Interesting article in Today's LA times that quotes Governor Brown and the CARB board chair Mary Nichols saying that the state is not adopting EVs fast enough to meet its goal of 1.5 million by 2025:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-sac-climate-vehicle-emissions-20151208-story.html
In a letter to the Editor of the LA times, I suggested that the state should look at its own actions as first step to correcting this problem:
Dear Editor:
Regarding the LA Times article "California falling short in push for more clean vehicles," Governor Brown should examine his own actions to answer his questions. First he says that people riding bikes is not enough. Brown has distinguished himself as the only Governor besides Rick Perry (Texas) to veto a bill requiring motorists to pass bicyclists with 3 feet of space (France has narrower roads and requires 5 feet). CHP officers have joked (to me) that they will never enforce the toothless bill that eventually passed (Brown vetoed more reasonable bills twice).
Getting back to electric cars (EVs), our state should be commended for investing in EV infrastructure. However, Californians need to drive long distances, requiring DC fast charging stations to be located along transportation corridors (I5, 101, etc.). Despite spending about $50M on EV charging infrastructure to date, the California Energy Commission (CEC) has funded only about 9 DC fast chargers along transportation corridors, and I believe than none of these are yet operational (2+ years since the original solicitation).
Meanwhile, the state (via the CEC) has invested $60M in fueling infrastructure for Hydrogen vehicles. There are currently fewer than 500 Hydrogen vehicles in CA (with only about 1000 more expected over the next couple years), so that comes to about $200K per car! Why is so much state money being invested in an expensive technology whose cars currently have well-to-wheels carbon footprints worse than the 2016 Prius? Regardless of Hydrogen source, these cars will always me much less efficient than electric ones because of the many steps required in creating, transporting, compressing, and then the energy release / generation itself.
We are living in the 21st century and now it is economically viable for middle-class people to produce electricity via solar power systems on their homes that can be used to power their electric cars. Except that has recently gotten much more expensive in California; the state has allowed PG&E to cancel their E9 electric vehicle rate plans, replacing them with much more expensive options. The state is also allowing all major public utilities to charge their customers significant monthly fees for generating electric power with photovoltaic systems. Why is the state allowing this instead of incentivizing the pairing of solar power systems and electric cars?
-TPG
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-sac-climate-vehicle-emissions-20151208-story.html
In a letter to the Editor of the LA times, I suggested that the state should look at its own actions as first step to correcting this problem:
Dear Editor:
Regarding the LA Times article "California falling short in push for more clean vehicles," Governor Brown should examine his own actions to answer his questions. First he says that people riding bikes is not enough. Brown has distinguished himself as the only Governor besides Rick Perry (Texas) to veto a bill requiring motorists to pass bicyclists with 3 feet of space (France has narrower roads and requires 5 feet). CHP officers have joked (to me) that they will never enforce the toothless bill that eventually passed (Brown vetoed more reasonable bills twice).
Getting back to electric cars (EVs), our state should be commended for investing in EV infrastructure. However, Californians need to drive long distances, requiring DC fast charging stations to be located along transportation corridors (I5, 101, etc.). Despite spending about $50M on EV charging infrastructure to date, the California Energy Commission (CEC) has funded only about 9 DC fast chargers along transportation corridors, and I believe than none of these are yet operational (2+ years since the original solicitation).
Meanwhile, the state (via the CEC) has invested $60M in fueling infrastructure for Hydrogen vehicles. There are currently fewer than 500 Hydrogen vehicles in CA (with only about 1000 more expected over the next couple years), so that comes to about $200K per car! Why is so much state money being invested in an expensive technology whose cars currently have well-to-wheels carbon footprints worse than the 2016 Prius? Regardless of Hydrogen source, these cars will always me much less efficient than electric ones because of the many steps required in creating, transporting, compressing, and then the energy release / generation itself.
We are living in the 21st century and now it is economically viable for middle-class people to produce electricity via solar power systems on their homes that can be used to power their electric cars. Except that has recently gotten much more expensive in California; the state has allowed PG&E to cancel their E9 electric vehicle rate plans, replacing them with much more expensive options. The state is also allowing all major public utilities to charge their customers significant monthly fees for generating electric power with photovoltaic systems. Why is the state allowing this instead of incentivizing the pairing of solar power systems and electric cars?
-TPG
