As you know, electric vehicles are propelled by an electric motor powered by rechargeable battery packs. These vehicles typically have limited energy storage capacity, which must be replenished by plugging the vehicle into an electrical source. Limited driving distance between battery charges is a fundamental disadvantage and obstacle to broad consumer adoption of vehicles powered by electricity. In order to eliminate this disadvantage and increase consumer acceptance and usage of electric vehicles, it is essential that an infrastructure of convenient electric vehicle charging opportunities be developed.

HB 1481 directs the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to seek funding to “…plan for, and transition to, electric vehicles and electric vehicle infrastructure, including development of model ordinances and guidance.” These plans are required to be submitted to the Legislature by December 2010.  Another section of the bill authorizes an alternative fuels corridor pilot project and by December 2015 the state “to the extent possible” install electrical outlets capable of charging electric vehicles in state-operated highway rest stops.

                                                      The GM Volt

For the recent Seattle Times article on HB 1481, see here. 

Low gas prices have automakers worried new hybrids won’t sell

The Problem with Cheap Oil

With gas falling, trucks come back

Exxon to Congress: Give Us A Carbon Tax, Please!

California is in Desperate Need of a Gas Tax

Imagine being an automaker and trying to predict what will happen with gas prices and how it will affect the fleet of vehicles that you should construct?  These are decisions that generally need to made 10 years in advance of the roll-out of any new auto product to allow for product development and machining of factories.  And yet it is difficult to predict the price of oil (and therefore gas) next year, let alone next decade. 

Here is a simple solution – a floating gas tax increment.  How about if we set a minimum price for a gallon of gas and structure a tax that achieves that price?  We all noted dramatic progress in the number of people using transit, increased purchase of more efficient vehicles, and good, old fashion conservation when gas prices rose above $4.  So how about a $4 minimum gas price target.  In today’s market, that amounts to better than a $2 increase in the gas tax, which would generate about $29 Billion per year to a state (California) very much in need of new revenue.

During periods, such as in late 2008, when gas prices exceed $4, the increment would be zero so the benefit to the state budget would be negated, but we would continue to reap rewards from the relative predictability of gas prices.  These would include:  investment in clean fuels and alternative energy sources; changeover of a California vehicle fleet to one that is more efficient and cleaner; increased use of transit; greater conservation of a precious resource, and the resulting emissions reductions from all of these.  While some of the conservation may come from simple decisions to walk rather than drive to the store, long-term predictability also encourages long-term lifestyle changes such as relocating closer to work and school, or to be adjacent to a transit hub.  It enables car-free households after more investment in transit .  And it encourages change in land use patterns to locate complementary uses (for example houses and schools) in integrated communities such that walking is possible.

It is a tax that has enormous societal benefits and generates significant revenue.

Some commonly cited benefits of electric vehicles (or EVs) include:

• Less reliance on fossil fuels
• Emissions reductions, both for typical pollutants and greenhouse gases

But the drawbacks, or challenges to overcome, include:

• High cost
• Technology
• Convenience (limited range and lengthy charging time)

Taken on an individual basis, replacing a typical gasoline-powered vehicle with an electric-powered one would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Using a gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2. If that gallon, on average, allows a vehicle to travel 20-30 miles, an electric vehicle would have to produce less CO2 over that distance to reduce emissions. While the amount of CO2 produced by electric vehicles varies depending on the source of the electricity, even electricity coming from a 100% coal source would only produce about one-third as much CO2 over an equivalent distance.

However, not everyone purchasing an electric vehicle is going to stop using their existing gas-powered vehicle. And, every new EV trip won’t necessarily be a trip that would have otherwise occurred in a gas-powered vehicle.  In some instances, people may replace short walking and biking trips with EV trips.

The magnitude of how much GHG emissions will be reduced depends on other factors as well. These include economic conditions, land use patterns, transit service quality and convenience, and competing travel modes.

So, while increased EV usage will generally reduce GHG emissions, the magnitude will vary from region to region and community to community. More detailed evaluation of how, and to what extent, travel patterns change in a given area would need to consider EV market penetration and use an enhanced travel demand model calibrated to local conditions.