Automotive
State: 1 in 5 charge failures a ‘substantial risk’ to Washington’s EV strategy
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/864d9/864d97ef76523b9fc5996f3bb4aec685b7df518a" alt=""
From The Center Square
By TJ Martinell
The Harvard study also noted a lack of public charging ports in regions of Washington such as Ferry County, where the county’s only existing public charging port has been removed. It’s a problem the Harvard study attributes to a lack of EV car sales.
Washington state’s goal of shifting the transportation sector away from fossil fuels and toward electrification is at “substantial risk” due to the documented unreliability of public charging stations, according to a state electric vehicle council.
Per a state law, the sale and registration of fossil fuel vehicles made in 2030 or after will be illegal in Washington. To make the use of EVs feasible, the state will need to have fast-charging electric vehicle ports every 50 miles across the state highway state, and 3 million total in both public and private charging ports.
But, there’s a catch.
The estimate assumes every one of the public charging ports will be functional.
Meanwhile, one out of every five attempted charges at a public port fails, according to a Harvard-led study. Released in June, the study found that just 78% of attempted charges at the nation’s roughly 64,000 public port succeeds, making them less reliable than gas stations.
“Imagine if you go to a traditional gas station and two out of 10 times the pumps are out of order,” scholar Omar Asensio said in a news release.
Asensio is the climate fellow at Harvard Business School’s Institute for the Study of Business in Global Society, or BiGS, and led the study.
The Harvard study also noted a lack of public charging ports in regions of Washington such as Ferry County, where the county’s only existing public charging port has been removed. It’s a problem the Harvard study attributes to a lack of EV car sales.
The one in five failure rate could prove to be a logistical challenge for the state EV Coordinating Council, which is tasked with creating the electrification strategy for the state’s transportation sector, with public charging ports a key aspect of that strategy.
The state Legislature has already invested $184 million for passenger EV charging to build 752 fast charging ports, while additional federal funding is expected to bring the total to 1,019 fast charging ports; the state currently has 1,283 fast charging ports in presumed operation.
The council’s Transportation Electrification Strategy estimates there will need to be 3,030 public fast charging ports for light-duty vehicles by 2025; the council estimates that there will need to be 728 private ports to meet EV charging demand.
However, in an Aug. 6 draft proposal under development by the Washington State Department of Commerce’s Clean Transportation Unit, it states that the failure rate means “the state would need to overbuild total ports to reach the targets.
“Public fast charging investments and reliability need stronger improvement,” the proposal goes on to say. “For consumers without experience using an EV, it is often not clear that most charging takes place at home unless such access is not feasible or driving exceeds 150-200 miles each day. This makes public charging convenience and reliability a key component of public willingness to make the transition to electric.”
However, the draft proposal adds that “beyond ensuring there’s sufficient public charging access to support EV adoption, unreliable public charging is a substantial risk to adoption if not urgently improved. Reliability is especially key because there was no reliability factor assumed, meaning a port needed is assumed to be a port that functions.”
The current draft proposal seeks $103 million for the 2025-27 operating budget, $90 million of which would fund an ongoing EV rebate program that started earlier this month.
The Department of Commerce is currently soliciting public feedback on the draft proposal through a survey that is open through Aug. 16. The draft proposal is ultimately due to the Governor’s Office by Sept. 10.
TJ Martinell
Staff Reporter
Automotive
Nissan, Honda scrap $60B merger talks amid growing tensions
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dea5c/dea5c3c2fd667fc74db35f1edb966fef0d6271a3" alt=""
Quick Hit:
Nissan is reportedly abandoning merger talks with Honda, scrapping a $60 billion deal that would have created the world’s third-largest automaker. The collapse raises questions about Nissan’s turnaround strategy as it faces challenges from electric vehicle competitors and potential U.S. tariffs.
Key Details:
- Nissan shares dropped over 4% following the news, while Honda’s stock surged more than 8%, signaling investor relief.
- Honda reportedly proposed making Nissan a subsidiary, a move Nissan rejected as it was initially framed as a merger of equals.
- Nissan is struggling with financial challenges and the transition to EVs, still reeling from the 2018 scandal involving former chairman Carlos Ghosn.
Diving Deeper:
Merger talks between Nissan and Honda have collapsed, according to sources, after months of negotiations to form an auto giant capable of competing with Chinese EV makers like BYD. The proposed deal, valued at over $60 billion, would have created the world’s third-largest automaker. However, differences in strategy and control ultimately derailed the discussions.
Reports indicate that Honda, Japan’s second-largest automaker, wanted Nissan to become a subsidiary rather than an equal merger partner. Nissan balked at the idea, leading to the collapse of negotiations. Honda’s market valuation of approximately $51.9 billion dwarfs Nissan’s, which may have fueled concerns about control. The failure of talks sent Nissan’s stock tumbling more than 4% in Tokyo, while Honda’s shares rose over 8%, reflecting investor confidence in Honda’s independent strategy.
Nissan, already in the midst of a turnaround plan involving 9,000 job cuts and a 20% reduction in global capacity, now faces mounting pressure to restructure on its own. Analysts warn that the failed merger raises uncertainty about Nissan’s ability to compete in an industry rapidly shifting toward EVs. “Investors may get concerned about Nissan’s future [and] turnaround,” Morningstar analyst Vincent Sun said.
Complicating matters further, Nissan faces heightened risks from U.S. tariffs under President Donald Trump’s trade policies. Potential tariffs on vehicles manufactured in Mexico could hit Nissan harder than competitors like Honda and Toyota. The stalled deal also impacts Nissan’s existing alliance with Renault, which had expressed openness to the merger. Renault holds a 36% stake in Nissan, including 18.7% through a French trust.
While both Nissan and Honda have stated they will finalize a direction by mid-February, the collapse of this deal signals deep divisions in Japan’s auto industry. With Nissan’s financial struggles and the growing dominance of Chinese EV makers, the company must now navigate an increasingly challenging market without external support.
Automotive
Trudeau must repeal the EV mandate
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/84c49/84c498ae4c105e07b27a39be7d6e87b1988eb51f" alt=""
Last Monday, Transport Canada released a bombshell statement, announcing that the Trudeau government’s program granting a $5,000 rebate to Canadians purchasing an Electric Vehicle (EV) had run out of money and would be discontinued, “effective immediately.” This followed a prior announcement from the government of Quebec that they would be suspending their own subsidy, which had amounted to $7,000 per EV purchased.
This is, of course, a game changer for an industry which the Trudeau government (as well as the Ford government in Ontario) has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in. That’s because, no matter the country, the EV industry is utterly dependent upon a system of carrots and sticks from the government, in the form of subsidies and mandates.
EVs have remained notably more expensive than traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, even with those government incentive programs. Without them the purchase of EVs becomes impossible for all but the wealthiest Canadians.
Which is fine. Let the rich people have their toys, if they want them. Though if they justify the expense by saying that they’re saving the planet by it, I may be tempted to deflate them a bit by pointing out that EVs are in no way appreciably better for the environment than ICE vehicles, how all the lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, copper, etc, contained in just one single EV battery requires displacing about 500,000 lbs of earth. Mining these materials often takes place in poorer countries with substandard environmental regulations.
Moreover, the weight of those batteries means that EVs burn through tires more quickly than gas-and-diesel driven vehicles, and wear down roads faster as well, which among other issues leads to an increase in particulate matter in the air, what in the old days we referred to as “pollution.”
That is a potential issue, but one that is mitigated by the fact that EVs make up a small minority of cars on the road. Regular people have proved unwilling to drive them, and that will be even more true now that the consumer subsidies have disappeared.
Of course, it will be an issue if the Trudeau Liberals get their way. You see, Electric Vehicles are one of the main arenas in their ongoing battle with reality. And so even with the end of their consumer subsidies, they remain committed to their mandates requiring every new vehicle purchased in Canada to be electric by 2035, now just a decade away!
They’ve done away with the carrots, and they’re hoping to keep this plan moving with sticks alone.
This is, in a word, madness.
As I’ve said before, the Electric Vehicle mandate is a terrible policy, and one which should be repealed immediately. Canada is about the worst place to attempt this particular experiment with social engineering. It is famously cold, and EVs are famously bad in the cold, charging much slower in frigid temperatures and struggling to hold a charge. Which itself is a major issue, because our country is also enormous and spread out, meaning that most Canadians have to do a great deal of driving to get from “Point A” to “Point B.”
Canada is sorely lacking in the infrastructure which would be required to keep EVs on the road. We currently have less than 30,000 public charging stations nationwide, which is more than 400,000 short of Natural Resources Canada’s projection of what we will need to support the mandated total EV transition.
Our electrical grid is already stressed, without the addition of tens of millions of battery powered vehicles being plugged in every night over a very short time. And of course, irony of ironies, this transition is supposed to take place while our activist government is pushing us on to less reliable energy sources, like wind and solar!
Plus, as I’ve pointed out before, the economic case for EVs, such as it was, has been completely upended by the recent U.S. election. Donald Trump’s victory means that our neighbors to the south are in no immediate danger of being forced to ditch gas-and-diesel driven cars. Consequently, the pitch by the Trudeau and Ford governments that Canada was putting itself at the center of an evolving auto market has fallen flat. In reality, they’ve shackled us to a corpse.
So on behalf of my fellow Canadians I say, “Thank you,” to the government for no longer burning our tax dollars on this particular subsidy. But that isn’t even half the battle. It must be followed through with an even bigger next step.
They must repeal the EV mandate.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
-
Business2 days ago
Government debt burden increasing across Canada
-
International22 hours ago
Jihadis behead 70 Christians in DR Congo church
-
Health2 days ago
Trudeau government buys 500k bird flu vaccines to be ‘ready’ for potential ‘health threats’
-
Health2 days ago
Trump HHS officially declares only two sexes: ‘Back to science and common sense’
-
Business2 days ago
New climate plan simply hides the costs to Canadians
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Bipartisan US Coalition Finally Tells Europe, and the FBI, to Shove It
-
Business1 day ago
Federal Heritage Minister recommends nearly doubling CBC funding and reducing accountability
-
Alberta1 day ago
Open letter to Ottawa from Alberta strongly urging National Economic Corridor