Several senators on the Budget Committee raised concerns about how electric vehicles will strain the electrical grid, with one expert witness claiming electric trucks will cause the most problems.
On Wednesday, July 31, the Senate Budget Committee held a hearing called “Charging Ahead: The Future of Electric Vehicles.” Questions from senators touched on a wide range of topics, including China’s dominance over manufacturing, charging infrastructure and the rate of adoption keeping up with government-mandated goals. Although discussions focused on passenger vehicles or electric vehicles in general, several issues were specific to electric trucks.
Electric trucks’ strain on electrical grid
The most notable problem discussed was the electrical grid’s capability – or lack thereof – to meet the surge in demand as electric vehicle adoption increases.
Britta Gross, director of transportation at the Electric Power Research Institute, pointed out that when it comes to overtaxing local distribution systems, electric trucks, not electric passenger vehicles, will cause the most problems.
According to Gross, light-duty electric vehicles will consume the most energy by far. However, that consumption will be widely distributed across the nation. Trucking fleets deploying electric trucks, on the other hand, will have more concentrated energy consumption. While electric cars will be charging at homes and various stations, numerous electric trucks will be charging at a single location, putting immense strain on the local grid.
Building out the local grid to accommodate a fleet’s electric trucks may be a problem.
Gross said that although a fleet owner can acquire several heavy-duty electric vehicles within a few months, it can take years before necessary upgrades to the electrical grid are completed. Consequently, fleet operators are hesitant to purchase electric trucks without the infrastructure already in place.
“Truck manufacturers, including Daimler Truck, Navistar and Volvo Group, flagged this issue in a recent utility proceeding in California and emphasize that sales of medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles are dependent on the readiness of the grid to supply power to the charging sites – and that confidence in grid readiness for vehicle charging is critical for customers and has a direct impact on electric truck sales,” Gross said.
The process for getting those electric grid upgrades might be another barrier for fleet owners. A company with yards across the nation will have to work with each local utility, all of which have “different processes, application forms, differing questions and different levels of detail required in their applications,” according to Gross’ testimony.
What can speed up the adoption of heavy-duty electric vehicles? Pilot programs. Gross noted that fleet owners need only to dip their toes in the water before fully submerging themselves in electrification.
“It is amazing what fleet operators learn by just purchasing and putting into their fleet the first one, two trucks, understanding what the relationship has to be with the utility, understanding what charging is, how it works, what it means to discuss rates and off-peak times and on-peak times, and what the economic opportunities are to actually work with utility on those rates,” she said.
Knight-Swift conducted an electric truck pilot program, and it did not go well.
In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing submitted earlier this year, the megacarrier pointed out the many issues with electric vehicles, including “disappointing mileage range” during a two-year pilot program:
“EVs also present additional barriers that prevent them from being ‘low-cost.’ These include an average increase in the weight of an empty truck by between 6,000 and 14,000 pounds, impacting load-carrying capacity and further exacerbating the costs that would have to be passed on to our customers, making our pricing not competitive. Additionally, our two years of piloting the EVs currently available to our industry have shown a disappointing mileage range of approximately 165 miles compared with the company’s average length of haul of just under 500 miles, and relatively slow charging times, which together would result in significant delays in delivering freight for our customers and an associated drop in revenue. There is a lack of charging infrastructure across the United States for tractors that require significant electricity and time to charge. Further, there is limited capacity for manufacturing EVs currently.”
Highway Trust Fund insolvency
Another issue brought up several times was the Highway Trust Fund, which has been “fundamentally insolvent since 2008.”
Jeff Davis, senior fellow at the Eno Center for Transportation, raised several concerns about electrical vehicles’ affect on the Highway Trust Fund. According to Davis, the transportation funding mechanism has been “fundamentally insolvent” for 16 years, and electric vehicles will exacerbate the problem.
Davis pointed out that a combination of vehicle-miles-traveled leveling off, more fuel-efficient vehicles and more surface transportation spending is draining the Highway Trust Fund, which has been relying heavily on fuel taxes for revenue. That fund is projected to have a $51 billion deficit by 2034. If Congress were to fill that hole solely by raising the gasoline tax, it would need to increase from 18.3 cents per gallon to 76 cents per gallon.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also highlighted the dire situation the Highway Trust Fund faces. Graham said that the fund will lose $5 billion in revenue due to electric vehicles by 2034.
More than two-thirds of states have special registration fees for plug-in electric vehicles, with most also imposing fees on plug-in hybrid vehicles. As adoption of electric cars grows, states are trying to get owners to pay their fare share through more fees. LL
Land Line State Legislative Editor Keith Goble contributed to this article.
Credit: Source link