Fire, Aim, Ready -- There Is Skepticism whether the U.S. Will Be Ready or if Consumers even Want EVs

2024 Election Agriculture (USDA)Business News/Analysis Deliver Dispense Environmental Protection Agency Federal Agency/Executive Branch Funding/Financing/Investing Infrastructure Marketing/Market Forces and Sales Opinions Policy Sustainability Tennessee White House

July 08, 2024

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Allen Schaeffer (Engine Technology Forum/Biobased Diesel Daily) New “technology-neutral” federal regulations are designed to drive automakers toward electric vehicles, but there is skepticism whether the U.S. will be ready or if consumers even want this.

Image: Rich Kassel, AJW Inc.

Fire, aim, ready—that’s one assessment of the playbook for how climate and energy policy are being made in the U.S. as the shift to a clean-energy economy picks up full steam.

Three new regulations issued by U.S. EPA will mark what will be remembered as the most consequential three-month period in regulatory history because of their cost and impact on society. The rules establish new emissions and efficiency standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles, commercial vehicles and power plants. All of the rules are driven by efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions and fundamentally they are driving the economy away from fossil fuels. The target sectors have been identified and the rules have been launched, but there is growing skepticism about whether the U.S. is or will be ready for this transformation.

New automobile tailpipe-emissions standards were announced as “technology neutral,” according to EPA, but in reality they are designed to drive manufacturers toward zero-emission—and preferably electric—vehicles (ZEV); 30 percent to 56 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales and about 20 percent to 32 percent of new medium-duty sales would be battery electric by 2032. As for heavy-duty trucks, about 40 percent of Class 8 tractor-trailer size trucks would likely be ZEV by 2032. Power plants are likely to see the end of coal-fired generation with the new rules. EPA backed off moving fully away from natural gas but applied extremely stringent rules requiring carbon capture for any new power plants.

There are many common features of these three rules. They were scaled back from initial proposals in time and expectations for achieving the switchover to lower- or zero-carbon fuels and technologies. In the case of the automotive-sector rules, if you read between the lines there is a continued, and likely dominant, future role for advanced internal-combustion vehicles. The automotive and power-plant rules have been characterized as unrealistic in timeframes and certainty of market conditions. Both are heavily dependent on the development of a completely new fueling infrastructure (solar, wind, electric) in record time and consumers willing to adopt new lifestyles for their new technology.

In the case of heavy-duty trucks, to meet the envisioned ZEV goals, one industry association estimated that 1,995 heavy-duty electric chargers must be installed nationwide each and every month between now and the rule’s effective date in 2032. Is our grid even able to realistically deliver clean electrons from renewable power sources in a timeframe that makes this work? Probably not.

Where are renewable fuels in these new carbon-cutting policies? Regrettably they are mostly on the sidelines. EPA’s tailpipe rather than lifecycle emissions approach diminishes the opportunity for carbon reductions from renewable fuels. Renewable fuel producers and suppliers are making investments for more capacity while also expanding feedstocks. What is missing is a correspondingly progressive and growth-oriented policy from government.

And then there’s the money. The Biden administration delivers a near constant flow of funding for all aspects of electrification: $900 million for electric-vehicle (EV) charging stations; $623 million in grants to build out the EV-charging network; $46 million to boost EV-charging performance, to name just a few. The New York Times captured the total for EVs at $174 billion.

You don’t need an accounting degree to see the stark differences between that $174 billion and the mere few-hundred million for renewable fuels, even considering the December 2021 $800 million in post-pandemic restoration funds for biofuel producers and infrastructure. The heralded Inflation Reduction Act puts just $500 million to increase the availability of domestic biofuels. This year, just $9.4 million was provided to spur development of advanced biofuels (February) and then in April USDA announced $43 million in grants under the Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program.

Using more biofuels now helps reduce emissions immediately and leverages everything that we know works—our internal-combustion engines, our fueling and distribution systems, and the fuel producers. Many of the Biden administration’s clean-energy investments in electrification won’t see any benefits for years or decades to come, and that is if they stay on track, if they are accepted by end users, and if they are successful at the scale envisioned. That’s a lot of “ifs.” READ MORE

Related articles

EV Boosters Cannot Do Math (Real Clear Energy)
Why Is the Oil Industry Booming? High prices and growing demand have helped U.S. oil producers take in record profits despite global efforts to spur greater use of renewable energy and electric cars. (New York Times)
Auto industry and utilities must collaborate to ensure EVs help grid — reports: Electric vehicles have long been eyed as mobile batteries that could provide backup power for the grid. (Politico Pro Energywire)
Committee to hold ‘bipartisan’ electric vehicle hearing: The Senate Budget Committee will question witnesses selected by both parties. (E&E Daily)
Carmakers Tripped Up by Choppy Present as They Chase an EV Future -- Ford, GM, Tesla see their stocks fall amid mounting signs of near-term pressure on profits (Wall Street Journal)
Battery Fire Shuts Down California Highway For Days (The Weather Channel; includes VIDEO)
Toyota delays US electric car plans as sales slow (BBC)
Honda Leaves Door Open to Revise EV Strategy: Honda Motor Co. said it’s open to altering its electrification roadmap if demand for pure battery cars continues to wane, a sign the Japanese automaker may ultimately join international peers in walking back electric vehicle targets. (Bloomberg)
Honda Leaves Door Open to Revise EV Strategy (Transport Topics)
Upside-down in Nevada: Nevada is quickly becoming a key center of the nation’s transition to clean energy. That’s scrambling traditional political alliances (Politico's Power Switch)
Biden Administration made a mistake by going so hard on electric vehicles | Opinion (The Tennessean)

Excerpt from Real Clear Energy: The average American household without an in-home EV charging station consumes about 30 kWh per day, or about 10,720 kWh over a year’s time. With just one electric vehicle being charged at home, that total increases to about 15,220 kWh. For two-EV households, that total runs up to nearly 20,000 kWh per year (assuming both drivers commute to work). That’s nearly double current electricity usage for such families.

...

Today’s 50-kva transformers, which cost about $8,000 each, can power about 60 homes; that number drops closer to 40 if each of those homes houses one electric vehicle, closer to 30 with two EVs using home chargers.

For a city with 120,000 homes, which today may require about 2,000 transformers, the addition of 120,000 home-charged electric vehicles means adding 1,000 transformers, about $8 million. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg, because distributing 50 to 100% more household electricity requires generating 50 to 100% more electricity.

All this costs money that most Americans today do not have, especially at the generation end. Especially with the push to eliminate electric generation from coal and natural gas and even nuclear energy. It also requires massive construction of electric infrastructure, from transmission lines to transformers to in-home charging stations accompanied by larger electric fuse boxes.

...

Then there are the side issues.

...

This may explain why thieves in the Seattle metro area have stolen the copper cables from over 100 EV charging stations in the past 12 months, leaving these stations totally useless until the cables are replaced (and then, often as not, stolen again).

Belgian firefighters are lobbying to ban the parking of electric vehicles in underground garages, just as liquefied petroleum gas vehicles without safety valves cannot park in them. The reason?

It takes up to 70 hours to extinguish an EV electric fire by immersing the vehicle in a skip filled with water – which can hardly be done in an underground car park. Worse, the water used to extinguish these fires reveals a chemical load up to 70 times higher than typical load limits for industrial wastewater.

...

“rising electricity prices.”

...

The day of reckoning for the Biden (and other nations’) EV mandates may come soon, especially as defiant automakers have moved forward with hydrogen-fueled vehicles, cleaner internal combustion engines, and other alternatives to the electricity-sucking, highway-crushing (yes, the heavier EVs add wear and tear to public roadways) marvels, many of which rely on diesel generators or coal-fired power plants to operate. READ MORE

Excerpt from New York Times: Oil companies’ success is not just the result of higher prices. Under pressure from Wall Street to improve financial returns, the companies that survived the 2020 oil-price crash generally ditched the debt-fueled growth strategy that had propelled the American shale boom.

Many pared spending and cut costs by laying off workers and automating more of their operations.

Since 2021, oil and gas wells in the lower 48 states have generated more than $485 billion in free cash flow, the money left over after spending on operations and new projects, according to estimates by Rystad Energy, a research and consulting firm. In the decade prior, the industry spent nearly $140 billion more than it took in.

...

Mr. Trump has largely ignored the industry’s success and has cast it as a victim in need of saving. He has promised, if elected, to undo Mr. Biden’s climate policies and to encourage oil companies to “drill, baby, drill,” which could drive down oil prices and corporate profits.

...

Yet the same fiscal restraint and technological improvements that have made many oil producers more profitable have also weighed on the many contractors and vendors that serve them.

In late 2018, companies were running roughly 490 drilling rigs in the Permian and pumping around four million barrels of oil per day, federal data shows. Today, they are cranking out more than six million barrels with around 310 active rigs.

That means less business for the companies that operate drilling equipment and provide housing to the workers who commute into the oil field.

...

A large majority of oil and gas executives support Republicans, but some of them acknowledge that their industry often performs better with a Democrat in the White House. Democrats tend to impose tighter regulations, which limit production, keeping prices higher than they would be in a more laissez-faire environment, the thinking goes.

“In the short run, Biden has been better for our industry,” said Chris Wright, chief executive of Liberty Energy, an oil field services company.

...

Yet many who make a living pumping oil and gas bristle at Mr. Biden’s rhetoric and climate policies and worry that another term for him or another Democrat could hurt their businesses in the long run.

...

The International Energy Agency, a Paris-based multilateral organization, expects global oil demand to peak before the end of the decade as more people and businesses buy electric cars and rely on wind and solar energy. But many oil executives and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries say consumption will grow well into the 2030s, if not beyond.

If the energy agency’s predictions come to pass, the world will be awash in crude come 2030, with production capacity exceeding demand by roughly eight million barrels a day. READ MORE

Excerpt from Poltico's Power Switch: Power companies are moving forward with plans to build major transmission lines across the state to move wind and solar energy between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Coast.

Already booming, solar power is expected to grow even more in the state as the Biden administration finalizes a plan to open a swath of federal land larger than Maryland to new installations. And lithium mining is taking off, potentially unlocking an electric vehicle revolution.

Joni Eastley, a member of the town board in Tonopah, Nevada, supports lithium mining in the nearby desert, which is expected to create around 500 permanent jobs. That’s an economic bonanza in a community of 2,730.

...

Some tribes and environmentalists, on the other hand, worry about the pace of clean energy development.

Three hours to the east of Tonopah, Delaine Spilsbury — a Ely Shoshone tribe member and Harris supporter — is fighting a Biden administration plan to open 7,000 acres to solar development near a tribal sacred site.

Spilsbury drives a Cadillac Lyric, a luxury EV. A bumper sticker on her second car reads, “Make American Green Again.” And her son will soon install solar panels on her log cabin.

Such political misalignments underscore the trade-offs the nation faces as it transforms its energy systems to curb planet-warming pollution.

“I don’t want to be against solar. I want to run my car,” Spilsbury said. “I just feel like they haven’t done enough studying and positioning.” READ MORE

Excerpt from The Tennessean: Battery-powered electric vehicles, expanded public transportation and financial incentives all need to be part of the greenhouse gas emissions problem facing the U.S. -- ... Rather than putting broader support behind a variety of good and plausible ideas, the White House, via executive orders, and the Environmental Protection Agency, through its regulatory power, have chosen to specify battery-powered electric vehicles (BEVs) as the preferred technology solution for addressing vehicle emissions.

This is concerning for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that picking winners in the marketplace has never been government’s strong suit.

Government incentives can certainly accelerate the adoption of BEVs, which would reduce the offending emissions and also drive innovation. But there are also downsides to focusing on a single solution.

Committing primarily to electric vehicles carries great risks to companies

Battery technology is still in its infancy. Batteries have limited range, a problem that’s compounded by insufficient charging infrastructure. This technology would also dramatically increase the demands on our already-fragile electrical grid.

...

Just as the Japanese and Koreans came to the U.S. and Europe years ago with inexpensive cars and trucks, so now come the Chinese with cheap vehicles and a lead in EV battery manufacturing.

A single focus on BEVs by governments lays down a rich welcome mat for Chinese entities.

...

There is no perfect policy for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, but there are certainly other options besides the singular focus on BEVs.

One that’s easy to understand but difficult to implement would be to increase investments in public transportation. This would reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. But it requires large government investments and long-term planning during a period when partisan and ideological divisions can make even the simplest tasks daunting.

Public transportation is also a non-starter in the large swaths of territory that are less densely populated. And since neither government nor automakers can’t afford to ignore what consumers (and voters) want, what happens if suburbanites in particular resist shifting their reliance from automobiles?

Another option is to provide financial incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adopt cleaner technologies. Carbon pricing, taxes on carbon emissions and cap-and-trade programs that set overall limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allow companies to trade these allowances with each other without involving government in the nuts and bolts of policy are examples of this approach. READ MORE