The Trump administration may be pulling back on clean cars, but China is all in. The latest numbers from China on passenger electric vehicles and electric bus sales are impressive, and they point to a future of global dominance for Chinese automakers in the EV world.
First, let’s look at passenger electric vehicle sales, as Clean Technica covered:
After the usual off-season (January and February), March came and electric car sales surged to 59,000 units in China, up 85% year over year (YoY). Quarter 1 2018 sales doubled compared to the same period last year, to over 122,000 units.
Consequently, the 2018 plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) share surged to 1.8%, not that far off from the 2.1% of 2017, and with sales expected to pick up significantly as the year advances, the 2018 PEV share should end north of the 3% threshold.
Last month, the Chinese OEMs represented roughly 40% of all PEVs registered globally, an impressive number that is sure to increase during 2018, possibly even beating its 46% record of last year.
Meanwhile, the Chinese EV automaker BYD had its second-best month ever with 13,100 registrations, just below their 16,000 units sold last December. Analysts expect BYD to start posting 20,000-plus performances in the second half of the year, putting it on par with Tesla’s sales forecasts.
To put those Chinese numbers into perspective, here are the most recent EV sales figures in the U.S. and California since 2011:
So while the entire U.S. has logged 54,423 EV sales in the first 3 months of 2018 (with almost half of that total — 26,771 — from California alone), China hit 59,000 in just one month, with the trend lines only going up.
But it’s not just passenger vehicles. China is heavily investing in electric buses. As Bloomberg reported:
China had about 99 percent of the 385,000 electric buses on the roads worldwide in 2017, accounting for 17 percent of the country’s entire fleet. Every five weeks, Chinese cities add 9,500 of the zero-emissions transporters—the equivalent of London’s entire working fleet, according Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Much of China’s commitment to electric transportation is due to local air quality concerns. But the country’s leadership surely sees a path to economic domination of the transportation technology of the future, just as they dominate manufacturing in other industries.
While China’s commitment to EVs and electric buses is certainly good for the environment and fight against climate change, it means the U.S. federal government is missing out on a golden economic opportunity, let alone environmental one. EVs are here to stay, and at this rate, it will be China cashing in and not the U.S.
Coffee makers lost a high-profile preliminary court decision in California recently over their unwillingness to disclose the chemical acrylamide in their product. Under the state’s voter-approved Prop 65, industries with harmful chemicals must disclose those health risks to the public. In this case, acrylamide, formed during coffee bean roasting, is a known animal carcinogen and possible human carcinogen, too.
My colleague Claudia Polsky, who runs Berkeley Law’s environmental law clinic, takes the media and industry to task in a recent Sacramento Bee op-ed for mocking the preliminary ruling:
Litigation motivates industries otherwise unresponsive to toxicity data; with acrylamide in processed foods, it has happened already. Litigation to compel the potato chip industry to warn about high acrylamide levels in its product nearly a decade ago was met with broad media ridicule – only to trigger changes in potato chip manufacture that lowered acrylamide levels, obviated the need to warn, and induced a press mea culpa. Proposition 65 enforcement can similarly help us have our coffee and improve it too.
It’s easy to demagogue a court case like this as another example of litigation run amok. But often the underlying facts are more nuanced than the headlines might indicate, and the ultimate benefits for society under-appreciated.
This case still has a ways to go before any final decisions are reached. And in the worst case scenario for industry, they’ll simply have to disclose the chemical, not eliminate it. So coffee drinkers don’t need to panic — unless they happen to be worried about the health effects of acrylamide.
Transit ridership is declining nationwide, while driving miles are up. Recent research indicates that increased access to vehicles by lower-income residents is particularly responsible for the transit dip, as lower-income residents tend to ride transit more than higher-income earners. And land use policies that encourage or force low-income residents to move far from jobs may be a determining factor.
First off, as Governing reports, poor people are increasingly able to access vehicles:
Only 20 percent of adults living in poverty in 2016 reported that they had no access to a vehicle. That’s down from 22 percent in 2006, according to a Governing analysis of U.S. Census data. Meanwhile, the access rates among all Americans was virtually the same (6.6 percent) between those two years.
In addition, lower-income earners are now able to get easy access to car loan services, including “subprime” auto loans.
But while economic factors play a role, so does land use:
“The country is becoming more car-oriented, because the country is moving south. If you’re moving from transit-oriented cities in the Northeast and moving to Texas, you’re going to become more car-oriented,” [urban planner and transportation consultant Sarah Jo Peterson] says.
Urban planners who want to push for walkable neighborhoods and transit-oriented development can still make a compelling case for certain areas, particularly urban centers, she says. “What they don’t have is wind at their backs.”
This migration of poor families to the suburbs, where housing is cheaper but transit service is weak, requires them to purchase an automobile to get access to jobs.
In Los Angeles, the Southern California Association of Governments commissioned a study by UCLA researchers on the causes of the ridership decline. The numbers from the report [PDF] are striking in terms of how concentrated transit ridership is in L.A.:
Ten percent of all of the people who commuted to and from work on transit in 2015 lived in 1.4 percent of the region’s census tracts, which covered just 0.2 percent of the region’s land area; the average number of transit commuters in these few tracts was almost 12 times the regional average. Fully 60 percent of the region’s transit commuters lived in 21 percent of the region’s census tracts, which occupied 0.9 percent of the region’s land area. Overall, the most urban and transit-friendly neighborhoods in the SCAG region comprise less than one percent of the region’s land area.
Areas that were heavily populated with transit commuters in the year 2000 became, in the next 15 years, slightly less poor, and significantly less foreign born. Perhaps most important, the share of households without vehicles in these neighborhoods fell notably. All these factors align with a narrative where a transit-using populace is replaced by people who are more likely to drive.
So while researchers are still analyzing the various causes for the ridership decline, the fact that low-income residents are moving to exurban areas may be a prime reason. And that displacement is likely due to high housing costs and gentrification in our prime transit areas. Until we solve that problem, we may not be able to resuscitate the nation’s transit systems anytime soon.
The killing of SB 827 in committee on Tuesday received a lot of media attention, which hopefully furthers this important dialogue. Here are some noteworthy pieces:
San Jose Mercury News: Why did California’s major housing bill fail so quickly?:
The proposal was not the typical stuff of wonky housing policy. A new analysis by the data firm UrbanFootprint found that if every parcel of land along the 45-mile El Camino Real corridor was redeveloped according to the new height limits allowed under SB 827, the number of homes along the route — from San Bruno to San Jose — would triple to 453,000.
But it also found that a potentially less contentious alternative, adding homes to commercial developments along the same corridor, would nearly double the housing stock.
Other housing bills this session that are still moving include Wiener’s S.B. 828, to tighten regional planning requirements for affordable housing, and S.B. 829, which would streamline permitting for farmworker housing. Another that environmentalists are watching is A.B. 2923, which would require the Bay Area Rapid Transit system and local jurisdictions to up zone land within a half-mile of station entrances.
San Francisco Chronicle: Yelp CEO calls on Google, Facebook to help housing crisis:
Wiener vowed to bring it back next year. He wouldn’t say in what form, except that “I don’t believe the bill should be further scaled back in terms of density and geography.”
Interestingly, Sen. Wiener describes in this interview how he was really just one vote short in committee, as one of the “no” votes would have favored it if the votes were otherwise there to pass it.
New York Magazine (Jonathan Chait): The Urban Housing Crisis Is a Test for Progressive Politics:
“The zoning crisis is ultimately a question of whether the most prosperous parts of blue America can be opened up to new entrants, or whether they will remain closed off and increasingly unaffordable.”
Gimmme Shelter housing podcast with Matt Levin and Liam Dillon:
Scott Pruitt’s decision earlier this month to rollback Obama-era fuel economy standards has gotten a lot of media attention — rightfully so. In an interview last week with The Real News Network out of Baltimore, two other panelists and I had an opportunity to discuss the implications:
For those unable to watch the video, a transcript is available.
Yesterday afternoon, SB 827 was killed in its first committee. Though a number of legislators acknowledged California’s severe housing shortage, few were willing to risk the political backlash of taking on the local government lobby.
- Sen. Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado Hills: Yes
- Sen. Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County): Yes
- Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley: Yes
- Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco: Yes
Notably, the bill pulled in two Republican representatives (Sen. Gaines and Morrell) from inland areas, as I suspected. Politically, they should have an interest in keeping displaced liberal voters from moving into their districts for super-commutes and cheaper housing. Meanwhile, Sen. Skinner was a bill co-author and Sen. Wiener of course authored the bill.
Then the “no” votes:
- Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose (chair): No
- Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres (Stanislaus County) (vice chair): No
- Sen. Benjamin Allen, D-Santa Monica: No
- Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa: No
- Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg: No
Most of these senators represent upscale areas with affluent homeowners. Most are Democrats. Surprisingly, Republican Sen. Cannella voted against it, even though the bill only affected 2.4 square miles (or 0.0%) of his entire district. Sen. McGuire and Dodd’s districts were also barely affected by the legislation. Notably, Sen. Allen represents transit-rich Santa Monica, a predominantly wealthy homeowner enclave, while Sen. Beall represents some exclusive neighborhoods in the San Jose area.
And for reasons that are unclear to me, these senators did not vote:
- Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton: Not voting
- Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside: Not voting
- Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford (Kings County): Not voting
- Sen. Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont: Not voting
Given these votes, it’s clear SB 827 has a long way to go (politically speaking) to convince state legislators that even a relatively modest check on local zoning authority to allow more housing near transit is needed.
The fallout from the vote should be obvious. Any hope for big sweeping changes in local restrictions on homebuilding will not happen anytime soon. I’m sure businesses around the state and country have taken note, when it comes to deciding whether to stay in California or locate a new business here. The message from the legislature is now clear: California is not serious about solving its housing shortage anytime soon.
And it’s a tough message for those struggling to pay rent or start a life here. It was always going to take years to repair the damage from decades of under-building homes in the state. And now we’re delayed yet another year or longer from getting going on real solutions.
The displacement problem will also worsen. Despite opposition from tenants rights groups, SB 827 was their best hope at addressing the root causes. The bill would have helped reduce regional housing shortages that push wealthier residents to buy up existing units in the absence of new ones, and, as this letter from noted fair housing experts explains, it would have helped open up wealthier, racially homogeneous enclaves to more diverse residents. Instead, tenants rights groups focused on boosting rent control as a solution. But this policy is really just a last-ditch effort to protect the dwindling low-income renters left in our cities, hanging on against the tide of gentrification unleashed by the regional housing shortage.
The result is the further exodus from the state of middle class residents, as well as the displacement to the fringe of our megacities of our working class residents. From these exurban areas, they’ll continue “super-commuting” into job-rich city centers, spewing air pollution from their cars, congesting our freeways, and sprawling out in cheap housing over former farmland and open space.
And this isn’t some dystopian future. This dynamic is already happening right now. The failure of SB 827 just means we’ve locked this future into place for years to come.
So what is the path forward? Big reform is likely dead. Incrementalism will replace it. But the basic approach shouldn’t change, because the problem (housing shortages with high demand) and its cause (local government restrictions on housing) will persist.
Here are some options:
- Focus an SB 827-type approach on allowing more housing on commercial and mixed-use zones near transit. Since these lands are commercial in nature, there won’t be any concerns about displacement of existing residents. Think redevelopment of strip malls and parking lots to allow housing and mixed-use development as the highest and best use.
- Narrow the scope of SB 827 to major rail transit stops only. The original bill included high-quality bus stops, which greatly expanded the geography of the bill, thus expanding an opponent base of hostile local governments. Conceivably, a narrower scope might help the chances of passage (although the “no” votes of representatives with almost no land affected by the bill in their districts should provide some caution on this point).
- Move forward incrementally with parking and density relaxations near transit. The bill originally included these provisions but also allowed higher height limits. Neighbors tend to react most reflexively against taller buildings, in my experience. A focus on parking and density may be less controversial (although previous efforts to deregulate local parking requirements failed, so this would by no means be an easy lift).
I’m sure other ideas will come forward in the days and months ahead. Pro-housing advocates will only grow in rank and intensity as the housing affordability problem worsens, and they’ll be back with new proposals. The setback yesterday was decisive but temporary.
Credit is due to Sen. Wiener and the co-authors: they have finally gotten Californians to focus on the true source of the housing problem. And the first step to solving any problem is identifying its cause. With all the national attention and conversation, SB 827 certainly accomplished that goal.
SB 827, to relax local restrictions on home-building near transit, faces a big test this afternoon at its first Capitol committee hearing. As the hearing draws near, it’s worth noting how disappointing the reaction to the bill has been from some advocacy groups that are supposedly in the pro-climate and transit worlds.
Scott Lucas at San Francisco Magazine has a lengthy piece exploring one of those groups’ opposition to the bill: the Sierra Club California. The article features this exchange with the head of the organization:
Although [Sierra Club California director Kathryn] Phillips says she supports infill development around mass transit, it’s hard for her to locate an actual place in California where she supports new buildings. This is also true of the Bay Area chapter, which in recent years has opposed the 8 Washington condo tower near the Embarcadero, the redevelopment of Treasure Island and the Hunters Point Shipyard, the expansion of Park Merced, and the new Golden State Warriors stadium. Recently, the chapter opposed a 66-unit development in the Western Addition because it would replace an auto repair shop it deemed historic.
With regard to upzoning near transit, Phillips rules out Sacramento, where some neighborhoods, she thinks, would use upzoning as an excuse to block new transit, concealing what she calls “racist” reasons under a civilized veneer. Nor does she think it’s appropriate in more outlying areas like Folsom, where a transit stop under the bill would lead to an upzoning too near wilderness areas. She doesn’t think it’s a good idea in San Diego, where taller buildings would block views of the ocean, nor does she support it in major cities like Los Angeles or San Francisco, where “people who live in rent-controlled buildings worry about bigger and bigger buildings coming toward them.”
As she finishes enumerating those exceptions, she adds, echoing the national organization’s policy line, that “we see the value of infill higher-density development around transit.”
SB 827 has revealed a lot about the politics behind our current housing dysfunction in the state. We knew wealthy homeowners and their allies in office would oppose allowing more homes built in their transit-rich communities. But the bill has also pulled the curtain back on the hypocrisy, confusion and cowardice within much of the climate and transit advocacy community about how to deal with the massive housing shortage in the state.
If SB 827 is successful, it will unfortunately be in spite of many of these advocates. And that’s not a good sign, given how much work needs to be done to improve California’s land use policies in an era of climate change.
California’s historic five-year drought may be over, but water shortages remain — and may worsen in an era of climate change. What does ongoing uncertainty around water supplies mean for California farmers?
Last Wednesday, California’s water officials announced water allocations based on snow pack measurements, reviving concerns about the environment, urban vs. agricultural water needs, and the need to prepare for a future with a less reliable water supply.
Does water scarcity put our agricultural industry at risk? Can legislation help? We’ll discuss tonight at 7pm in the next installment of the City Visions ongoing series on sustainable food production. Joining me will be:
- Ellen Hanak, Director and Senior Fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California.
- Ashley Boren, Executive Director of Sustainable Conservation.
- Cannon Michael, President and CEO of Bowles Farming Company.
Bay Area residents can tune in on KALW 91.7 FM at 7pm, and anyone can livestream the show. Call or email with your questions for the panel!
A few weeks ago, UC Berkeley Law released the report Delivering the Goods, with recommendations for how California could achieve a more sustainable freight system. Goods movement in the state is a major economic driver but also a significant source of pollution.
To accompany the report release, the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) at Berkeley Law held a webinar to highlight key findings. The discussion featured these experts:
- Elizabeth Fretheim of Walmart
- Adrian Martinez of Earthjustice
- Chris Schmidt of Caltrans
Video from the webinar is now available, for those who couldn’t attend at the time or would like to review portions:
And if you’d like to learn more about sustainable freight at Southern California’s ports, please register for the free June 8th conference at UCLA on the prospects for deploying zero-emission technologies there, featuring experts from industry, government and advocacy groups.
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach bring more goods into the U.S. than any other ports in the country. Yet together the ports are the single largest source of air pollution in Southern California.
Harbor commissioners have adopted an ambitious plan to transition to cleaner fuels for goods movement in and around the ports in the next two decades. But achieving the vision for clean air will require answers to important questions:
- What are the prospects and potential for various zero-emission technologies – including battery electrification – to reduce pollution?
- How can finance, permitting and community engagement support the transition to cleaner fuels?
- What new policy and industry actions are needed for cost-effective deployment?
To address these questions, UCLA Law and UC Berkeley Law, with sponsorship from Bank of America, are hosting a free, daylong conference at UCLA Covel Commons on June 8, 2018. Panelists will examine the prospects and policy needs to move to a zero-emission future of goods movement in and around the ports. Speakers include the president of BYD Motors, CEO of ProTerra, CEO of Total Transportation Services, Inc. (TTSI) and CEO of the Coalition for Clean Air.
Also included will be representatives from:
- Bank of America
- California Trucking Association
- Port of Long Beach
- Southern California Edison
- Tesla Motors
- Union of Concerned Scientists
They will focus on steps that industry, government and civil society leaders must take to achieve zero-emission goods movement at the ports.
The event is free and open to the public, but advance registration is required, as space is limited. Please see the agenda and registration for more information.
Hope to see you there!