Op-ed: The Utility Companies Have Been Duped
For nearly a decade, utility companies have been targeted by companies and individuals selling a particular kind of snake oil. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think a lot of these people are acting maliciously (I’ll get to that in a minute). In fact, I think a lot of these people have the best of intentions at heart — there’s just a problem in the way they look at the world, and that’s this: they’re wrong about what the utility companies’ role in the transition to EVs needs to be, and there is a whole lot of incentive for them to stay wrong.
How We Got Here
Before we talk about how we got here, we need to talk about what “here” is. Basically, we exist in a world that is still very much influenced by pressures that started way back in 2008 and 2009 when the housing market collapsed, fuel prices soared, and carmakers were desperate to sell new cars and trucks to just about anyone who could still buy them. The flex-fuel Dodge Ram pickups (Ram was still part of Dodge back then) had “Runs on Corn!” written in broad strokes across the windshield while they baked in the Napleton Northlake Dodge parking lot.
It was a wild time, for sure, but it was the first real shake to the ever-growing US car market that many of us had lived through, and it was very much the dawn of the EV startup. There was Tesla, there was Fisker, there was Aptera, heck, there was even Paul Elio and his goofy tadpole thing. Everyone was pushing for 40 MPG or 50 MPG cars, hybrids were in the limelight, and nobody back then really knew if it would be biofuels or hydrogen or battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) that would win the day.
Now, as I type this, it’s obvious that BEVs won. It wasn’t so much that BEVs won, though. It was Tesla that won, and every other carmaker has been forced to participate in the electric future that Tesla created. And, to their credit, just about every one of them — with a few notable holdouts, like Toyota and Mazda — have jumped into the BEV race with both feet, committing to a majority electric future by 2030, if not a fully electric one … and the environmentalists are pushing this as a huge win.
The EV Future Is Not An Environmentalist Victory
No to Climate Death! Used under CC License.
Read that heading again, carefully. This isn’t an article that’s claiming EVs are worse for the environment than internal combustion (those articles are complete and utter bullshit, anyway). What this is is an article that hopes to explain that Tesla — and, by extension, all EVs — didn’t win because they are better for the environment. The EVs won because they are better cars.
That’s it. That’s the reason. Electric cars are better cars. Electric cars are succeeding as a product, in other words, not as an ideology.
It’s not the planet. It’s a sad fact, but almost no one cares about the planet. Even in a liberal Utopia like Portland, Oregon, headlines about record heat waves hover over pictures of JetSkis leaping over the waves and scantily-clad women on motor yachts enjoying mojitos. Hardly the picture of doom and gloom that you’d expect from a burning planet facing record heat waves, record droughts, and a global pandemic that’s still churning out thousands of newly-stuffed body bags every day, you know?
You know.
The Consultants Get Paid
Screencap from Breaking Bad.
The success of Tesla has given the internal-combustion stakeholders a bloody nose, and the environmentalists and activists — even the most well-meaning among them — have done everything they can to draw attention to that fact. As such, the sharkiest sharks have had no choice but to smell the blood in the water, and find a way to cash in. Who are they? Consultants.
While the environmental activists are working hard to change the way that people think about cars with talk about “average commutes” and “savings calculators” and “cradle to grave emissions” and “educating the public about the benefits of EVs” to anyone who will listen, the consultants have found someone who is not just willing to listen, but who is willing to reach into some very, very deep pockets when they’re done listening. That someone is the utility companies.
Utility companies, almost without exception, have millions of captive customers who must pay them every month or risk their health, their jobs, or more. That also means they have millions of dollars to play with. Combine that huge budget with pressure from policy makers and those very same, well-meaning environmentalists, and you end up with a large company that has a large PR incentive to spend large amounts of money on large projects — projects like getting people to buy more EVs! (Maybe even large ones!)
The first problem is that even the most well-meaning and sincere among the policy makers and activists typically have no idea how the car business works. Like, none. Not even a little bit. They don’t know about floorplans or co-ops or CSI scores or allocations — and they certainly, as a group, have no idea how those things can conspire against a dealer or salesperson who might very much want to sell you an electric car, but who literally cannot, through no fault of their own.
The second problem is that very few people at the utility companies understand how the car business works, either, but they at least know enough to know that they don’t know enough, and that’s where the consultants swoop in and convince the utilities that it’s their job — no, their mission — to convince people to buy electric cars.
To aid in that mission, the consultants have created a cottage industry of certificate programs, expensive training seminars, and online buyers’ guides that are terrible at convincing people to choose a perfectly reasonable EV instead of a loud and emotional Hemi-powered monster, terrible at their stated mission of helping dealers to sell cars, and terrible at showing people how an electric car can fit into the lives, today, but that are very good at convincing utility companies to transfer money from their bank accounts to the consultant’s.
They got it wrong, and that was the elephant in the room right now that everyone was afraid to talk about at that “big” EV web conference took part in last month. The environmentalists and activists who wanted the utility companies and policy-makers to engage in conversations with John Q. Public about “wheel to well emissions” and change the way people make decisions about cars got it 100% wrong. EVs aren’t succeeding because people are changing the way they think, they’re succeeding because they’re meeting new car buyers where they’re at today with body styles, performance figures, and capabilities that are more in line with what mainstream Americans are already buying, which also includes easily knowing how and where to fill up. The EV evangelists got it wrong, and the consultants took advantage of their political clout in order to siphon money out of the utilities. Full stop.
TL;DR: environmentalists and activists lobbied utility companies to become more visibly “green,” and the consultants took advantage of that by convincing the utility companies that it’s their job to sell cars, when it’s actually their job to sell electricity.
Selling Electric Fuel
Image courtesy Western Electric Co., circa 1915.
Utility companies sell electricity, plain and simple. But, they’ve had such a captive market and such a strong natural monopoly on their primary product that almost no one involved in a utility company’s day-to-day even thinks about selling electricity.
Want to see someone flounder? Ask someone at a utility company why you should buy electricity from them.
It seems like an asinine question, doesn’t it? A given, even, that you must buy electricity — but that wasn’t always the case. At the turn of the last century, though, it was a legitimate question. My own home outside of Chicago still has gas fixtures in it, for gas lights. There are pictures of lamplighters on the streets right outside, and the reason those gas lamps aren’t lit tonight is that, once upon a time, someone sold electricity to the people of this neighborhood.
Electricity is a superior product, and it succeeded because it was cleaner than gas and oil, sure, but I’d weigh that at about 10% of the reason why. The reasons that weighed heavier were many. The electric lights burned brighter, the smell of burning fuel oil was gone, the hassle of refilling oil lamps was eliminated, there was no smoke to stain the walls or ceilings, either.
That was it. That was the reason: electric fuel was better fuel. It succeeded as a product and not an ideology.
Image courtesy Chicago Edison Co.
Fast forward a hundred-odd years, and electric fuel is still better fuel. The electricity pushes cars to highway speeds faster than gasoline can, that gasoline smell that sticks to your hands is gone, the hassle of pumping gas into the car every few days is eliminated by at-home charging, and there are no harmful tailpipe emissions, either.
What’s more, electricity is cheap, it’s familiar, and it is absolutely everywhere. Sure, there may not be a 20 minutes-to-200 miles fast charger on every street corner (yet), but there very much is a power outlet that will, given time, charge your electric car, and every new electric car sold is a new car that needs electric fuel.
That’s it. That’s the difference. An electric car is just a regular car that you fill up with different stuff, and the utility companies, environmentalists — and every other stakeholder, come to think of it — would be better served by understanding that they’ll never “advance” or “accelerate” EV adoption by getting people to change the way they think about cars, but they may have a chance by getting people to change the way they think about the fuel that they’re putting in their cars.
Not dirty. Clean!
Not hard to find. Everywhere!
Not an expensive luxury. Affordable!
Not for hippies and tree-huggers. For everyone!
Not a sacrifice for a better tomorrow. Better for me, now!
Once the utility companies understand their role, they can start affecting real change, and let the dealers do what they know how to do best: sell cars that people want to buy to the people that want to buy them. And if that means that one or two of these opportunistic “consultants” has to find a different 9-5? So much the better.
Original content from CleanTechnica.
Disney’s Autopia ride has been making headlines recently, after a park spokesperson told the LA Times that the park is “evaluating technology that will enable us to convert from gas engines in the next few years.” But activists want to put the pressure on to ensure that Disney goes all-EV with the ride, and fast.
The news was reported in many outlets suggesting that Disney is going all-electric with Autopia, but unfortunately, Disney’s statement is a little noncommittal and open on that front. We’ve seen a lot of automakers call 100% gas-powered hybrids as “electrified,” and given that Disney was nonspecific about both its timeline and powertrain source, there’s still room for pressure to ensure that Disney goes with an all-electric choice.
Autopia is a classic ride in Disneyland’s “Tomorrowland” area, but given the EV world we’re living in, its stinky gas-powered cars certainly don’t seem too futuristic.
Until 2016, Autopia vehicles were noisy, polluting two-stroke engines. Two-stroke engines differ from four-stroke in that they can create more power in small formats, but are much dirtier because the combustion process is less complete in a two-stroke engine, and thus exhaust contains ~30x higher levels of particulate emissions (for example, running a two-stroke gas leafblower for one hour can make as many poisonous emissions as driving a passenger car 1,100 miles).
The emissions from these engines cause smog and harm the health of those who breathe them – so putting them directly in front of small children isn’t the best idea. But the ride was sponsored by Chevron from 1998-2012, and that company is pretty dedicated to poisoning small children anyway, so it was apt.
Thankfully, in 2012, Disney attracted a new sponsor, Honda, and in 2016, Honda upgraded the engines to small four-stroke engines, reducing noise and pollution significantly. However, the cars still create exhaust, which is still poisonous to the children riding behind these polluting engines. It’s also poisonous to employees, to the point where Disney pays hazard pay to employees who are assigned to staff the ride.
2016 was also notably after EVs had proven themselves in the automotive realm. So upgrading to an old technology seems a little inappropriate for “Tomorrowland.” But Honda themselves have been behind the ball on the EV transition as well.
Tomorrowland is the section within Disneyland which was meant to show visions of the future. It first opened in 1955, and offers a time capsule of what a 1950s vision of the future might have looked like.
Needless to say, in the seven decades hence, things have changed somewhat. To the point where the original designer of the Autopia cars, Bob Gurr, who is now 92 and was interviewed by the LA Times, said “get rid of those God-awful gasoline fumes.”
It’s certainly ironic that in California, where EVs keep setting sales records and where you can’t even buy gas-powered “small off-road engines” anymore, a Disneyland parkgoer might drive to the park in a clean EV, only to show their children a vision of the past with a poisonous, low-performing gas engine on one of the admittedly more-fun rides in the park. Just imagine how much more fun the ride could be if it were electric.
And Disney could do a lot more to update Tomorrowland with actual visions of the future, rather than an old-timey time capsule. The original Tomorrowland featured a “Carousel of Progress” show of futuristic efficient home appliances, and the Monorail and PeopleMover which both still exist. Disney could showcase more public transport or other post-car mobility options, ideas for futuristic city planning, induction cooktops and more.
But for now, making Autopia electric seems like incredibly low-hanging fruit. Electric go-karts are nothing new, and while Disney’s commitment to move away from gas in the “next few years” is good to hear, it’s been a long time coming, and now isn’t the time to wait.
To this end, local EV advocates and Plug In America are hosting a “Dump the Pump” rally this Sunday, April 21 at 10am at Walt Disney Studios in Burbank. Not a bad way to spend Earth Day weekend, perhaps after attending one of the LA-area Drive Electric Earth Month events the day before (and one of the founders of Drive Electric Week, Zan Dubin-Scott, is organizing the Burbank rally).
Given Disney’s 2030 net-zero pledge (which is ambitious compared to many companies), it’s about time they ditch gas at Autopia – and not just in the “next few years,” but maybe before next Earth Day rolls around. How about it?
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Another affordable electric car is set to be unveiled later this year as Nissan looks to boost EV sales. Nissan will unveil a new Micra EV as its newest low-cost electric car.
Nissan has been teasing an electric Micra successor for several years now. The new EV was previewed as part of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance.
Over two years ago, the company claimed, “This all-new model will be designed by Nissan and engineered and manufactured by Renault using our new common platform.”
The entry-level EV was part of the Alliance’s plans to invest 23 billion euros ($24.5 billion) over a five-year period to kick off its EV offensive. Nissan unveiled its own business update last month as it looks to cut costs and introduce affordable EVs.
Nissan’s new “Arc” business plan aims for “significant next-generation EV cost reduction” through its partnerships and technology.
The automaker is preparing to launch five new electric cars soon. In November, Nissan revealed an up to £3bn ($3.8B) investment to build three new EVs at its Sunderland factory, including an electric Juke, Qashqai, and its LEAF successor.
Nissan Micra EV to arrive as a new low-cost option
However, Nissan will kick things off with the Micra EV, which will be unveiled later this year. It will be Nissan’s latest low-cost electric car as it looks to satisfy growing demand.
Although Nissan has yet to reveal full details, it’s expected to ride on the same AmpR Small Platform used to power the Renault 5. The Renault features up to 249 miles range from a 52 kWh battery, and the Nissan Micra EV is expected to boast similar numbers.
It could also offer smaller battery options, like 40 kWh, good for 186 miles range, at a lower price point.
According to Auto Express, the Micra EV will be the first of Nissan’s new electric car lineup. The new low-cost EVs’ design is expected to be closer to that of the Ariya, as sources have also indicated with the new LEAF.
Nissan said it aims to reduce the costs of its new electric models by 30% by developing “EVs in families, integrating powertrains, utilizing next-gen manufacturing, group sourcing, and battery innovations.”
The automaker expects that by focusing on these areas, its electric cars will achieve price parity with gas-power vehicles by 2030 (if not sooner).
Nissan also plans to introduce new EV batteries, such as all-solid-state, to gain a competitive advantage. It kicked off construction on its new all-solid-state EV battery pilot line this week.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Washington State’s energy board cut the size of what would have been the state’s largest wind farm in half yesterday – here’s why.
Wind farm controversy in Washington State
The $1.7 billion, 1,150-megawatt (MW) Horse Heaven Clean Energy Center combines wind, solar, and battery storage. The original plan was for the project to feature 244 wind turbines across 24 miles of hills, and three solar farms over 5,447 acres south of the Tri-Cities, near the Oregon border.
But Horse Heaven has been stuck at the permitting stage with the seven-person Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) for the last three years. Yesterday, the EFSEC voted 5-2 in favor of a rule stating that new wind turbines could not be located within two miles of the nests of endangered ferruginous hawks.
The ferruginous hawk is classified as a Priority Species whose habitats need protection, and its nests can be found throughout the planning area. The nests often sit empty, but North America’s largest hawk is known to return to its nests after years pass.
The Audubon Society – which states on its website that it “strongly supports wind energy that is sited and operated properly to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effectively for the impacts on birds, other wildlife, and the places they need now and in the future” – supports the EFSEC’s decision.
So that decision effectively cuts the number of Horse Heaven’s wind turbines in half. Understandably, Horse Heaven’s developer, Colorado-based Scout Clean Energy, isn’t happy. But the company can appeal the decision to the EFSEC. If that fails, then the case goes to Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA), who will make the final decision.
With 3.4 GW of capacity, wind power is the second-largest contributor to the state’s renewable electricity generation, behind hydroelectricity, which supplies 60% of Washington’s total electricity net generation. In 2023, wind provided almost 8% of the state’s power.
Washington State is No 3 in the US for renewable generation overall, behind California and Texas. But natural gas is the second-largest in-state source of net generation, fueling about 18% of Washington’s total electricity generation in 2023, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).
By 2045, 100% of all electricity sold to Washington State customers must come from renewable or non-emitting sources.
Electrek’s Take
The EFSEC wanting the number of turbines reduced to protect an endangered hawk seems like a fair decision. The Audubon Society is very pro-wind power – they know that wind turbines aren’t the things that kill the most birds. No 1 is cats, No 2 is windows, and ultimately it’s climate change. So its support of the Horse Heaven decision carries weight.
The Yakama Nation isn’t in favor of the wind farm, either, citing damage to the hills’ cultural and historical significance. So it will be interesting to see what Inslee ultimately decides.
Washington is legally committed to achieving net zero by 2045, so they’ll ultimately have to figure it out.
Read more: Washington passes bill to target all EV sales by 2030 – for real this time
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports1 year ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Environment11 months agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports6 months agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Technology3 years ago
Game consoles were once banned in China. Now Chinese developers want a slice of the $49 billion pie
-
Politics2 years ago
Have the last few wobbly weeks seen a turning point for Johnson as PM?