The Transportation Electrification Strategy (TES) was discussed at Friday’s Thurston Regional Planning Council meeting. Steven Hershkowitz, Transportation Electrification Policy lead from the Department of Commerce Energy Office, presented the plan, which unveiled insights into the state's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45%, below 1990 levels, by 2030.
Hershkowitz talked about modeling efforts, the role of Advanced Clean Fleets, on-road and non-road emissions, and the gap that needs to be addressed to meet the 2030 climate mandate.
The strategy's mission, according to Hershkowitz, is to show a roadmap of policies and investments needed to expedite meeting the goal.
Hershkowitz presented the two-part modeling work, with the first part projecting electric vehicle (EV) adoption on the road. The second part of the model is the EV projections to estimate the needed charging infrastructure.
He said six scenarios were modeled, including "current policies" and a "strong transportation electrification policy" incorporating additional funding, incentives, and adoption of Advanced Clean Fleets – a set of regulations adopted by California that require fleets to transition to zero-emissions vehicles.
It also estimates EV adoption rates by county/region, projected numbers and types of charging plugs required both residentially and publicly, and reductions in the transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions.
Hershkowitz also shared the latest emissions inventory from the Department of Ecology in the transportation sector, focusing on Washington State's emissions breakdown, which showed that 58% of emissions come from on-road vehicles, while the remaining 42% originate from off-road sources, primarily marine and aviation.
Washington State aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 45% by 2030, which will require reducing transportation sector emissions to around 20 million metric tons.
The transportation sector currently emits 40.3 million metric tons (MMT) to 23.5 MMT of GHG on-road and 16.7 MMT non-road.
Hershkowitz said TES aims to achieve 100% new light-duty EV sales by 2030 in Washington State. He underscored the importance of implementing stricter emissions standards and policies to accelerate this objective.
He added that since non-road transportation sources, like marine and aviation, are more challenging to decarbonize quickly, the TES for the on-road portion suggested an emission reduction closer to 10 MMT for the state to achieve the 20 MMT transportation sector target.
As a result of the active promotion of the public sector to promote electric vehicles and current policies, Hershkowitz said they had already seen a reduction of 2.6 MMT in GHG emissions. But he said there is still a gap to meet 2030 limits, and additional reductions are still needed from other approaches.
The areas identified for further action include improving vehicle efficiency, programs to retire older polluting vehicles and developing lower-carbon fuels.
The Commerce representative also discussed some draft priority policy recommendations, including prioritizing multi-family housing charging and utility infrastructure upgrades. That aims to make charging accessible for more residents and support increased electricity demand.
Hershkowitz said adopting California's Advanced Clean Fleets rule is important for medium and heavy-duty vehicles. The report also calls for "equity-focused" light-duty vehicle incentives to expand EV access statewide.
Public information campaign that focuses on improving consumer education. He said many residents still need clarification about charging.
The Interagency Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council (EV Council) has been developing a statewide transportation electrification strategy, which will be out for public review in October.
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Kruz81
This entire venture is a fallacy. Thinking that everyone or even 40% of the pop can or will buy EV is insane. We know the infrastructure is not here and won't be. The cost of these EVs is also too much. Also the pollution and harm caused by creating their batteries does not balance for the EVs not polluting.
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Report this
curtzt
Actually, after the latest price cuts the base Model 3 Tesla now costs $38,990 - about $8,700 less than the average cost of a new vehicle in the US. After the $7,500 Federal tax credit, which will become a price cut at time of sale this January, thanks to Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, its estimated cost of ownership is less than the Toyota Corolla's.
We drive a 2019 Chevy Bolt. It cost us $24,000 used, and is the best car we've ever owned . It's quieter than our gas cars were, and it has better acceleration.We plug it in at our house, and it goes 250 miles on a charge. As batteries get cheaper and cheaper, it's only a matter of time until everybody drives an EV.
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Report this
jimlazar
As an EV driver, I see the world a lot different than Kruz81 does.
We drive a Kia Niro. We live in a single-family home with a garage. We plug it in when we come home, and the onboard charge controller then waits until 1 AM to start charging. It is finished charging by 5 AM. We are on the PSE Time-of-Use rate, and the overnight price is about half of the regular residential rate. This works out to the equivalent of about $0.60 per gallon for electricity. Even at that price, PSE collects the full cost of off-peak power, plus we pay a share of the transmission and distribution system costs. During the peak hours -- 7 - 10 AM and 5-8 PM, we pay about two times the regular rate.
If most new electric cars take advantage of off-peak charging at a discounted rate, then PSE will not have to spend a lot of money to upgrade the grid, or invest in expensive peak-period resources. So there really is not very much infrastructure cost needed for off-peak home charging. The grid is there. The wiring is in my house. And the wholesale price of electricity at 1 AM is often below 2 cents/kWh, meaning PSE gets a 125% markup even at the very low off-peak price I pay.
Now, it's a whole different story for people who live in apartments and condos and don't have a dedicated parking space with power available. This will be a real challenge, and EVs will only be attractive to the 70% of the Thurston County population that lives in single-family homes. The state plan does include a lot of investment in charging capacity for apartments, and that will have a significant cost. We do need to deal with that.
Finally, with the current number of public chargers, at places like Target and WalMart, we do have to plan ahead for longer trips. But, in the last five years since we bought the Kia, it has only been far enough away from home to need access to a public charger a few times per year. We can plan ahead for those trips. As there are more and more EVs, we will need more and more of those public chargers, and that's what the state and federal programs are for.
Indeed, there are some nasty byproducts and practices in the lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other inputs into the electric vehicle propulsion system and batteries. Several studies of the life-cycle emissions, including both producing the vehicles and using the vehicles have shown that the EVs are responsible for a LOT less pollution when you add up the mining, production, and utilization of EVs versus gasoline or diesel vehicles. Here are a couple of these:
https://theicct.org/publication/a-global-comparison-of-the-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-combustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars/
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/life-cycle-emissions-evs-vs-combustion-engine-vehicles/
There will be some challenges to the EV revolution, but we will be better off in a lot of ways. They are simpler vehicles. They cost less to operate. They pollute less. They are quieter. They are easier to recycle. There are some really cool electronics in many models.
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Report this
Southsoundguy
EVs are a scam.
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 Report this
Yeti1981
I love that even in the comments here there's an assumption that the average cost of an EV is newly affordable. Someone mentioned their EV cost them $24k. That still translates to a monthly payment for a significant amount of people. Not everyone can afford a $600 car payment, a $300 car payment, or really any payment at all. A lot of folks are just barely getting by. They are making choices of whether to pay their electric bill or feed their kids. Some folks are just not willing to take on that payment. And then the potential risk that comes with it when they wreck the car and have to fork over money for repairs, insurance, a rental, etc. And this WILL happen. I don't care how good of a driver you are. And imagine buying your newly minted teen driver even a $24,000 EV, and then they inevitably have their first wreck (average is within 6 months of starting to drive). C'mon people, these are wallet issues. Haven't you ever had to scrape change out of the ash tray for gas money? Your breaking people. And unless your going to provide everyone with a free EV, a majority of working people aren't going to see the value in it.
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 Report this
KarenM
Owning any car, electric or gas, costs money. Costs for the initial purchase and then maintenance and fuel can be a drag on a household budget. I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone should buy an EV today.
If you choose to own a car, EV's can be less expensive to own and operate since they have lower maintenance and fuel costs.
I just shopped quickly on line and found a used Leaf for $8,000. If you don't need to drive far with each charge, these used EV's can be a pretty good deal.
For those who cannot afford any car, I hope that they can access transit or other transportation for their daily needs. The emergence of EV's is unfortunately not going to change our income inequity or poverty problems.
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 Report this