So, coming into a very significant election in Oregon’s history, let’s talk about … electric-powered vehicles.
It’s no secret that electric-powered powered cars are a hot commodity right now, particularly amidst the current global-warming climate.
WalletHub recently ranked EV-friendly states, putting Oregon in the No. 5 spot nationally (Washington was No. 1). Oregon, it said, has 85.2 electric vehicle registrations per 100 million miles traveled, a 10.86 cents per kWh electricity cost, and 80.81 chargers per billion miles traveled.
But it’s not going to be so friendly soon, at least to anyone who doesn’t take the EV trail. The pressure’s on from the Biden Administration, which has U.S. automakers committing to long-term investments in EVs.
More locally, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is accepting public comments on proposed regulations that would ban the sale of new gasoline or diesel-powered cars and light trucks after 2034. The only new cars available then would be electric vehicles.
The state of California adopted those very regulations on Aug. 25.
Oregon’s free-market think tank, the Cascade Policy Institute, has pointed out some “flaws” in the proposed rules.
One, the average cost of an EV last year was $66,000. Most people won’t be able to afford one.
Second, EVs need regular charging. Oregon’s charging network barely exists, especially for apartment dwellers. This will make EVs inconvenient for most drivers.
Third, the primary reason for the regulation is to reduce “greenhouse gases” in Oregon, but the commercial electricity grid is powered mostly by fossil fuels and will be for decades. More on that in a moment.
Shifting from internal combustion engines to electric motors will simply move vehicle-related emissions from cities to the countryside.
The rules will also prove to be unenforceable, Cascade says.
While the government can require manufacturers to offer EVs for sale, it cannot force consumers to buy them. Traditional cars will continue to be available, either as used vehicles sold in Oregon, or new vehicles purchased by Oregonians from another state.
Robert L. Bradley Jr., founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, argues that EVs are over-subsidized. It should be noted that IER’s funding comes from fossil fuel-based corporations – oil, gas and coal, but that doesn’t necessarily eliminate the credibility of his concerns.
Not only are EVs expensive to buy, but they can only travel about half the distance that a gas- or diesel-powered vehicle can before they need to be recharged, which takes a lot longer – 30 minutes to 12 hours – than filling a tank with gas. Add in climate control – heat or air conditioning – and the battery life gets a lot more dicey for EVs.
Plus, those batteries don’t last forever, about 10 years on average, and replacing them may not be cheap, especially if the warrant. Costs can be as high as $20,000. Try $8,500 for a Nissan Leaf.
Consequently, a new EV will, on average, lose more than half its value in the first three years, some a lot more. The average three-year depreciation for conventional vehicles is just 38 percent.
Another concern is where all that electricity is going to come from.
This summer utility companies, particularly in California, warned about reliability issues. Extreme weather events and increased demand for power have strained electric grids to the point that federal agencies have issued warnings about the nation’s ability to deliver reliable electricity.
Then we have to ask where the existing power is coming from. One of the reasons for the warnings mentioned above was the difficulty of rebuilding natural gas stockpiles for the winter as power generators burn record amounts of gas following the shutdown of dozen of coal plants in recent years and cuts to hydropower production in Western states due to drought.
Given some of those concerns, the argument that EVs are cleaner is about as convincing as the emperor’s new clothes when we consider that nearly 40% of U.S. electricity was generated by natural gas last year, followed by coal (30%) and nuclear power.
In Oregon, which happens to be the third-largest renewable energy producing state in the nation, hydroelectric power accounts for 38.91% of the state’s energy supply, followed by coal (26.47%), natural gas (21.50%), and wind at (7.01%).
Does any of this raise red flags?
The hypocrisy – or outright foolishness of pursuing a path that doesn’t appear nearly as stable as its advocates would like to think, or want us to, should give Oregonians pause.
As we drive headlong towards eliminating fossil fuel-powered vehicles in Oregon, are we concerned that much of our power, and what we import from other states, comes from burning carbon fuels?
Certainly, new technological breakthroughs could improve battery life and performance and safe, clean power generation methods will continue to be developed over time.
Simply put, Oregon can certainly find alternative ways to produce electricity, but it’s going to be a long, slow process, not likely fast enough to keep up with state leaders’ plans to convert its traffic to electric power.
Another big wrinkle is the future of trucking, as manufacturers scurry to develop battery-powered rigs as governments ramp up pollution controls.
Back to basics: The Oregon proposal, which the DEQ plans to adopt in December, two months from now, is now being circulated for public comment.
Voters should express concerns to DEQ by email at the following address: [email protected].
Comments will be accepted until 4 p.m. Friday, Oct. 21.
The deadline to submit your election ballot is Nov. 8.