Automotive
State: 1 in 5 charge failures a ‘substantial risk’ to Washington’s EV strategy
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
Biden-Harris Admin’s EV Coercion Campaign Hasn’t Really Gone All That Well
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The future direction of federal energy policy related to the transportation sector is a key question that will be determined in one way or another by the outcome of the presidential election. What remains unclear is the extent of change that a Trump presidency would bring.
Given that Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk is a major supporter of former President Donald Trump, it seems unlikely a Trump White House would move to try to end the EV subsidies and tax breaks included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Those provisions, of course, constitute the “carrot” end of the Biden-Harris carrot-and-stick suite of policies designed to promote the expansion of EVs in the U.S. market.
The “stick” side of that approach comes in the form of stricter tailpipe emissions rules and higher fleet auto-mileage requirements imposed on domestic carmakers. While a Harris administration would likely seek to impose even more federal pressure through such command-and-control regulatory measures, a Trump administration would likely be more inclined to ease them.
But doing that is difficult and time-consuming and much would depend on the political will of those Trump appoints to lead the relevant agencies and departments.
Those and other coercive EV-related policies imposed during the Biden-Harris years have been designed to move the U.S. auto industry directionally to meet the administration’s stated goal of having EVs make up a third of the U.S. light duty fleet by 2030. The suite of policies does not constitute a hard mandate per se but is designed to produce a similar pre-conceived outcome.
It is the sort of heavy-handed federal effort to control markets that Trump has spoken out against throughout his first term in office and his pursuit of a second term.
A new report released this week by big energy data and analytics firm Enverus seems likely to influence prospective Trump officials to take a more favorable view of the potential for EVs to grow as a part of the domestic transportation fleet. Perhaps the most surprising bit of news in the study, conducted by Enverus subsidiary Enverus Intelligence Research (EIR), is a projection that EVs are poised to be lower-priced than their equivalent gas-powered models as soon as next year, due to falling battery costs.
“Battery costs have fallen rapidly, with 2024 cell costs dipping below $100/kWh. We predict from [2025] forward EVs will be more affordable than their traditional, internal combustible engine counterparts,” Carson Kearl, analyst at EIR, says in the release. Kearl further says that EIR expects the number of EVs on the road in the US to “exceed 40 million (20%) by 2035 and 80 million (40%) by 2040.”
The falling battery costs have been driven by a collapse in lithium prices. Somewhat ironically, that price collapse has in turn been driven by the failure of EV expansion to meet the unrealistic goal-setting mainly by western governments, including the United States. Those same cause-and-effect dynamics would most likely mean that prices for lithium, batteries and EVs would rise again if the rapid market penetration projected by EIR were to come to fruition.
In the U.S. market, the one and only certainty of all of this is that something is going to have to change, and soon. On Monday, Ford Motor Company reported it lost another $1.2 billion in its Ford Model e EV division in the 3rd quarter, bringing its accumulated loss for the first 9 months of 2024 to $3.7 billion.
Energy analyst and writer Robert Bryce points out in his Substack newsletter that that Model e loss is equivalent to the $3.7 billion profit Ford has reported this year in its Ford Blue division, which makes the company’s light duty internal combustion cars and trucks.
While Tesla is doing fine, with recovering profits and a rising stock price amid the successful launch of its CyberTruck and other new products, other pure-play EV makers in the United States are struggling to survive. Ford’s integrated peers GM and Stellantis have also struggled with the transition to more EV model-heavy fleets.
None of this is sustainable, and a recalibration of policy is in order. Next Tuesday’s election will determine which path the redirection of policy takes.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Automotive
Trudeau’s new vehicle ban is a non starter
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Kris Sims
The Trudeau government’s ban on new gas and diesel vehicles is a nonstarter for three powerful reasons.
First, Canadians want to drive gas-powered minivans and diesel pickups.
Second, Canada does not have the electrical power to fuel these battery-powered cars.
Third, Canadians do not have the money to build the power-generating stations that would be needed to power these government-mandated vehicles.
Let’s start on the showroom floor.
The Trudeau government is banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035.
In about 10 years’ time, Canadians will not be allowed to buy a new vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine because the government will forbid it.
Canadians disagree with this.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing 59 per cent of Canadians oppose the federal government’s ban on new gas and diesel vehicles.
Among those who are decided on the issue, 67 per cent of Canadians, and majorities in every demographic, oppose the Trudeau government’s ban.
Now let’s look under the hood.
Canada does not have the electricity to charge these battery-powered cars. The government hasn’t presented any plan to pay for the power plants, transmission lines and charging stations for these government-mandated vehicles.
That leaves a big question: How much will this cost taxpayers?
Canada’s vehicle transition could cost up to $300 billion by 2040 to expand the electrical grid, according to a report for Natural Resources Canada.
Let’s look at why this will cost so much.
The average Canadian household uses about 10,861 kWh in electricity per year. The average electric car uses about 4,500 kWh of energy per year.
The average household’s electricity use would jump by about 40 per cent if they bought one EV and charged it at home.
Canada is home to 24 million cars and light trucks that run on gasoline and diesel, according to Statistics Canada.
If all those vehicles were powered by electricity and batteries, that fleet would use about 108 million mWh of power every year.
For context, one large CANDU nuclear reactor at the Darlington nuclear plant in Ontario generates about 7,750,000 mWh of power per year.
Canada would require about 14 of these reactors to power all of those electric cars.
Building a large nuclear reactor costs about $12.5 billion.
That’s a price tag of about $175 billion just for all the power plants. The Natural Resources report estimates the transition to electric vehicles could cost up to $300 billion in total, when new charging stations and power lines are included.
Who would be paying that tab? Normal Canadians through higher taxes and power bills.
Canadians cannot afford the cost of these mandatory electric vehicles because they’re broke.
Canadians are broke largely because of high taxes and high inflation, both driven by the Trudeau government’s wasteful spending.
About half of Canadians say they are within $200 of not being able to make the minimum payments on their bills each month. That’s also known as barely scraping by.
Food banks are facing record demand, with a sharp increase in working families needing help. That means parents who are holding down jobs are still depending on donated jars of peanut butter to feed their kids.
Rubbing salt into the wound, the federal government also put taxpayers on the hook for about $30 billion to multinational corporations like Honda, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt to build EV battery factories.
The roadside sobriety test is complete, and the Trudeau government is blowing a fail on this policy.
Canadians are opposed to the Trudeau government banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.
Canada does not have the electricity to charge these battery-powered cars.
Canadians don’t have the money to build the new power plants, transmission lines and charging stations these vehicles would demand.
It’s time to tow this ban on new gas and diesel vehicles to the scrapyard.
Franco Terrazzano is the Federal Director and Kris Sims is the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
-
Automotive2 days ago
Biden-Harris Admin’s EV Coercion Campaign Hasn’t Really Gone All That Well
-
Alberta2 days ago
Preparation, swift response define wildfire season
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta Bill of Rights Amendment, Bill 24 – Stronger protections for personal rights
-
Business20 hours ago
Premiers fight to lower gas taxes as Trudeau hikes pump costs
-
Alberta2 days ago
Another Blow To The Carbon Tax
-
Economy2 days ago
One Solution to Canada’s Housing Crisis: Move. Toronto loses nearly half million people to more affordable locations
-
Alberta1 day ago
Heavy-duty truckers welcome new ‘natural gas highway’ in Alberta
-
Economy1 day ago
Gas prices plummet in BC thanks to TMX pipeline expansion