Page added on November 21, 2013
Just how much can putting one million electric vehicles (EVs) on the road in California save lives, cut consumer bills, and boost the green economy?
That’s the question being answered by the Charge Ahead California campaign, a new initiative launched by a coalition of environmental and public health groups led by the Natural Resources Defense Council seeking to direct pollution fees on oil companies toward funding clean transportation incentives across the Sunshine State.
And while California already leads the US in EV sales as the epicenter of America’s clean tech market, today’s announcement is yet another reminder of how far clean tech can drive us all toward a sustainable future.
California map and flag image via Shutterstock
EV advocates often tout their environmental benefits in comparison to vehicles running on gasoline or diesel, and it’s hard to argue that equation is more distinct anywhere outside of California – cars, trucks, and buses are the single largest source of air pollution in the state.
The American Lung Association’s 2013 “State of the Air” report ranked seven California cities among the ten most polluted in America, and 40% of state residents live close enough to traffic to be at an increased risk of asthma or cancer, while 6,000 residents die from traffic pollution every year – twice as many as in motor vehicle accidents.
“More Californians live near a freeway or busy road than anywhere else in the country and it is no surprise communities living near these pollution hot spots experience higher rates of asthma,” said Bonnie Holmes-Gen of the American Lung Association. “One of the most effective ways to reduce health emergencies from asthma and other respiratory illnesses is to cut vehicle pollution and support the transition to clean, emission-free cars and trucks.
Because of the high percentage of renewables on California’s electrical grid, EVs reduce emissions by 75% and an all-electric fleet running on a third renewable power (California’s 2020 renewable portfolio standard target) would prevent $14 billion in health and climate damages as well as 10,000 asthma attacks every year.
But beyond environmental benefits, Charge Ahead California’s one million EV goal could also have massive economic impacts. State residents currently spend $70 billion on gasoline and diesel every year, with $40 million going to companies located in other states or other countries, doubling the economic drain without even adding in the volatile nature of fuel prices from foreign sources.
Gasoline electricity price comparison chart via NRDC
By comparison, EVs promise much cheaper and stable transportation costs. The Department of Energy estimates driving an EV is the equivalent of paying one dollar per gallon in a gasoline vehicle, and electricity rates have been relatively stable over the past 40 years. California also offers innovative time-of-use power pricing that further benefits EVs charging at night on cheaper off-peak hours.
Adding more EVs to the roads could also supercharge California’s green industry. The campaign notes multiple companies are already expanding their facilities and creating new manufacturing jobs in the state to meet EV demand that’s doubled since 2012, and estimates 100,000 additional jobs could be created by 2030 by shifting to EVs.
The core proposition of Charge Ahead California is improving the local economy and environment, but the main attraction is just how entirely possible its goal of one million EVs is, given existing initiatives and consumer demand.
Roughly a third of all EVs on American roads today are located in California, and it is by far the biggest market within the recent eight-state agreement to put 3.3 million EVs on the road by 2025. The state is also home to the largest concentration of EV charging stations and keeps investing more money into charging infrastructure.
In addition, the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy has committed British Columbia, California, Oregon, and Washington to expanding low-carbon fuel standards while increasing the use of EVs across the region. More and more EVs are hitting the road but even with more EVs on the grid, consumers don’t have to worry about causing blackouts when they plug in – Southern California Edison’s utility territory is home to 10% of all EVs in America but reported no negative effects from their charging.
While the state has already taken the lead in funding clean transportation initiatives, it’s not enough to rest on previous accomplishments. “California’s leadership has paved the way for a promising market for electric vehicles,” said Don Anair of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “However sustained investment is necessary to enable this technology to reach its potential.”
6 Comments on "Can California Charge Ahead To One Million EVs Within Ten Years?"
DC on Thu, 21st Nov 2013 9:51 pm
Oohh more crackpottery from the faux-greens@CT.
Rhetorical question posed by CT:Just how much can putting one million electric vehicles (EVs) on the road in California save lives, cut consumer bills, and boost the green economy?
Save lives: EVs will save exactly zero lives. A cyclist or pedestrian hit by a 4000 pound eco-friendly EV by a distracted driver on there way to Wall-Mart, will be just as dead. Private cars kill, regardless of how they are fueled. If you think reduced pollution from gas-burners will ‘save lives’, think again. Amerikan EVs are powered by coal, oil, and nuclear. More EVs=more coal, oil, and nuclear. Math is simple.
Cut consumer bills?: Questionable at bests. Besides, what is a ‘consumer’ anyhow and why would the corporate powers want to ‘save’ money for private single-car commuters?
A:They dont. EVs are(currently) cheap to run because electricity is artificially cheap in the US, like all energy sources. More EVs would simply mean more user fees and higher rates IF they ever became ‘too’ popular.
Boost the green economy: If ‘cars’ however fueled, could be remotely considered ‘green’ this question might have some merit. But since ‘cars’ are basically the best planet wreckers we have regardless of fuel source, this question is complete nonsense. The only ‘green’ econony that makes sense, is the one that replaces globalized corporate mass-market consumption, with a localized, non-growth economy. ‘Green’ cars are the ultimate oxymoron.
If you want an EV garbage truck or ambulance, thats one thing. If you want to replace the 250 million+ suburban commuting trash cans and the wall-mart economy we have now, with EVs, then your not promoting ‘green’ anything. Rather the opposite.
Kenz300 on Thu, 21st Nov 2013 10:31 pm
End the oil monopoly on transportation fuels.
Drive an EV, flex-fuel, hybrid, CNH, LNG or Hydrogen fueled vehicle.
Dave Thompson on Fri, 22nd Nov 2013 12:20 am
Sorry KenZ all those you list need fossil fuels to work.
DC on Fri, 22nd Nov 2013 3:10 am
Its not just that KenZ’s ‘alternatives’ use fossil-fuels as a feedstock, he also cannot wrap his head around the simple concept that many of the not-alternatives he parrots are mostly owned in whole or in part, by oil corporations.
Or put another way, he believes competition is magic, and can solve all any and all problems. This also means he is equally unfamiliar with the concept of cartel-like behavior. And a key feature of cartels is a lot of the ‘competition’ amoung cartel members is basically well…staged or faux-competition at best.
BillT on Fri, 22nd Nov 2013 4:36 am
“Can California Charge Ahead To One Million EVs Within Ten Years?”
Answer: NO!
criticalmass on Fri, 22nd Nov 2013 11:20 pm
Just got my Leaf. Selfishly, I’m saving a ton. Plus the way our coal-powered plant “bleeds off” energy, I’m just spending what would would be wasted.
EV’s are coming, doomer or not.