State: 1 in 5 charge failures a ‘substantial risk’ to Washington’s EV strategy

The Harvard study also noted a lack of public charging ports in regions of Washington such as Ferry County, where the county’s only existing public charging port has been removed. It’s a problem the Harvard study attributes to a lack of EV car sales.

Washington state’s goal of shifting the transportation sector away from fossil fuels and toward electrification is at “substantial risk” due to the documented unreliability of public charging stations, according to a state electric vehicle council.

Per a state law, the sale and registration of fossil fuel vehicles made in 2030 or after will be illegal in Washington. To make the use of EVs feasible, the state will need to have fast-charging electric vehicle ports every 50 miles across the state highway state, and 3 million total in both public and private charging ports.

But, there’s a catch.

The estimate assumes every one of the public charging ports will be functional.

Meanwhile, one out of every five attempted charges at a public port fails, according to a Harvard-led study. Released in June, the study found that just 78% of attempted charges at the nation’s roughly 64,000 public port succeeds, making them less reliable than gas stations.

“Imagine if you go to a traditional gas station and two out of 10 times the pumps are out of order,” scholar Omar Asensio said in a news release.

Asensio is the climate fellow at Harvard Business School’s Institute for the Study of Business in Global Society, or BiGS, and led the study.

The Harvard study also noted a lack of public charging ports in regions of Washington such as Ferry County, where the county’s only existing public charging port has been removed. It’s a problem the Harvard study attributes to a lack of EV car sales.

The one in five failure rate could prove to be a logistical challenge for the state EV Coordinating Council, which is tasked with creating the electrification strategy for the state’s transportation sector, with public charging ports a key aspect of that strategy.

The state Legislature has already invested $184 million for passenger EV charging to build 752 fast charging ports, while additional federal funding is expected to bring the total to 1,019 fast charging ports; the state currently has 1,283 fast charging ports in presumed operation.

The council’s Transportation Electrification Strategy estimates there will need to be 3,030 public fast charging ports for light-duty vehicles by 2025; the council estimates that there will need to be 728 private ports to meet EV charging demand.

However, in an Aug. 6 draft proposal under development by the Washington State Department of Commerce’s Clean Transportation Unit, it states that the failure rate means “the state would need to overbuild total ports to reach the targets.

“Public fast charging investments and reliability need stronger improvement,” the proposal goes on to say. “For consumers without experience using an EV, it is often not clear that most charging takes place at home unless such access is not feasible or driving exceeds 150-200 miles each day. This makes public charging convenience and reliability a key component of public willingness to make the transition to electric.”

However, the draft proposal adds that “beyond ensuring there’s sufficient public charging access to support EV adoption, unreliable public charging is a substantial risk to adoption if not urgently improved. Reliability is especially key because there was no reliability factor assumed, meaning a port needed is assumed to be a port that functions.”

The current draft proposal seeks $103 million for the 2025-27 operating budget, $90 million of which would fund an ongoing EV rebate program that started earlier this month.

The Department of Commerce is currently soliciting public feedback on the draft proposal through a survey that is open through Aug. 16. The draft proposal is ultimately due to the Governor’s Office by Sept. 10.

TJ Martinell

Staff Reporter

Related Topics:#ElectricVehicles #EVCharging #TheCenterSquare EVChargingPortsUnreliable TJMartinell Washington'sEVStrategy

Up Next

Canadian tariffs on Chinese EVs should look like the United States’, not Europe’s

Don't Miss

‘Stealing family farms’: Big Ag gets billions in taxpayer-funded loans while small farms starve

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Kamala Harris’s Track Record: Big Spending, Wokeness, Equity and Flip Flops

Crime / 2 hours ago

Nashville school shooter’s ‘manifesto’ highlights the destructive nature of porn, sexual confusion

COVID-19 / 5 hours ago

Questions linger after Coutts verdict

Automotive

Ottawa’s tariffs undercut Ottawa’s EV mandate

Published on September 4, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Asian countries such as China and Japan were not particular threats to prior automotive markets because North America’s massive and diverse internal combustion vehicle markets were capable of relatively lower-cost production of superior quality vehicles. That’s not shaping up to be the case for EVs, which are vastly more expensive coming off North American assembly lines than in China and other Asian countries.

Seemingly every week, Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) transition policy framework grows more incoherent. The goal of Canada’s EV policy is to ensure all new light-duty vehicle sales in Canada are zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), with a strong emphasis on battery-electric vehicles, by 2035.

The latest incoherence is Prime Minister Trudeau’s announcement of 100 per cent tariffs on Chinese EV imports and 25 per cent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum imports (the Canada needs to build EVs). This will directly undercut the government’s EV transition targets by denying Canadians access to affordable electric cars.

The stated rationale for the tariffs is, according to Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, that the “Chinese are trying to corner the North American EV market by dumping subsidized vehicles into it” and that “China has an intentional, state-directed policy of overcapacity and oversupply designed to cripple our own industry” so “we simply will not allow that to happen to our EV sector.” And arguably, some of that is probably reasonable.

Tariffs are generally understood as protectionist mechanisms, designed to shield domestic industries from lower-cost foreign competition by making imported goods more expensive. Additionally, they can serve as punitive measures to penalize countries for hostile economic or political actions. By limiting access to one’s markets, tariffs can reduce the profits of the targeted country, thereby pressuring it to alter behaviours or policies. When imposed against countries intentionally sabotaging markets, tariffs may be considered a legitimate response.

But tariffs on China will also hurt Canadians by keeping lower-cost goods out of our market, leaving them with only higher-priced goods and services provided by protected domestic industries that need not fear price competition and thus feel little pressure to lower the prices for their goods and services.

And this is part of the incoherence of the new Trudeau tariff policy. The Trudeau EV mandates are set to create, in essence, a monopoly on the types of automotive technologies (again, EVs) allowed to be used in Canada, which other countries can manufacture more cheaply than domestic manufacturers. Asian countries such as China and Japan were not particular threats to prior automotive markets because North America’s massive and diverse internal combustion vehicle markets were capable of relatively lower-cost production of superior quality vehicles. That’s not shaping up to be the case for EVs, which are vastly more expensive coming off North American assembly lines than in China and other Asian countries.

By driving up the costs of buying EVs in Canada, the Trudeau government will directly undercut its EVs-by-2035 mandate. If people can’t afford EVs, as most currently cannot, the EV mandate targets are doomed. People will simply hold their old internal-combustion vehicles for longer. This trend is already observable in the United States where new vehicles have become more expensive. Americans are holding on to their vehicles longer than ever, with the average vehicle age reaching 13.6 years.

The Trudeau government’s highest priority has been the war on climate change, which various government leaders in Canada and around the world have proclaimed the greatest threat to people and the planet in human history. But if the government is sincere about this, then the priority should be to maximize Canadians’ access to cheaper EVs, and the prime minister should be largely indifferent to where Canadians choose to source those EVs. Indeed, he should urgently want low-cost EVs available to Canadians for there to be any hope of achieving his all-EV by 2035 goal.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Automotive

Trudeau and Ford at it again with more taxpayers dollars for EVs

Published on August 21, 2024

Todayville

From Canadians For Affordable Energy

Written By Dan McTeague

More good money is being thrown after bad, but that seems to be the theme of Trudeau’s government.

On Monday Goodyear Tire announced a $575 million expansion of their Eastern Ontario manufacturing plant to produce electric vehicles, and to make their plant more energy efficient.

And Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau were there for the photo opportunity. Why? Because — shocker — this move comes with serious money from taxpayers in Ontario and throughout Canada. Goodyear is set to receive up to $44.3 million from the federal government through the Strategic Innovation Fund and $20 million from Ontario through the provincial Invest Ontario.

In case you’ve lost track of the money — your money — which has been thrown down this blackhole to date, here’s only some of the close to $46 billion that has been committed:

Northvolt, electric vehicle battery manufacturing facility, up to $1.34 billion
Stellantis—LGES (NextStar), EV battery manufacturing facility — $5 billion
Volkswagen (PowerCo), Federal ($700 million) and Ontario governments ($500 million)
Ford EcoPro, $322 million
Stellantis, Federal ($529 million) and Ontario government ($513 million)
Umicore, Federal ($551.3 million) and Ontario government ($424.6 million)
Ford Motor Company of Canada, $295 million from both the Federal and Ontario governments
GM Ingersoll, $259 million from both the Federal and Ontario governments

More taxpayer dollars for cars that no one wants to buy, and are only affordable with heavy government subsidies.

In fact, last month Ford Canada announced that they would be abandoning their plans to retool their plant in Oakville, ON to focus on EV production. Instead, the plant will begin to produce their popular F-Series gasoline-powered heavy duty pickup truck. Ford plants in Ohio and Kentucky are at full capacity and can’t keep up with the demand for the F-Series, so they are shifting some of the load to Oakville. (Trudeau might learn a lesson here about supply and demand, which is what makes a healthy economy work.)

Plant workers were no doubt relieved to hear this, as Ford had already delayed the date when the plant would begin producing EVs from 2025 to 2027, due no doubt to their multi-billion dollar annual losses on EVs. (They lost $4.7 billion on EVs in 2023 and they’re projected to lose nearly $5.5 billion this year.) Many workers had already been laid off, and many more layoffs were expected. But now they’ll be hard at work producing a reliable Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) pickup.

This should come as no surprise. We need only look around the world for examples of dwindling EV sales. In Germany, EV sales fell by 37%. This slump is directly related to the premature ending of the purchase subsidies program. Budget issues forced Germany to end the program a year sooner than anticipated.

In fact, whenever a country reports an increase in EV sales, be sure to look at the subsidies being offered. “In France, a social leasing scheme which helps to provide cheap EVs to low-income households helped see BEV sales increase by 14.9 per cent in the first half of 2024”. And in Italy EV incentives helped push EV sales “up by 7 per cent across the first six months of the year.”

The lavish subsidy programs for EVs have created a false economy whereby they are only attractive and affordable with taxpayer handouts. Canada should expect the same slump in sales when our own subsidy programs come to an end.

In fact, the only nation which shows no sign of slowing down on electric vehicles is China, where they’re pumping them out at breakneck speed. This is, of course, so that they can take advantage of the EV mandates which Canada and other nations have enacted. China’s EV manufacturers are able to undercut Western producers since they control the lion’s share of Lithium battery production.

Their government also heavily subsidizes the industry. But chances are, once they control most of the EV market share, bankrupting smaller producers, they’ll jack up the price. And because of the mandates, drivers will either have to pay what they’re asking, or else invest in a horse and buggy.

This has led to calls for the Trudeau government to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese EVs, to prevent them from inundating the Canadian market to the detriment of Canada’s economy and Canadian workers. Trudeau and co have dragged their feet, likely because they don’t want to offend Chairman Xi.

We certainly should impose those tariffs. But what would be even better for regular, everyday Canadian taxpayers — not that that ever seems to be top-of-mind for Trudeau or Doug Ford — would be to scrap the EV mandates altogether. Forcing Canadians to buy EVs by 2035 is a terrible policy that will make us poorer as individuals and poorer as a nation. And it will ultimately fail.

Better to admit that now, while we still have some money we haven’t paid out by the truckload to green corporate grifters.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.