CalZEV Coalition supports Innovative Clean Transit measure under consideration at California ARB; 100% zero-emission buses
23 May 2018
Californians for Zero Emission Vehicles (CalZEV), a coalition of public health, environmental and electric vehicle industry organizations, announced its strong support for the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) measure currently before the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Under the proposal (earlier post), California transit agencies would be required to purchase 100% zero-emission buses by 2040 as they gradually phase out their dependence on buses that pollute the atmosphere.
CARB staff released the Innovative Clean Transit Discussion Document on 12 December 2017 for public comments and held a regulatory workshop on 15 December 2017. CARB staff is still collecting comments, and had originally planned an April 2018 workshop to discuss a revised proposal. CalZEV expects CARB to make a decision on the ICT in September 2018.
Full battery-electric buses running on today’s California electric grid emit 70% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than both natural gas and diesel-powered buses, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. An MIT study estimated that air pollution is responsible for 200,000 premature deaths in the United States every year—higher than CDC estimates for annual deaths from accidents, strokes and lower chronic lower respiratory diseases.
Meanwhile, electric buses are already more cost effective over the lifetime of the vehicle, compared to fossil fuel powered buses. Replacing a single conventional bus with an electric bus can save a transit authority as much as $448,000 in operational savings over a 12-year period, CalZEV said.
The transition to an all-electric bus fleet is estimated to save California taxpayers more than half a billion dollars, while reducing air pollution, and boosting the state’s economy.
People of color in California bear the most burdens from air pollution in the state. Until California’s underserved communities become a high priority for the deployment of truly clean transportation, they will continue to feel the worst impacts of the transportation sector. California’s burgeoning heavy-duty electric vehicle sector presents a unique opportunity to combat pollution and climate change, while at the same time providing Californians an opportunity to grow clean energy jobs.
—Adrian Martinez, staff attorney at Earthjustice
Californians for Zero Emissions Vehicles is a coalition of more than ten organizations and companies, including: AxleTech International, Inc., Brightline Defense, California Electric Transportation Coalition, Coltura, Green for All, Green Power Bus, EVgo, The Lion Electric Co., Motiv Power, Plug In America, Proterra and Zoox.
Electrified buses pollute and cost less (over 12 years) than diesel units.
A real win-win solution that will soon get even better when batteries will cost less and will be more performant.
Once again California and China are the leaders?
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 May 2018 at 06:21 AM
I found out that school bus makers offer a seat belt option, but it costs $10,000 per bus. This is why mandates get the issue into action.
Posted by: SJC | 23 May 2018 at 07:55 AM
(1) "Costs less over 12 years". Yes, with no cost-of-capital in the calculation and inclusve of incentives that apparently fall out of the sky, this is true. Which means it isn't.
(2) You found out that labor, hardware, warranty reserve and liability overhead to install 54 sets of restraints that are going to be subjected to mostly unobservable K-12 student damage for 200 days a year is under $200 each. That's a pretty good deal. I'd charge more if I were BlueBird et al.
Posted by: Herman | 23 May 2018 at 11:27 AM
Join me and take a second to submit comments to support electric buses!
https://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm2/bcsubform.php?listname=cleantransit-ws&comm_period=1
Posted by: TeslaRedux.co | 23 May 2018 at 01:58 PM
Sometimes industry needs a push down the right path by Government. The Republican/Trump Central Government is a tangled mess of 'everyone for themselves,' so it's up to the states and locals to do the work.
As above, please comment to the ARB...make your ideas and comments heard.
Posted by: Lad | 23 May 2018 at 02:33 PM
The point being parents want their kids safe but they won't pay for it.
Whether it is electric buses and/or seat belts, someone else is suppose to pick up the tab. This has been the way since Prop 13 and the Reagonomic trickle down that has left us with $20 trillion more debt.
Posted by: SJC | 23 May 2018 at 07:44 PM
SJC:
Agree. +1, The problem is we would all have more if those who profit the most, paid their fair share. But, they don't because the Republican fix is in for the so called elite ruling class, the 1%...and they are so entrenched, it may take a revolution for the people to bring back Democracy.
Posted by: Lad | 23 May 2018 at 10:41 PM
Well, political nonsense rules on GCC once again.
Here's how the discussion goes...
(1) (a) Advocate for all-BEV anything or other perceived goodness says "it saves money"; (b) another states that bus companies have the audacity to charge slightly above fully-burdened cost for a feature not required by law
(2) Rational view suggests (a) subsidized 12-yr "payback" that does not include cost of capital is not actually a payback, and (b) including the cost of additional features in a product price is not evil.
(3) Trump!!! Reagan!!!!! Resist!!!!!!!!
What a waste of bandwidth. GCC presents useful information; sadly there are people who can't contain their political zeal on ANY topic and thus they compulsively pollute the discussion.
Posted by: Herman | 24 May 2018 at 07:15 AM
How much are the current 7,000,000/year early death due to pollution worth?
How much does it cost to treat all the sicknesses related/created by pollution?
How much for reduced productivity due to pollution?
How much are reduced (-10% to -20%) protean content in rice, corn, wheat, other grains and fruit/vegetable, due to increased CO2 worth?
Feeding (humans) cattle, hogs, chickens, horses, cats and dogs will soon need 10% to 20% more feedstock/food?
Posted by: HarveyD | 24 May 2018 at 10:53 AM
(1) 7M is a nonsense number. It presumes there is an immediately affordable set of energy solutions that does no harm whatsoever. The net excess death rate for the use of the present fuel mix is not knowable at all, and may even be negative.
(2) What is the excess death rate in countries with limited access to dispatchable energy?
(3) How much higher productivity occurs due to readily-available and affordable energy?
(4) The protien content in grain is directly related to the abilty of soil and/or dry matter mass of the crop to maintain an adequate nitrogen content to maintain protein content. This, in turn, is related mostly to yield considerations (and resultant farmer behavior) than almost anything else. Moreover it's complete horsepoop to posit that plant husbandry will somehow become motionless in a future of higher CO2 concentration because apparently when CO2 goes up everything gets worserer and worserer.
(5) See (4).
But anyhow, Harvey, you still haven't gotten to the point: you make a specific economic assertion (saves money in 12 years) that's basically just whatever popped into your head that moment (must be the CO2 blinding your reason). Your only answer is that your assertions are world-saving and disagreement implies baby-hating villany. BS.
By the way? Just by putting question marks at the end? of your assertions? as you often do? does not mean that you're excused? from actual reasoning?
Posted by: Herman | 24 May 2018 at 12:21 PM
Herman...a very recent study concluded that with higher CO2 concentration, most plants will grow faster/higher but the protean in the grain produced (rice, corn, wheat etc) is 10% to 20% lower.
In other words, we (humans) and most animals will have to eat more of it to get essential/enough protean. Empty cereals will be emptier?
You may have to look it up?
Posted by: HarveyD | 24 May 2018 at 12:43 PM
Politics effects 300+ million Americans, it is part of everything we do.
$20 TRILLION in debt in the last 30+ years is a serious reality.
Posted by: SJC | 26 May 2018 at 09:33 AM