Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Hyundai and Cummins form JV to build MidRange engines in South Korea | Main | Peugeot adding battery-electric version of Partner van »

Print this post

UCLA/UC Berkeley law schools release policy paper on actions required to stimulate long-term, mass-adoption of electric vehicles; leveraging California

10 September 2012

The environmental law centers at UCLA and UC Berkeley Schools of Law today released a new policy paper on industry actions and federal, state, and local policies needed to ensure that California catalyzes mass adoption of electric vehicles by 2025, with the goal of building a long-term market in the US.

At stake, the paper argues, is the future of the electric vehicle market. California accounts for 11% of the national market of annual new car sales, and well as more than 20% of conventional hybrid vehicle (i.e., non-plug-in) in the US. “With such a significant market share and volume of cars, California can help launch a sustainable and more robust electric vehicle market, with the country and world benefitting as a result” the paper—“Electric Drive by ’25: How California Can Catalyze Mass Adoption of Electric Vehicles by 2025”—suggests.

Despite promising early results from the introduction of electric vehicles in the US market, major challenges remain to achieving mass adoption, the paper notes. At a workshop at the UCLA School of Law in May 2012, key stakeholders, including auto manufacturers, charging company representatives, electric vehicle advocates, electric utilities, and public agency leaders gathered to discuss these challenges, and identified the following three obstacles as among the most significant:

  1. Lack of consumer awareness and information. Many consumers are unfamiliar with electric vehicles and their performance, while at the same time they may harbor common misperceptions about vehicle types, safety, range, impact on their electricity bills, and other facets of electric vehicle ownership.

  2. Lack of appeal to a broader market. The higher initial costs and limited battery range of some electric vehicles may make them less attractive to a broader market segment beyond early adopters.

  3. Lack of access to charging infrastructure outside of the home. Potential electric vehicle customers may be deterred by a non-home charging infrastructure that seems inadequate, difficult to navigate, and unpredictable in its pricing.

The paper outlines three high-level solutions, based on the workshop discussion, to the challenges of electric vehicle market development:

  1. Educate consumer, the media and elected officials through a simple an effective outreach campaign about the benefits of electric vehicles.

  2. Reduce fees, taxes and upfront costs for electric vehicle owners and invest in battery research. Among the suggestions here are the extension of the California AB 118 EV rebate program beyond 2015; creating federal and state tax incentives and lower fees and insurance payments for EV owners; distributing revenues from the sale of low carbon fuel standard credits to EV owners to provide them a revenue stream; develop battery financing programs; strengthen funding for EV battery R&D; develop alternatives to the gas tax to fund infrastructure; clarify the technical and cost requirements for vehicle to grid services; encourage the purchase of used EV batteries for grid operations.

  3. Plan for and facilitate deployment of a well-planned and easy-to-use charging infrastructure network.

California has a strong interest in promoting the adoption of electric vehicles, based on the benefits to the economy, environment, and quality of life. With electric vehicle sales likely to increase in the long term given projected improvements to battery life and likely cost reductions, the state should begin planning now to address the challenges associated with large-scale adoption of the vehicle technologies. Heightened public awareness, easy access to financing, reduced barriers to purchase, and a well-planned and maintained charging infrastructure will help the state become a leader in electric vehicle deployment by 2025. The state and local momentum to facilitate consumer adoption of electric vehicles will ultimately help California contribute to the global changes now underway in how consumers power their vehicles.

—“Electric Drive by ’25”

The paper, “Electric Drive by ’25: How California Can Catalyze Mass Adoption of Electric Vehicles by 2025 is the tenth in a series of reports on how climate change will create opportunities for specific sectors of the business community and how policy-makers can facilitate those opportunities. The contributing workshops and resulting policy papers are sponsored by Bank of America and produced by a partnership of the UCLA School of Law’s Environmental Law Center & Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment and UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment.

The author of this policy paper is Ethan N. Elkind, Bank of America Climate Policy Associate for UCLA School of Law’s Environmental Law Center & Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment and UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE). Additional contributions to the report were made by Sean Hecht and Cara Horowitz of the UCLA School of Law and Steven Weissman of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

Resources

September 10, 2012 in Electric (Battery), Plug-ins, Policy | Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef017d3bf47c46970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UCLA/UC Berkeley law schools release policy paper on actions required to stimulate long-term, mass-adoption of electric vehicles; leveraging California:

Comments

To think that a few trees dieded for this lawyerly drivel.

Hardly Green...

Agree with this article. The public will need much education regarding Plugged-in EV's (PEV's).

At current mix of power generation of 35% coal, 35% NG and 30% non-fossil fuel, a PEV will emit half as much CO2 as a comparable ICEV. If NG will replace the coal's 35% of the mix, a PEV will emit 1/4 to 1/5th the CO2 of a comparable ICEV. This is a tremendous reduction in GHG emission!!!

Over the life of the vehicle at 200,000 miles, the owner of a PEV will save about ~$10,000 in overall expenses of owning, maintaining and fueling of the vehicle. This is a best-kept secret that must be released for the benefit of humanity. Day-time charging will greatly benefit the installation of solar PV panels in soaking the excess solar output, allowing faster return of investment for those solar PV panels. Smart grid and smart chargers in the PEV's will stop the charging process momentarily in response in dip in output from the solar panels and can help smooth out the grid upon higher penetration of solar PV tied to the grid.

Future V2G with output from the PEV's back into the grid will allow 100% penetration of solar and wind energy because the massive and immediate output from these PEV's will allow the backup NG plants sufficient time to rev-up and come online, preventing brown-outs that may happen upon a sudden drop in wind speeds or solar output. PEV's will be vital for the future adoption of 100% renewable energy penetration of the grid. When PHEV's are equipped with V2G and plugged into the grid for most of the time, power black-outs will be thing of the past!!!

Some tears are shed about the EV1 crusher http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUSBRE88904J20120910

Hope our $50B +~10B bailout interest is clearly repaid.

There is no reason to educate the public for making poor choices. Roger is incorrect when he states that BEV will reduce ghg. There is no reason to think a BEV will last 200k miles or save money.

“soaking the excess solar output”

There is no excess solar output. On a summer day, solar goes from zero to about 500 MWe on the California ISO. During the same time period demand increases a about 1000 MWe/hour.

“preventing brown-outs that may happen upon a sudden drop in wind speeds or solar output.”

Another problem that does not exists. Brown out are no longer a problem in California. Grid operators have demonstrated the ability to predict and manage variations in windout put.

Assuming that Munro's numbers (in Kelly's source) are reasonably close and the actual running cost to build each Volt is about $22,000, and the Cruze is about $14,000, it is no wonder they crushed the EV1.

Nor can they just "drop the Volt price, sell more and make million$$" as some naively claim.

Toyota has always been very protective of the financials of the Prius. It might still chasing the break even point (when you include the cost of money) but for both the Volt and the Prius, the development money is GONE.

So the name of the game is return on production costs. They both spent their own money (or so we thought with GM) and made their choices.

Toyota is clearly coming out ahead when you count good will. But either way, Toyota spent its own money.
These lawyers think that wastrel, our gov, must be forced to make undesirable EVs succeed;’ we must be forced to spend our money on questionable goods.

Losers choosing losers –
With my money.
With lawyers as accessories before the fact.

The deal shines like a dead mackerel in the moonlight.

Those barriers in the article?
They relate to our freedom to think what we want and buy what we want.

In their own words:

1. Lack of consumer awareness and information. Many consumers are unfamiliar with electric vehicles and their performance, while at the same time they may harbor common misperceptions about vehicle types, safety, range, impact on their electricity bills, and other facets of electric vehicle ownership.
- REPLY: Unaware of good point or bad points? See their own words in #2 and #3.

2. Lack of appeal to a broader market. The higher initial costs and limited battery range of some electric vehicles may make them less attractive to a broader market segment beyond early adopters.
- REPLY: Like, maybe they need to FORCE people to buy them, eh?

3. Lack of access to charging infrastructure outside of the home. Potential electric vehicle customers may be deterred by a non-home charging infrastructure that seems inadequate, difficult to navigate, and unpredictable in its pricing.
- REPLY: See #2, and the REPLY.

Any way you shine up a horse turd still makes it a horse turd and no amount of force feeding it to comsumers will make them swallow it.

Right now most people wont touch a bev or plug in because they arnt there yet and no amount of blather and tripe will get that any better. They just have to wait till they are good enough to garner more buyers.

When were we all going to be driving on those wireless highways?

@ToppaTom,
Thanks for bringing up some thought-provoking points. You're a great thought provoker! I've just thought of a way to make PEV's purchasing cost on par with a comparable ICEV.
This can be done by the mfg's quoting and selling the vehicle without including the price of the battery. The battery will be on a lease basis that the purchaser can pay out each month, perhaps by automatic checking account deduction for x number of months. Because the cost of electricity will be so low in comparison to the cost of petroleum, the net monthly cost that a typical PEV owner will pay for both the battery lease and electricity combined will still be significantly lower than the cost of fueling up a comparable ICEV car, when driven a comparable number of miles monthly. By this method, a car mfg can offer a PHEV for the same price as a comparable HEV. HEV's are selling well, and many buyers will choose a PHEV over a HEV because of energy security factor and higher max hp available with a bigger battery pack. Have a "need for speed" but can't afford the high petrol prices? Get a PHEV! Equip a PHEV with a V2G plug-out, and a PHEV will be a must-have! Energy security for your whole house. People who drive so few miles per day like Kit P probably will stick to their existing ICEV, but that's OK, since they are not releasing much GHG when driving so few miles per day.

One way to entice more people to buy a BEV would be for the mfg and the dealer to offer free ICEV car rental for so many hours to days per month that will accumulate if not used. A BEV owner will simply drive their BEV to the dealer or to a designated car rental company, park their BEV in the lot, show the driver license, and pick up an ICEV for long-distance trips. Since this process is already enrolled, checking out a rental ICEV will be very quick, and the parked BEV will be a collateral should anything will happen to the rented ICEV. Heck, if enough people will drive BEV's, most gas stations or convenient store can be a place to park your BEV, plug it in to charge it, and pick up a rental ICEV in less than 1 minutes. ICEV rental can be by the hours, so it will be very convenient for everyone to park their energy-drained BEV at a convenient store to pick up an ICEV to complete their extended-distance errand, and later return their rented ICEV to pick up their charged BEV for the drive home. There! Problem solved for the range anxiety of BEV's.

@WM2000,
I hope the above will make a bev or plug in "there" a lot sooner. Of course, you know that Ford has just released an excellent PHEV, the C-Max Energi, that is very competitively priced and offers high performance and seating for 5 with decent luggage space. Now, if Ford can just quote the price of the C-Max Energi on par with that of the C-Max hybrid HEV and lease out the battery pack on a monthly basis, that would be a steal!

I think most of the heady enthusiasm and gov support was wasted on overly electrified hybrids.

I believe it is a given that mild hybrids are the most efficient use of batteries - but common sense has no place here - it's all about hype.

EVs are exciting, lets spend the peoples money to help the easily led, early adapters buy fun EVs.

@KitP,
Following the same logic above, Toyota and Ford can sell their HEV's for the same price as their comparable ICEV. For example, a 2012 Prius can be sold at the same price as a 2012 Corolla LE automatic, with MSRP of $19,000. Then, the HEV feature of the Prius can be put on lease, payable on a monthly basis by direct checking account deduction or any other convenient payment method. Those who drive more than 30 miles a day will find that their combined fuel cost + lease payment monthly for their HEV's will be substantially less than the fuel bill of a comparable ICEV.

Of course, since you drive so little, you won't choose to buy an HEV...
...but, being a mechanical engineer by education and working for electric utility by profession, have you ever dream of what it feels to own a full HEV like the Prius? Or the C-Max Energi? Just the pleasure of ownership of the latest in automotive technology? Just looking at all the shiny parts and beautiful wiring under the hood of a latest Prius? The absolute quietness and free of vibration when stopped at a traffic light, knowing that you don't have to wear out your engine premature or overheating your engine from excessive idling, or making the oil dirty prematurely... Oh, these are just pure pleasures.

The EV should be made to succeed on its own.

It is well over 10 years, the EV is closing in on the ICE - or is it.

Pretending something costs less when you rent or lease it is just an illusion, like rebates - trying to hide the real cost.

I do not think most of us are going to buy a full HEV like the Prius and dream that it makes sense.

The pleasure of ownership of the latest in automotive technology might mean an ICE paid for without the help of everyone else (everyone else who pays taxes, that is).

TT and friends....did you know that ICEVs are getting over $1T/year in hand outs just for the fuels (fossil + bio) and probably another $1T/years in 1001 other hand outs for manufacturing, retooling, retraining etc. If governments switch 80% of those hand outs to electrified vehicles, we would all have one for almost free within 15 years or so.

Two recent studies determine that wind energy can supply 10 to 100 times the energy that the world needs without fossil fuels. It is there to be harvested-stored-distributed. It would create 50 to 100 times more good paying jobs than coal and oil. Higher efficiency (2.4X) bladeless wind energy converters could be used to reduce noise, vibration and protect birds.

>>>"Pretending something costs less when you rent or lease it is just an illusion, like rebates - trying to hide the real cost."

The real cost saving is in the fuel cost. Overall cost of HEV and PHEV can be $10,000 lower than comparable ICEV over the life of the car. By having a payment plan for the battery pack or the HEV feature, the owner will still pay less monthly than the fuel cost of a comparable ICEV. Yes, HEV's and PHEV's really cost less than a comparable ICEV, a lot less. And last a lot longer too, something you must consider. An ICEV may not last to 200,000 miles, but a HEV like the Prius can last to 300,000 miles and beyond, due to the reliability of the electric drive train and due to the sparing of the engine use.

The increase in longevity and durability of HEV and PHEV's alone is more than worth the price premium. Just amortize the cost per mile for respective vehicles and you will see plainly. Why do people pay higher prices for good brand of cars, or for any other durable goods, for that matter?

@Harvey
http://inhabitat.com/altaeros-energies-floating-wind-turbines-tap-into-strong-high-altitude-winds/

“People who drive so few miles per day like Kit P probably will stick to their existing ICEV, but that's OK, since they are not releasing much GHG when driving so few miles per day.

One way to entice more people to buy a BEV would be for the mfg and the dealer to offer free ICEV car rental for so many hours to days per month that will accumulate if not used.”

Why not just buy something like a Corolla in the first place?

When you apply Roger’s logic to real life situation it does not make sense. Since short trips do not use much fuel, therefore BEV will not save much fuel. Long trips to visit family are not a practical use for BEV and PHEV do not get better highway mileage.

“the C-Max Energi, that is very competitively priced”

Really? This is the problem I have with Roger. He has no common sense and does not check his facts. The Ford web site says $25k (as shown $35k). Want the list of good quality 5 passenger cars for ten grand less?

People you have to decide what you want. Do want transportation that is affordable and does not kill you at the gas pump or do you want to get ripped off by a car dealer.

Yes..ai-vin if airborne wind converters are added, the total potential can reach 1000 times the world needs.

A couple of years ago I spent some times in deep South Argentina and Chile. The wind blows at a steady 40 to 50 kph for the last 1500 Km South portion of those two countries. Wind converters could capture enough e-energy for half of South America. Unfortunately, none were to be seen.

RP...very few people seem to be equipped to establish or use total life time cost for their vehicle. Most (too many) would buy a gas guzzler if the initial purchase cost was less and would feel they have a bargain. Would $5, $6 or $8/gal gas change that attitude?

@HarveyD,
No need for gasoline at $5/gal or higher. $3.5/gal like in the USA now is sufficient to make the overall cost of PEV's and HEV's much lower than ICEV's. Like I posted earlier, to encourage sales of HEV's and PHEV's and BEV's to people who can't calculate, the mfg's can charge the same purchasing price of HEV's and PEV's as ICEV's. Then, instead of paying a high gasoline cost per month, they can pay a much lower fuel bill + a small monthly payment for the price difference of the PEV < (still lower) than the gasoline cost of an ICEV. This means that PEV's and HEV's would not have any upfront cost penalty to discourage less savvy customers. This can be done NOW, or whenever mfg's have manage to produce enough HEV's and PEV's to do this. Now, they are still putting PEV's in semi-testing mode to fine-tune the whole concept, so they don't care to sell too much of PHEV's and BEV's.

However, increasing gasoline tax is important in the future to maintain the same gasoline prices as today's level, when gasoline prices will likely drop in response to lower demands due to increasing market penetration of HEV's and PEV's. It is important to keep gasoline prices at today's level in order to maintain healthy development of EV's overall

KP stated:
>>>"Why not just buy something like a Corolla in the first place?"

Becuz a 2012 Corolla burns fossil fuel and emit CO2 to the tune of 306 gm/mile, while a comparable BEV using today's mix of grid electricity will emit but ~130-140gm/mile. When NG will take over the coal share for power generation for the grid, with remaining 30% by non-fossil energy, BEV will emit but 70 gm of CO2/mile. This is less than 1/4, or just 22% the CO2 emission of a comparable ICEV. No imported petroleum used with a PEV, only 100% domestic energy resources. It means that if and when war will break out at the Hormuz strait, those with PEV's will still be driving at the low electricity cost, while those with ICEVs may not be able to buy enough gas, and will do so at exorbitant prices!!!

>>>"Since short trips do not use much fuel, therefore BEV will not save much fuel. Long trips to visit family are not a practical use for BEV and PHEV do not get better highway mileage."

A BEV like the Leaf can do 70-mile EPA range, but on a good day in the real world, it can do 90-100-mile range. These are not exactly short trips, but more than enough to cover daily driving. For PHEV's with 20-mile electric range like the upcoming C-Max Energi, it can be charged twice daily (plugged in at work) to realize 40-mile daily driving distance. 40-mile distance is enough to cover the driving needs of over 90% of the population entirely on electric energy. Owners of a BEV can rent an ICEV for infrequent out-of-town trips. For the few who must make frequent long-distance driving trips, they are better off buying an HEV instead of a PEV.

@Roger

You keep saying it so I will say it is not so. BEV do not have lower ghg emissions. Roger makes up ridiculous examples to justify to make his point. He is not alone. Maybe some day we will have some real world data but just maybe should wait for the data before we start advocating wide scale adoption of BEV.

Grid supplied energy does not work for long trips.

“A BEV like the Leaf can do 70-mile EPA range, ”

So what? My wife does not need a a $40K BEV to drive 5 miles to the mall. Church, school, doctor dentist, and the food store are less than 2 miles.

“Owners of a BEV can rent an ICEV for infrequent out-of-town trips. ”

Are you nuts? You keep saying that people are better off buying something expensive that does not meet their needs. Just because you can do something does not mean very many will do it.

Roger you might want to spend some time observing people. For those who are really interested in saving fuel it is not hard to do. Carpooling is an example. My wife went food shopping this week with a lady friend. They out went out to lunch combining trips.

“(plugged in at work) ”

It is my habit to work late because of traffic. As it turns out I was the first person at the stop light. When it turned green I accelerated but the speed limit is 35 mph. Two huge pick up trucks raced around me and beat me to the next light just to brake hard. They raced and braked hard for 6 stop lights. I actually passed them both before I turned off to go to my house. I can not explain the behavior of accelerating hard when the next light is red or slowing down when it is green.

My point here is that saving fuel is easy if you apply common sense. Roger is advocating a very expensive engineered solution with made up benefits that few consumers will accept.

BEVs shine at short range trips where ICE vehicles consume a lot of fuel before they warm up.. but if your daily commute is over 50 miles then you better think twice about that BEV, unless you can afford an Tesla.

Most people have all the charging infrastructure they need at home, but many harp about charging outside the home.. best way to handle it is to require each 100 car parking lot to install a Level 2 EVSE, best way to handle other vehicles from abusing the space is to charge for charging/parking there, by the minute.. for parking lots over 500 the requirement should be a 50kW DC charger in addition, again paid by the minute. Free charging is a bad idea but stores could offer it as a marketing incentive.

Eventually we will all go to electrics, better to start it off properly.

Thanks, KP, for your continued interest in this subject. You did make a good point about some people are wasteful in their driving habit. But, this is a free country, and each to his habits and wishes. If a habit is harmful to the public, then some sort of dis-incentive measures can be done, like smoking in public, or public intoxication. Since petrol is an imported strategic resource, an increase in gasoline tax is what we have been advocating to reduce profligate use.

What's wrong with a person driving a $40,000-car? I see people driving Cadillacs and Lexus and Mercedes and BMW's all the time! The different with a the GM Volt is that you will save about $15-20,000's worth of gasoline over the life of the car, while the luxo brands are also somewhat gas-guzzling and waste even more money! My father drives a $65,000 Lexus sedan, while he has another $50,000-Lexus SUV parked at home. He has been retired for years and only drives for pleasure, perhaps a 10-15 miles/day. I could have been driving a $150,000 Mercedes SL 600 or whatever, but I choose to drive a Prius.

PEV's are what our country needs for energy and economic and military securities. You ought to acknowledge that if you're patriotic!!!

Thanks again, KP, for bringing up this important point: People don't mind splurging big bucks for luxury cars/SUV's because that is a personal statement to the world, a status symbol, that I've made it!
So, both you, ToppaTom and the Tea Party are right: to facilitate adoption of PEV's, car mfg's should tap into the wealth of rich folks to help defray development cost, instead of relying on the government support.

Early PEV's should be the size and luxury of a Lexus ES 450, and carry a 2.0-liter Atkinson-cycle engine of 120 hp plus about 200-hp of electric motor and battery, for about 320 hp total. The car will have about 15-20 mile range on electricity alone, and should cost about $45-55,000 USD, or on par with the Lexus ES 450. Acceleration should be about the same, however, fuel cost should be about 1/3-1/4...The owner of this PHEV can brag about driving around an uber luxurious $55,000-car ...but saved about $20-28,000 worth of fuel cost throughout the life of the car, so toward the end, it's like buying a Lexus ES 450 for about $35,000. What a bargain!!! No gov. support nor tax incentive would be needed. There will be plenty of people with this kind of money to splurge on something like this...at least around where I live!

We will need to have stronger campaign on the glory of petroleum conservation and patriotism...without any requirement of sacrifice in standard of living, just like the glory of spending big bucks on luxy cars, houses, boats, or planes....this time, on high-end, high-performance PHEV's. GM was wrong about sticking the Chevy badge on the Volt. It should have been a Cadillac Electra or Ampera, with more room, size, luxury...with a ~$50,000 price tag, similar to any high-end Cadillacs. Combining the engine and electric motors' power, the Volt should already have above 300-very-willing-hp, so it already has the base-minimum power for an luxy sedan.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2013 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group