollution by 80 percent by 2050.

Transportation is the largest source of pollution in Massachusetts, and it’s the one area of our economy where emissions have actually grown since 1990. Achieving our climate limits will require the near-complete transition of our vehicle fleet to electric vehicles or other zero-emission vehicle technologies.

The good news is electric vehicles are here, they are fun to drive and cheap to charge, and when plugged in to the relatively clean New England grid, they get the emissions equivalent of a 100 mpg conventional vehicle. EV drivers in the Boston area can save over $500 per year in reduced fuel costs. Electric vehicle technology has advanced to the point where mainstream automakers and countries like China and France are now openly talking about the end of internal combustion engine.

But while the future for EVs is bright, electric vehicles are still a very small share of the overall vehicle fleet. Nationally, EVs represent less than half of one percent of new vehicle sales. In 2012, Massachusetts committed to a goal of putting 300,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2025. Five years later, we are still about 288,000 EV sales short of that goal.

What investments are coming?

One of the biggest challenges facing the growth of electric vehicles is limited infrastructure. People are not going to buy an EV if they don’t know where to plug it in. A survey of Northeast residents conducted last year found that limited access to charging infrastructure is one of the biggest obstacles to EV purchases.

We have had over a hundred years – and billions in public subsidies – to build the infrastructure of refineries, pipelines, and gas stations that service the internal combustion engine. New investments in charging infrastructure are critical to making EVs as convenient as filling up at a gas station.

Today’s decision will speed the transition to electric vehicles by making investments in charging infrastructure. These investments include more funding for infrastructure for people who live in apartment buildings, more fast charging infrastructure along highways, and increasing charging infrastructure in low income communities, and greater access to workplace charging.

Overall, the proposal anticipates the construction of 72 fast-charging stations and 3,955 “Level-2” home and workplace charging ports over the next 5 years. Of those charging ports 10 percent will be in low income communities, where utilities will also provide consumers with a rebate for charging stations. These investments will provide thousands of Massachusetts residents with access to EV charging stations.

The DPU did deny Eversource the right to use ratepayer funds for education and outreach. This is unfortunate, as our survey also found that most Northeast residents are not aware of the many incentives available for EV customers, both here in the Northeast and at the federal level.

What more needs to be done?

One big question that is left out of the decision today: how do we best manage EV charging to maximize the potential benefits to the electric grid.

The key issue is when does EV charging take place? If most people charge their EVs at night, or during times of high production of renewable electricity, then the transition to electric vehicles can make our electric system more efficient and speed the transition to renewables. This will mean significant cost savings.

On the other hand, if EV charging mostly happens during “peak” hours (such as morning and early evening), then adding more EVs onto the grid could strain existing electricity infrastructure and require additional investments in pipelines and power plants. This would both raise emissions and cost ratepayers money.

There’s a simple way to address this issue: provide a financial incentive for EV drivers to charge their vehicles during periods of low demand, a policy known as Time of Use Rates. The DPU decision today punts this issue, accepting the utility position that it will take time and additional data to determine how to best implement TOU rates. While we agree with the DPU that the most important priority is to get the charging infrastructure installed, this is an issue that we and others in the clean transportation community will be watching closely over the next few years.

Photo: Steve Fecht/General Motors
]]>
https://blog.ucsusa.org/daniel-gatti/more-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-coming-to-massachusetts/feed 0
How Much Does it Cost to Charge an Electric Car in Your City? https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/how-much-does-it-cost-to-charge-an-electric-car-in-your-city https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/how-much-does-it-cost-to-charge-an-electric-car-in-your-city#comments Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:15:33 +0000 http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=55133
Everyone can see what gasoline costs, but how much does electricity cost for recharging an electric car? Photo: Tewy CC BY 2.5 Wikimedia)

Most drivers know how much it costs to fill the tank with gasoline. It’s hard to miss the glowing numbers at the corner station.  But how much does it cost to recharge an electric car? And how much money do EVs  save drivers compared to gasoline-powered cars? To help answer these questions, our new report, “Going From Pump to Plug,” looks at the price of recharging an EV at home in the fifty largest cities in the US, as well at public charging stations.

Charging an EV at home can be much cheaper than gasoline

After comparing the findings for large cities across the US, the answer is clear: for every electricity provider we looked at, charging an EV is cheaper than refueling the average new gasoline vehicle.

Compared to using the average new gasoline car, driving on electricity would save on average almost $800 per year in fuel costs.

Find EV savings in your city:

However, where you live and what electric rate plan you choose can change your savings. For almost all EV drivers, choosing a time-of-use (TOU) electric rate plan is needed to see the largest savings.

A TOU plan gives cheaper electric rates during off-peak periods (often late at night), with higher rates for using electricity during high-demand times. Because most EVs are parked at home overnight, TOU rates are a good fit for most EV drivers.

In some cities, especially in California, TOU rates are essential for saving money on fuel costs. For example, in my home in Oakland, CA, recharging using the standard electricity plan is equal to buying gasoline at $3.34/gallon, while using the TOU plan only costs the equivalent of $1.03/gallon.

Public EV charging costs are variable

Costs to charge at public charging stations varies considerably. Some stations are free, while others can cost over twice as much as home charging. However, the impact of public charger costs is often muted by the high preponderance of home charging.  For example, a San Francisco driver that uses higher-cost DC fast charging for 20 percent of charging would only see their average fuel costs increase from $0.78/gallon equivalent to $1.35/gallon.

Savings on maintenance, too

Drivers of battery electric vehicles also can have significantly lower maintenance costs. These EVs have no engine, so no oil changes, spark plugs, or engine air filter to change. Instead, the electric motors and batteries require little to no attention. This means less time and money spent on routine car maintenance. Comparing the Chevy Bolt EV to the Chevy Sonic gasoline car, the Bolt owner will spend over $1,500 less on scheduled maintenance over the first 150,000 miles.

Policies needed to ensure all can access these EV benefits

Electric vehicles can save drivers on fuel and maintenance costs, at the same time they help reduce global warming emissions and air pollution. However, good policies are needed to make sure that all can access the benefits of EVs.

  • Buyers need to be able to afford EVs. Currently, EVs cost more to manufacture compared to similar-sized gasoline cars. These manufacturing costs are coming down as EV production volumes increase and technology advances, but federal, state, and local purchase incentives are vital to accelerate the transition from gasoline to electricity.
  • Policies are needed to ensure that everyone can recharge an EV at a price lower than gasoline cost. Regulators and electricity providers should ensure that EV customers can access lower-cost electricity rate plans, which are key to making EVs a reliable and affordable alternative to gasoline vehicles. Solutions are needed for those who cannot charge at home and those that must drive long distances. Therefore, access is essential to reliable and affordable public charging, especially fast-charging stations. Also, public policies that improve charging options at apartments and multi-unit dwellings will broaden the base of drivers who can choose an EV.
  • Public policies should require manufacturers to produce higher volumes of EVs and encourage a greater diversity of electric-drive models and sizes. There are many more models of EVs available now as compared to just a few years ago, but there is still a lack of some types of vehicles with electric such as pickup trucks. Also, not all manufacturers offer EVs nationwide, making it more difficult for buyers to find and test drive an EV.

Policies like these can help ensure that everyone has access to EVs and can make personal transportation choices that both save them money and reduce their carbon footprint.

]]>
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/how-much-does-it-cost-to-charge-an-electric-car-in-your-city/feed 2
Will Automakers Walk the Talk on EVs? Four Things to Look for at the 2017 Los Angeles Auto Show https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/will-automakers-walk-the-talk-on-evs-four-things-to-look-for-at-the-2017-los-angeles-auto-show https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/will-automakers-walk-the-talk-on-evs-four-things-to-look-for-at-the-2017-los-angeles-auto-show#comments Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:29:07 +0000 http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=55100
Chevy Bolt featured in the 2016 LA Autoshow. Photo: Dave Reichmuth

I’ll be attending this year’s Los Angeles Auto Show to check out the latest and greatest in vehicle technology. While the flashy presentations of the automakers will certainly grab attention, here are four things that I’ll really be paying attention to:

Are there more electric vehicle (EV) options?

The future of transportation is electric drive, but we are a long way from replacing all gasoline and diesel cars with EVs (both plug-in and fuel cell EVs). One barrier in the way of transitioning to electric cars is the availability of EV models. In California, EV sales have been increasing over the last few years, with plug-in sales reaching 4.5 percent of all cars and trucks sold in the state this year. This is a great start, but we’ll have to go a lot further to meet our air quality and climate pollution reduction goals. To get to higher levels of EV sales, we’ll need to start seeing more EV models and a larger selection of sizes and styles available. So, I’ll be looking for what new options are coming, especially in the larger-size vehicle segments like SUVs.

Will automakers showcase the available technologies powering cleaner, more efficient cars?

While the future is electric, many of the cars sold over the next 5 to 10 years will have a combustion engine. Making those conventionally-powered cars and trucks as clean as possible will be important to reduce air pollution and climate-changing emissions. The good news is that the technology needed to meet clean car standards is available and starting to be used by many automakers. This means I’ll expect to see more efficient engines like smaller, turbocharged four- and six-cylinder engines replacing larger and thirstier naturally-aspirated engines.

Last year, Nissan showed off an innovative variable compression engine that promises both higher power and better efficiency, but hadn’t released a vehicle using it. Will this year see this engine go into production?

Many automakers are talking EVs. Who’s actually following through?

When I visited the show last year, I heard from automakers detailing plans to electrify their cars and saw a number of new EVs promised for 2017. But how much was talk and who actually followed through? Some companies did bring out successful EVs. A year ago, the Chevy Bolt EV was about to go on sale and just last month it became the sales leader for EVs. Toyota’s Prius Prime was also new to the market last November and is now a top-selling EV. On the other hand, cars like Hyundai’s Ioniq EV had an impressive press showing, but since then has been virtually nonexistent in the US market, with less than 400 sales this year to date.

In California, the division between EV market leaders and laggards is stark: For the first 9 months of 2017, 11 percent of BMW-branded vehicles were plug-ins and Chevrolet had over 14 percent plug-in sales! Over the same period, Honda had less than 0.3 percent electric drive sales, Hyundai sold just over 1 percent EVs, and Subaru sold more than 55,000 cars in the state without a single plug-in option available.

Both the Chevy Bolt EV (left) and Hyundai Ioniq BEV (right) were featured at last year’s LA Auto Show. However, General Motors has sold over 17,000 Bolts in 2017 so far compared to less than 400 sales for Hyundai’s Ioniq. 

There were also several concept and prototype EVs at the show during the last couple of years. Will any of them show up this year as production models? Our research into the EV market last year showed that there a number of automakers that are lagging their peers in making EVs available, despite claims of progress. Our report shows that even though most companies now offer electric vehicles, many are not truly available (especially outside California). The first step in catching up is to start making EVs in volume and marketing them like they do their gasoline cars.

What models are emphasized by the manufacturers?

The LA Auto Show starts with a preview for media, with press conferences and displays of the automakers’ latest offerings. Then, after the press and auto industry executives are gone, the show opens to the public, becoming a showroom for virtually every car, truck, and SUV on the market in the US.

It’s interesting to see what models the manufacturers emphasize for each audience. For example, in 2015, Audi featured a prototype of a full-size all-electric SUV on its stage for the press days, but it was gone by the public days. Last year, Nissan didn’t even show its electric car, the LEAF on the press days. Other brands, like Chevrolet and BMW grouped their electric offerings and called attention to them for both the press and public days.

This inconsistent effort by some manufacturers at an auto show is indicative of the larger struggle playing out within the major automakers. On one hand, the car companies acknowledge that EVs are the future of transportation and will be needed to meet global emissions and EV standards being set by countries around the globe. However, they also have decades of expertise in designing and making gasoline-powered cars and trucks. This provides a powerful incentive to resist the inevitable switch from oil to electricity as the primary fuel for our personal vehicles. That’s why it’s important that we have regulations and incentives in place that both ensure that gasoline vehicles are as clean as possible while also pushing the automakers to move as quickly as possible away from combustion altogether.

 

 

 

]]>
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/will-automakers-walk-the-talk-on-evs-four-things-to-look-for-at-the-2017-los-angeles-auto-show/feed 2
Hey Congress! Here’s Why You Can’t Scrap The Electric Vehicle Tax Credit https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/hey-congress-heres-why-you-cant-scrap-the-electric-vehicle-tax-credit https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/hey-congress-heres-why-you-cant-scrap-the-electric-vehicle-tax-credit#respond Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:14:33 +0000 http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=55025

The fate of the federal tax credit for electric vehicles hangs in the balance. The House version of the GOP-led tax plan removes it entirely while the Senate version (as of Friday, November 17th) keeps it on the books. As lawmakers work to combine the House-passed bill with the Senate version, let’s examine why the EV tax credit shouldn’t be eliminated.

What is the federal tax credit for electric vehicles?

Section 30d of the tax code gives electric vehicle buyers up to $7,500 off their tax bill – or allows leasing companies to receive the credit and lease EVs for lower rates.

The credit is scheduled to phase out for each automaker that surpasses 200,000 EV sales. Some of the early entrants to the EV scene, like Tesla, General Motors and Nissan, are forecast to hit the 200,000 limit in 2018, while others, like BMW, Volkswagen, and Ford, are relying on the federal tax credit to offset the price of EVs that are set to hit dealerships in the next couple years.

What has America gotten for investing in EVs?

The EV tax credit has stimulated a market for vehicles that are cheaper to drive, pollute half as much, and offer a simply better driving experience compared to gas-powered vehicles. If you think that automakers would have produced EVs without the prompting of state and federal policy, may I remind you that automakers fought tooth and nail against seatbelts and air bags, improving fuel efficiency, and pretty much every other vehicle-related regulation that has ultimately benefitted public health and safety. Consumers deserve the opportunity to choose clean vehicles, and the federal tax credit has made that choice easier to make by offsetting the upfront cost of EVs that is often higher than comparable gas vehicles.

The tax credit has also spurred domestic automakers to get in on the EV game. American companies like General Motors and Tesla sell EVs in all 50 states, and are competing with foreign auto giants to become the global leader in EV sales. At a time when EV demand is poised to skyrocket in other countries, eliminating the federal credit will hamper domestic automaker efforts to both sell EVs on their own turf and maintain their global competitiveness.

Federal support for EVs won’t be needed forever

As I’ve previously discussed, the federal tax credit is the most important federal policy supporting the EV market, but won’t be needed forever. Battery costs are forecast to continue their decline, with some projections showing EVs becoming price competitive with gasoline-fueled vehicles in the mid-2020’s. By making EVs cost competitive today, the federal tax credit has helped EVs gain a fingerhold in a market monopolized by gasoline-powered vehicles that have had over a century to mature. Removing the credit now is premature, and will cause EV sales to suffer at a time when the market is just beginning to gain traction.

What will happen to the EV market without the credit?

Even if the federal tax credit is eliminated, the California Zero Emission Vehicle Program will still require automakers to sell EVs in California and the 9 other states that adopted the ZEV program. This program will require EV sales in states that comprised about a quarter of the U.S. vehicle market, so EVs will certainly remain available for sale. Other state support for EVs, like a $5,000 tax rebate in Colorado, will survive too. For state-level EV incentives in your area, check out this handy guide. EVs will also remain cheaper to drive, and a smart choice for millions of Americans who have a strong demand for the technology. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that one of the primary hurdles to more EV adoption is their price (along with access to charging in multi-unit dwellings and the lack of a cheap EV SUV (see Tesla Model Y). So taking away a policy that directly addresses this barrier will make it harder to own an EV, and it will hurt sales. Georgia removed a state tax credit for electric vehicles, and sales dropped an estimated 90% in the following months. I’m not expecting as dramatic as a drop if the federal credit is removed, but EV sales will drop because they will become more expensive and automakers will have less incentive to making them available in the U.S.

So, join UCS in telling Congress that you deserve more clean vehicle options, and that the EV tax credit is a key federal policy that makes it easier to own an EV. Also keep an eye on the UCS website for additional ways you can get involved, and if you are considering an EV, getting one now might be a good option if you are looking to save at least $7,500 of its sticker price.

]]>
https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/hey-congress-heres-why-you-cant-scrap-the-electric-vehicle-tax-credit/feed 0
Tesla, Electric Semi-Trucks and Equity https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy-odea/tesla-electric-semi-trucks-and-equity https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy-odea/tesla-electric-semi-trucks-and-equity#comments Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:56:31 +0000 http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=55002
A truck believed to be Tesla's was spotted last month.

Today is the unveiling of Tesla’s electric semi-truck. There’s been a lot of interest in this truck since it was referenced last summer in Tesla’s master plan. As sales indicate, Tesla makes sought-after electric cars and the potential for the company to replicate this success in the heavy-duty sector is an exciting prospect for clean air and climate change.

While Tesla isn’t the first company to unveil an electric big rig, its likely the first one many people have heard about. Electric truck technology – spanning delivery trucks, garbage trucks, transit buses, school buses, and semi-trucks – exists and is ready to be deployed. The more people that know about these vehicles, the better for our climate and air quality.

As the unveiling nears, excitement about Tesla’s truck has been tempered by news about the company’s labor conditions and accusations of discrimination at the company. While zero-emission trucks are critically important, so are safe and equitable workplaces. Fair work conditions go hand-in-hand with the long-term success of any business.

My hope is that Tesla becomes recognized for the quality of its workplace as much as the quality of its vehicles. I personally believe this is possible.

Job agreements, like the one made between Jobs to Move America and the electric vehicle maker BYD, are one example of how companies can do good for their employees and communities. The Greenlining Institute found that with the right job-training and hiring efforts, truck and bus electrification can be a catalyst for economic opportunity in underserved communities and help overcome racial inequities in wealth and employment.

So why are heavy-duty electric vehicles important in the first place?

Trucks and buses make up a small fraction of vehicle population, but a large fraction of vehicle emissions. In California, for example, heavy-duty vehicles, make up 7 percent of vehicles, but 33 percent of NOx emissions from all sources, 20 percent of global warming emissions from the transportation sector, and emit more particulate matter than all of the state’s power plants, see here.

Note, heavy-duty vehicles are defined here as having gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 8,500 lbs, e.g., a small moving truck.

Electric trucks, whether manufactured by Tesla or anyone else, are essential to solving climate change and reducing air pollution. On California’s grid today, a heavy-duty electric vehicle with middle-of-the-road efficiency has 70 percent lower life cycle global warming emissions than a comparable diesel and natural gas vehicle. Electric vehicles also don’t have any tailpipe emissions of NOx, particulate matter, or other pollutants. What this means for communities, especially those near freight corridors, is lower risks from the harmful consequences of dirty air.

What about the performance of electric trucks?

We’ve already seen how Toyota’s fuel cell electric truck stacks up against a diesel truck in terms of acceleration. High torque (i.e., ability to move from a standstill) of electric motors compared to combustion engines is something all electric vehicles excel at.

Given the class leading acceleration and battery range of Tesla’s cars, we can expect similar high performance from its electric truck. Other manufacturers are operating or have unveiled battery and fuel cell semi-trucks with ranges of 100 miles (BYD, Cummins) to 200 miles (Fuso, Toyota, US Hybrid). If reports are true, Tesla’s semi-truck could travel 200 to 300 miles on a single charge.

Zero-emission trucks offered or in development from BYD, Cummins, Toyota, and Daimler (Mitsubishi Fuso).

Despite the image of long-haul, “over-the-road” trucking, 100 to 200 miles of range can meet the needs of many heavy-duty trucks with local and regional operations. A range of 300 miles would be the longest by 80 miles and put to rest any hesitations about range for many local/regional (“day cab”) applications.

In California, there are 20,000 semi-trucks serving ports in the state. So-called “drayage” trucks deliver cargo to and from ports and warehouses in the region and are excellent candidates for electric trucks with today’s range. Conversion of these trucks alone to zero-emission vehicles would have significant air quality benefits for communities near ports and warehouses.

Cross-country trucking is a bigger challenge for electric trucks, but success in local operations is the first step to proving the functionality and economics of moving freight over longer distances with zero-emission vehicles. Tom Randall at Bloomberg shows scenarios under which Tesla’s truck could make economic sense for day cab or over-the-road applications.

In all, the momentum we’re seeing across the industry for zero-emission trucks is incredibly exciting. And just as we hold manufacturers and policy makers accountable for clean air, we must do the same for good jobs.

Reddit
Clockwise: BYD, Cummins, Toyota, Daimler
]]>
https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy-odea/tesla-electric-semi-trucks-and-equity/feed 1