EV School bus? Storage battery? No, utility profit center.

by Steve Haner

First published this morning by Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.

The ultimate goal of the Transportation and Climate Initiative with its tax and rationing scheme is to eliminate fossil fuels for transportation and get us into electric vehicles. That is something advocates have admitted and critics have pointed out. While Virginia TCI participation is on hold in this statewide election year, the 2021 General Assembly is following other pathways to the utopian EV future.

The House of Delegates has sent the Virginia Senate a bill to create a state financial incentive of $2,500 for purchase of a new or used electric vehicle. An additional $2,000 rebate is offered to a low- and middle-income buyer of a new car and $500 if that buyer choses a used EV.

The House has also passed legislation empowering the state’s Air Pollution Control Board to adopt state regulations on vehicle fleet fuel economy and to model California’s existing program forcing manufacturers to offer more zero- and low-emission vehicle sales in the state. This bill sets no goals but puts an accelerated process in motion, bypassing the full regulatory review, with a goal of regulating the 2025 model year vehicles offered in the state.

It is California’s Air Resources Board that runs its LEV and ZEV programs which will be the models for Virginia. In part, that is because the big financial winners include the electric utilities, with California now planning for a 25% increase in power demand from EV expansion.

A third bill orders the State Corporation Commission and other agencies to plan how best to build out the tens of thousands of charging stations needed to service a planned EV fleet, and whether the state’s utilities should own them. If they do become additional assets of the monopoly utilities, the investments could enjoy the same guaranteed high-return profit margins they earn on power plants and transmission lines.

Last but hardly least, Dominion Energy Virginia is pushing again to provide – subsidized by general ratepayers – more than 1,000 electric school buses, which cost three times as much as a bus fueled by gasoline or diesel. A small utility-controlled EV school bus pilot is already underway.

A similar electric bus proposal was defeated late in the 2020 session, but now is back with both House and Senate versions, each successful so far but incompatible. The House version was initially funded with a new 5 cents per gallon tax on off-road diesel fuel, used by farmers and manufacturers. That tax was estimated to raise $3.2 million annually but was stripped out of the bill, leaving it with no funding mechanism.

The Senate bill funds the school buses by treating them as mobile energy storage devices. It would allow the utility to charge ratepayers for them the same way it will charge for the other energy storage systems mandated by 2020’s Virginia Clean Economy Act.  Ratepayers would even pay schools a compensation for accepting the utility-owned vehicles in their fleets.

The Senate bill would limit Dominion to 1,250 buses statewide, at least at first.  Enthusiasm over replacing $100,000 conventional buses with $325,000 electric buses just drips from a Virginia Business story on the proposal that reads like a company media release.  There is no mention in the article about utility ratepayers covering this $406 million investment, not the school systems.

Setting what may become an interesting precedent, the bill treats the buses and all the related equipment as pollution control devices, and thus exempt from any state and local property tax.  That is not the normal tax treatment of utility assets.

With the generous customer rebates on the table, Virginia’s auto dealers have joined in pushing for both that proposal and the related bills. Auto Dealers Association President Don Hall put its arguments in a guest column for the Richmond Times-Dispatch last month, and the advocacy didn’t stop with the taxpayer subsidies for the cars.

“We also need infrastructure. In California, for example, there are more than 7,000 charging stations with more than 30,000 outlets for EVs to plug in. Virginia has only 711 stations with 2,150 outlets,” Hall wrote.  “Virginia should be committing no less than $720 million over the next five years to prepare and grow market demand. These funds need to be appropriated by the commonwealth and must happen in advance of any mandate becoming effective.”

As with the Virginia Business article, he is silent on who might pay for all that.

The enhanced rebate amounts to $4,500 for a new vehicle, and $3,000 for a used one would be available to buyers with incomes at or below 300% of the federal poverty level, or about $70,000 for a family of four. Millionaire Tesla buyers would get at least $2,500.

A fiscal impact statement for the bill projects over $20 million in taxpayer-financed customer rebates in 2022 and about $75 million by 2026. The early funding was to come from raiding an existing fund for coal industry tax credits. Another pending bill ends those credits as of this year.

But the rebate legislation was amended before passing the House, removing any reference to that coal industry fund. As it now stands, the General Assembly would need to find another funding source or tap General Fund revenues to start offering the grants in future years. It can pass the bill now and fund the grants later.

One of major goals of the VCEA last year was to put the electricity providers on strict demand reduction targets, but apparently the General Assembly is willing to make an exception for electric vehicles. A late, one-sentence amendment to the bill authorizing the air board regulations would remove EV-related demand growth from those calculations. Use all the power you want for that.

A year from now, the General Assembly will point to all this and claim Virginia is ready to join the TCI compact, ready to tax and ration motor fuels and raise family transportation costs to a level where the EV option is no longer that much more expensive.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

164 responses to “Dominion Electric Bus Scheme Back, With More”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Update: Since written, the House Labor and Commerce committee has now blessed the electric school bus boondoggle, 15-5, meaning several Republicans also voted to add this to future electric bills. On the floor next week. Apparently there was a last minute substitute yesterday afternoon. There always is…..

  2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Hey, anything that reduces taxes on business…

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Uh, they have electric bills every month, too.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Well, guess you’d have to look at the cost of fossil fuel and its variation to electricy costs and its variations then, wouldn’t ya?

  3. John Harvie Avatar
    John Harvie

    Then we can continue this horror story on mining rare earth minerals for batteries until forced to return to petroleum which by then will have been replaced in the earth.

    Great idea, right? Just swap back and forth every millennium. Who needs mountains anyway?

    https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20171125_WBP004_0.jpg

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      We’ve ALREADY been mining rare earth metals for quite some time not only for LED TV, laptops and cell phone but vehicles with internal combustion engines … and never heard complaints about the mining before. Why now?

      Thieves Nationwide Are Slithering Under Cars, Swiping Catalytic Converters
      The pollution-control gadgets are full of precious metals like palladium, and prices are soaring as regulators try to tame emissions. Crooks with hacksaws have noticed.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/climate/catalytic-converter-theft.html

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        John, Larry is a True Believer, proof that the magic words “climate change” dissolve brain tissue. Three major environmental spokesman testified against this as too expensive and probably a really bad way to actually do energy storage, but Larry hears “climate change” and you can talk him into sticking the cost to consumers on any front. Dominion thrives on fellow travelers like him.

        1. John Harvie Avatar
          John Harvie

          Also, the thing he’s missing is the many-fold increase in mining activity and volume that will result from the proliferation of EVs.

          I guess we ex EEs who later went to work in second careers in IT should just keep quiet, right?

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            And more oil/gas wells, spills, transport, etc., are free, and environmentally safe?

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          Actually nothing to do with Climate Change. Electric vehicles are cheaper to maintain over time. It’s cost-effective on it’s own AND it’s a choice as to what kind and how much pollution.

          Is an internal combustion bus more or less polluting than an electric bus recharged by grid electricity from fossil fuels?

          On balance, electric vehicles are probably less polluting than IC vehicles in the same way that a central power plant would be less polluting than each house generating it’s own electricity from a gas backup generator.

          See, we have two kinds of “true believers” and one of them are skeptics… 😉

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Ya can’t win Larry. Ya got Steve saying computer models and simulations are worthless and the Cap’n just one article back complaing that the State should have built models and run simultions on a system with no data.

            They will then switch positions when the next article is posted.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Correct. Because it’s not really about the issue itself. It’s an “anti” thing… no matter what – if the govt is involved, it’s bad and wrong…. ipso facto.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            ” Ya got Steve saying computer models and simulations are worthless and the Cap’n just one article back (sic) complaing that the State should have built models and run (sic) simultions on a system with no data.

            You don’t require specific data to run simulations, you just require data. The crux of your agreement that COVID was novel and therefore couldn’t be planned for it just bollocks.

          4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Uh yep, Mat, they have an acronym for that — GIGO.

  4. As usual, Jim nails it with respect to total reliance on EV’s.

    I’d love to have the electric car rebate, but I want it now, not in 2025. That way I get a windfall for something I’ve already decided to do. EV”S do not need rebates sometime in the future, if at all, at least with respect to the Tesla. There are enough people buying Teslas and passing the word by mouth (you notice you don’t see a lot of Tesla ads anywhere…zip, nada, rien, kodal) that electric vehicles will sell themselves.

    As a clue, just go test drive one of these puppies. I haven’t driven anything this quick since I drove a Kawasaki 2 cycle, 3 cylinder crotch rocket in 1971. (0-60 in 4 sec,, except you could never do that unless you were a pro. The front wheel would immediately come off the ground, and if you didn’t let off the throttle, you’d go over backwards).
    There is some loss of range for using the Tesla’s power, but nothing like what you lose in an ICE vehicle (that’s: Internal Combustion Engine for those of you from Rio Linda). Then there’s that really low center of gravity because of the battery placement that makes the handling to die for.

    Ultimately, that is what will sell the EV: they are fun to drive, and..oh yeh, there’s litle or no maintenance, except for tires or if you crash it. Musk’s innovations are so far out front of everyone else that he will break the back of those who argue against him. It probably helped that Musk is a little nuts.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      When they first came out with cars with engines that were tuned for less pollution and needed unleaded gas AND catalytic converters – they needed work – no question but over time they did optimize and got to a good place.

      The very same thing is going to happen with EVs – “anti” folks notwithstanding – once again.

      (and yes, Musk is nuts. Check out his hyperloop concept.

      1. John Harvie Avatar
        John Harvie

        “Musk is nuts”. Hasn’t much hurt his net worth … guess he’s also part genius also, n’est pas?

        Also pretty smart to name his car Tesla rather than Edison since the former had the right idea where practical distribution and transmission are concerned. But then again, that’s just old EE history stuff nobody cares about.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Also too close to Edsel.

  5. Fairfax I think has the largest school bus fleet in the Country, so converting to elec is a whale of a big job and expense. I know a school bus driver, and for them it is interesting to not have to deal with the hard-to-start diesels in the winter. But I gotta think heating up those EV buses in the winter I guess they could use supplemental heaters that plugin at the bus depots. Lots of expenses and electric use.

    1. I would ask what the experience with elec school buses has been in Northeast climates with cold in winter and heat in summer months re: air conditioning. And electric use.

    2. idiocracy Avatar

      ” not have to deal with the hard-to-start diesels in the winter”

      Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they use 15W-40 in them to save a few bucks. A 5W-40 is a bit more expensive but makes for easier starting in the winter.

  6. As I’m sure all readers and writers understand, VA decided years ago that the “best” way to provide electricity for all Virginians was to establish a “regulated monopoly utility model” under which the large utilities could be investor-owned and would be guaranteed profits and the State Corporation Commission would be tasked to ensure that the utilities truly operated in the best interests of stakeholders, including ratepayers (but, arguably) also including shareholders.

    The General Assembly, in its infinite wisdom, has decided on numerous occasions to tie one or both of the SCC’s hands behind its back, usually if not always at the behest of those same “regulated” monopoly utilities.

    The current GA session is once again considering bills that might level the playing field among the utility stakeholders. As has been noted, it’s questionable if/how these efforts will succeed.

    When utilities began moving from coal to natural gas, they were able to take advantage of the statutorily inscribed largesse. Basically, this meant that the folks who receive electricity pay for maintenance, operations, and improvements, and then some. What’s going on now isn’t different in the respect that the utilities will for sure profit from the shift away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy. Not only will we ratepayers pay for the new infrastructure, we’ll also use electricity (perhaps powered by wind, hydro, solar, and the ever-present bio-mass (wood and pig) to recharge our EVs.

    I’d like to hear from you all about your reactions to, for example:
    –75% of Virginians have an untenable energy burden.
    –Dominion bills are high, compared to other utilities (as distinguished from their rates, but due in part to RACs and fuel costs)
    –Dominion hasn’t had an SCC rate review in a looooong time. One’s coming up this year and may, or may not, result in any overcharges actually coming back to customers. In fact, under current law they only have to pay back 70% and that’s only if they can’t come up with an approved project that they can use that money for.
    –It’s likely electricity usage will increase because of EVs and other factors.
    –The market has seen great decreases in the costs of solar and will likely see EV costs reduce as more are supported. Wind? Who knows, might be a while.

    When we stopped using horses and started driving, our transportation costs went up. But we didn’t return to horses.
    When we could buy refrigerators, we shut down the livelihoods of those delivering and producing ice.
    Etc. re phones, radio/TV/internet….

    If we think our utility model doesn’t serve us well, we need to come up with a better one. Or, we need to tweak the current one to overcome its shortcomings. And, more than likely, we need to elect folks who will make the new rules and then live by them.

    How can we object to the particular effects noted in this post and others if we want to keep our current “conveniences”, make our air cleaner, and stick with the current utility model, “gerryrigged” as it is.

    FWIW

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      A little quick and dirty Internet searching suggests that it takes about 350 windmills (size not specified) to replace a single “typical” two unit coal fired generating plant. Then if there are some estimated 241 of those operating today in the USA that’s over 84,000 windmills (size unspecified).

      Considering where to put them and their imagined required investment in space and $s kind of boggles the mind, including the added battery capacity needed for light or no wind conditions. Also, might not please those Audubon folks.

      Of course we have lots of available land for solar and batteries if that’s the way we want to go, don’t we? Ditto Audubon and farmers.

      Guess you should retire/decommission/demo those coal plants environmentally but it also just might have some associated cost, no? I’ve heard you can use coal ash under new golf courses, or is that no longer considered good practice.

      And no, I don’t own any mining or Norfolk Southern stock.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        might need to do some more internet searching to get specific numbers but is totally true than renewables are way less energy dense than fossil fuels.

        But you also need to take into account – what it takes to get the coal or gas to the generating plant if you want to compare apples to apples with renewables that don’t require all that other infrastructure.

        At the end of the day – all thing not necessarily equal – the wind/solar – even requiring a lot more land or windmills will generate a LOT less pollution – no matter about climate. It’s just a much lower polluting fuel.

        “We” the folks that use electricity are fat, dumb and happy if they take off mountaintops and the generating plant is polluting like hell but not in our back yard.

        WHY – we are happy that way not seeing the damage but we ARE concerned about wind/solar NOT in our backyards seems curious.

        Why not concerned with coal/gas but very concerned about wind/solar?

        1. John Harvie Avatar
          John Harvie

          Nowhere have I EVER said I’m not concerned about coal/gas. I’m committed to your view there, Larry. It’s just that the alternatives are not always the panacea they are frequently assumed to be. Maybe it’s the investor in me or my engineering education but I’m trained to consider costs/benefits in looking at things.

          In re mountains, however please refer to my post above.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Well first,I was not referencing your personal view but rather the general views I’ve heard espoused that often neglect a true apple-to-apple comparisons.

            Second, I don’t think wind/solar are panaceas by a long shot. I think they are another fuel with impacts as well as pro/cons.

            In terms of “mountain” impacts – there are many – take the roads we travel on and huge and deep quarries are where we get the stone.

            True of a lot of other things that we depend on – like titanium or a range of other metals that are mined.

            But overall, I’m on board with your (correct) need to consider all benefits and impacts.

            I just think they need to be brought up fully in discussions about renewables – we need to look at ALL of them for ALL sources.

            Finally, on the precious metals – we’ve been doing that for quite some time before we talk about batteries. For instance, we’ve been putting catalytic converters on vehicles now for some time – and we’ve had to mine the metals they need and use for us to have less polluting vehicles. Not like we only started doing this with electric batteries.

    2. Virginian’s have among the highest electric bills in the nation. The reason for that is Heat pumps: we already use a lot of electricity instead of natural gas for heating our homes, due to our relatively southern but northern climate.

      So with our blue GA’s intent to accelerate even faster on replacing fossil fuel with electricity, and add costs like coal ash relocation (perhaps frivolous over cap-in-place) , planned CO2 surcharge taxes, etc, we can pretty much be assured of as being forever known as the state paying the most per person for electricity. Not necessarily the most per KwHR, because California has a much milder climate than we do.

      Another way to state this, Virginia is already quite low CO2 per capita, but for liberals only zero CO2 is acceptable.

      1. another thing we do in Va. is give business a relatively big elec discount, so that puts the cost burden on the homeowners. Further insuring Virginia homeowners will probably keep the pride of paying the most of any state for household elec.

        1. I said we are already among the highest users of electricity, not the highest per KwHR. But our monthly bills are among the highest because we already use more elec than most.

      2. idiocracy Avatar

        What’s with all of the neighborhoods built in the late 70s/early 80s in Northern Virginia that have no natural gas available at all?

        I can understand no natural gas being available in the boonies. I cannot understand no natural gas being available in neighborhoods in Sterling or Manassas.

        1. There was a ban on natural gas in the late 70’s due to shortage…that was pre-fracking and we had a natural gas shortage. Both my house here and in NJ were built in 1979 during the gas hook-up ban. NJ we had oil heat.

          NJ we had sky-high electric rates due to the new nukes, so oil heat was huge bargain. I also did oil hot water there. Here in Va. I assume elec was cheaper so homeowners went with heat pumps.

  7. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Update: Since written, the House Labor and Commerce committee has now blessed the electric school bus boondoggle, 15-5, meaning several Republicans also voted to add this to future electric bills. On the floor next week. Apparently there was a last minute substitute yesterday afternoon. There always is…..

  8. Will each bus be powered by a roof top wind mill or solar panels? Or will each have to rely on coal fired and natural gas [oh wait we’re not supporting new gas pipelines and the Feds have stopped fracking] to create the electricity it uses to move our kids?

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Plugged into the grid and relying on nuclear/nat gas/and unreliable solar and wind. In fact, when the solar and wind are down, the bus batteries will be used to provide juice to the grid — AND WILL BE PARKED AND NOT CARRYING KIDS. I gotta read this substitute….the bill actually allows the utility to make the decision when to sideline the buses. (So the schools will need fossil backups!)

  9. Will each bus be powered by a roof top wind mill or solar panels? Or will each have to rely on coal fired and natural gas [oh wait we’re not supporting new gas pipelines and the Feds have stopped fracking] to create the electricity it uses to move our kids?

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Plugged into the grid and relying on nuclear/nat gas/and unreliable solar and wind. In fact, when the solar and wind are down, the bus batteries will be used to provide juice to the grid — AND WILL BE PARKED AND NOT CARRYING KIDS. I gotta read this substitute….the bill actually allows the utility to make the decision when to sideline the buses. (So the schools will need fossil backups!)

  10. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Hey, anything that reduces taxes on business…

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Uh, they have electric bills every month, too.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Well, guess you’d have to look at the cost of fossil fuel and its variation to electricy costs and its variations then, wouldn’t ya?

  11. LarrytheG Avatar

    ever been behind a school bus picking up kids and smelled the fumes? They must get terrible gas mileage and put out substantial pollution to boot.

    no?

    Will electric buses be powered by fossil fuels? Perhaps but if the school puts up solar panels could they charge those buses during the day when kids are in school and be ready to go when they go home. And if they need recharging after that at night then grid power?

    as usual some folks look at this only in a negative light, not in potential opportunities… it’s just a change and all they can see is the downsides.

    We always have this , had folks opposed to cleaner cars, pollution abatement for coal plants, etc.. but we moved forward anyhow.

    same deal here.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Actually, Larry, new common rail diesels don’t smoke, don’t smell, have really low carbon emissions. Hell, they don’t ping while idling.

      If you pull up behind a new school bus, look at the exhaust pipe. They’re white, not black.

      Now, what you cannot see or smell is still coming outta there.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        And then there is CNG or propane, with far lower emissions (but that won’t produce a 10% ROE year over year for utility stockholders.)

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Yeah, and they all have a cost history. Life cycle cost.

        2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          ROE for XOM and D are both trending down and very close to one another… while one might not win, one gonna lose more than the other.

  12. LarrytheG Avatar

    ever been behind a school bus picking up kids and smelled the fumes? They must get terrible gas mileage and put out substantial pollution to boot.

    no?

    Will electric buses be powered by fossil fuels? Perhaps but if the school puts up solar panels could they charge those buses during the day when kids are in school and be ready to go when they go home. And if they need recharging after that at night then grid power?

    as usual some folks look at this only in a negative light, not in potential opportunities… it’s just a change and all they can see is the downsides.

    We always have this , had folks opposed to cleaner cars, pollution abatement for coal plants, etc.. but we moved forward anyhow.

    same deal here.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Actually, Larry, new common rail diesels don’t smoke, don’t smell, have really low carbon emissions. Hell, they don’t ping while idling.

      If you pull up behind a new school bus, look at the exhaust pipe. They’re white, not black.

      Now, what you cannot see or smell is still coming outta there.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        And then there is CNG or propane, with far lower emissions (but that won’t produce a 10% ROE year over year for utility stockholders.)

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Yeah, and they all have a cost history. Life cycle cost.

        2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          ROE for XOM and D are both trending down and very close to one another… while one might not win, one gonna lose more than the other.

  13. John Harvie Avatar
    John Harvie

    Then we can continue this horror story on mining rare earth minerals for batteries until forced to return to petroleum which by then will have been replaced in the earth.

    Great idea, right? Just swap back and forth every millennium. Who needs mountains anyway?

    https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20171125_WBP004_0.jpg

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      We’ve ALREADY been mining rare earth metals for quite some time not only for LED TV, laptops and cell phone but vehicles with internal combustion engines … and never heard complaints about the mining before. Why now?

      Thieves Nationwide Are Slithering Under Cars, Swiping Catalytic Converters
      The pollution-control gadgets are full of precious metals like palladium, and prices are soaring as regulators try to tame emissions. Crooks with hacksaws have noticed.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/climate/catalytic-converter-theft.html

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        John, Larry is a True Believer, proof that the magic words “climate change” dissolve brain tissue. Three major environmental spokesman testified against this as too expensive and probably a really bad way to actually do energy storage, but Larry hears “climate change” and you can talk him into sticking the cost to consumers on any front. Dominion thrives on fellow travelers like him.

        1. John Harvie Avatar
          John Harvie

          Also, the thing he’s missing is the many-fold increase in mining activity and volume that will result from the proliferation of EVs.

          I guess we ex EEs who later went to work in second careers in IT should just keep quiet, right?

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            And more oil/gas wells, spills, transport, etc., are free, and environmentally safe?

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          Actually nothing to do with Climate Change. Electric vehicles are cheaper to maintain over time. It’s cost-effective on it’s own AND it’s a choice as to what kind and how much pollution.

          Is an internal combustion bus more or less polluting than an electric bus recharged by grid electricity from fossil fuels?

          On balance, electric vehicles are probably less polluting than IC vehicles in the same way that a central power plant would be less polluting than each house generating it’s own electricity from a gas backup generator.

          See, we have two kinds of “true believers” and one of them are skeptics… 😉

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Ya can’t win Larry. Ya got Steve saying computer models and simulations are worthless and the Cap’n just one article back complaing that the State should have built models and run simultions on a system with no data.

            They will then switch positions when the next article is posted.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Correct. Because it’s not really about the issue itself. It’s an “anti” thing… no matter what – if the govt is involved, it’s bad and wrong…. ipso facto.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            ” Ya got Steve saying computer models and simulations are worthless and the Cap’n just one article back (sic) complaing that the State should have built models and run (sic) simultions on a system with no data.

            You don’t require specific data to run simulations, you just require data. The crux of your agreement that COVID was novel and therefore couldn’t be planned for it just bollocks.

          4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Uh yep, Mat, they have an acronym for that — GIGO.

  14. Right now California and many of the blue states subsidize ALL plug-ins which includes Plug-In Hybrids (PHEV) like Prius Prime and the new RAV4 Prime. In that case, you can often buy a Prius Prime with ~500-600 mile range for less $$ than regular Prius Hybrid (Prime runs on both electric and gas) in consideration of Fed+State tax rebates.

    Also note that many of the electrics qualify for $7500 Fed tax rebate, except those like Tesla and GM which have already reached their 200,000 vehicle sale limit. The democrat Congress can probably be expected to extend the Federal program, which been in force since about 2012 already.

    I am not a big fan of full electric vehicles, and feel the benefits of hybrids are being overlooked due to liberal hatred of fossil fuels and of course business interests, analogous the corn industry favoring ethanol mandates.

    Keep in mind something like an expensive top of line Tesla is going to ring up, I dunno up to $10000-$15000 excess car tax in NOVA so $2500 is not so generous compared to say Maryland and DC, with no car tax. Arlington County gives car tax reduction too so, that starts to add up in favor of an electric if you get all kinds of money thrown at you.

    1. PS- I am not sure best approach on school buses which are mostly diesel. I bet the EV school buses must use a lot of electricity too so I’d be curious on operating costs.

  15. Right now California and many of the blue states subsidize ALL plug-ins which includes Plug-In Hybrids (PHEV) like Prius Prime and the new RAV4 Prime. In that case, you can often buy a Prius Prime with ~500-600 mile range for less $$ than regular Prius Hybrid (Prime runs on both electric and gas) in consideration of Fed+State tax rebates.

    Also note that many of the electrics qualify for $7500 Fed tax rebate, except those like Tesla and GM which have already reached their 200,000 vehicle sale limit. The democrat Congress can probably be expected to extend the Federal program, which been in force since about 2012 already.

    I am not a big fan of full electric vehicles, and feel the benefits of hybrids are being overlooked due to liberal hatred of fossil fuels and of course business interests, analogous the corn industry favoring ethanol mandates.

    Keep in mind something like an expensive top of line Tesla is going to ring up, I dunno up to $10000-$15000 excess car tax in NOVA so $2500 is not so generous compared to say Maryland and DC, with no car tax. Arlington County gives car tax reduction too so, that starts to add up in favor of an electric if you get all kinds of money thrown at you.

    1. PS- I am not sure best approach on school buses which are mostly diesel. I bet the EV school buses must use a lot of electricity too so I’d be curious on operating costs.

  16. I can hardly wait until we’ve reached zero carbon and are 100% reliant for everything, including transportation, on electricity. When the Russkies, Chinese, Iranians or Norks use cyber-sabotage to take down the power grid, our entire civilization will collapse. If we’re lucky, they’ll throw the switch during a polar vortex, so we can just freeze to death quickly and mercifully!

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Well people love to complain about METRO (rightfully so) however they don’t understand the power consumption required to move those vehicles. When birthing at a station an 8 car train pulls ~6000 DC AMPS.

      If they were really about the environment they wouldn’t be pushing tech that can’t be recycled and who’s process of harvest is more detrimental to the environment than say oil or gas. They ‘d also be all about Nukes.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      I has never been about reaching zero pollution – EVER! That’s a false narrative from the “anti” folks.

      We have cleaner IC cars right now BECAUSE of government actions and California – changes made some time ago that, by the way, require the use of rare earth metals in catalytic converters.

      What a reasonable position cuz it’s certainly not the “anti” folks and not the far left zealots. MOST people WANT less polluting vehicles… they LIKE the fact that our cities have less smog and that their cars get better gas mileage as a direct benefit of reducing pollution.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        “LarrytheG | February 12, 2021 at 10:38 am | Reply
        I has never been about reaching zero pollution – EVER! That’s a false narrative from the “anti” folks.

        We have cleaner IC cars right now BECAUSE of government actions and California – changes made some time ago that, by the way, require the use of rare earth metals in catalytic converters.

        What a reasonable position cuz it’s certainly not the “anti” folks and not the far left zealots. MOST people WANT less polluting vehicles… they LIKE the fact that our cities have less smog and that their cars get better gas mileage as a direct benefit of reducing pollution.”

        If Virginia was about less polluting vehicles, PPT wouldn’t penalize people for buying new vehicles which are more environmentally friendly.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            PPT (Personal Property Tax), you know the thing you pay annually based upon the NADA book value of your vehicle.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Oh, so the PPT is actually based on something? It always appeared pretty random, especially when you tossed in boats and trailers.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yep… that’s local. Local doesn’t give a crap about that – they need to fund the deputies and schools no matter what kind of car (or house) you have.

          4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Thanks for the link, but I was being facetious. OTOH, boats and localities are pretty random on PPT. It’s free market taxes because any county/city on the Bay recognizes that boats are movable… easily. If Portsmouth taxes you too much then move the boat to Suffolk, or Mathews, or… you get the idea.

  17. I can hardly wait until we’ve reached zero carbon and are 100% reliant for everything, including transportation, on electricity. When the Russkies, Chinese, Iranians or Norks use cyber-sabotage to take down the power grid, our entire civilization will collapse. If we’re lucky, they’ll throw the switch during a polar vortex, so we can just freeze to death quickly and mercifully!

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I has never been about reaching zero pollution – EVER! That’s a false narrative from the “anti” folks.

      We have cleaner IC cars right now BECAUSE of government actions and California – changes made some time ago that, by the way, require the use of rare earth metals in catalytic converters.

      What a reasonable position cuz it’s certainly not the “anti” folks and not the far left zealots. MOST people WANT less polluting vehicles… they LIKE the fact that our cities have less smog and that their cars get better gas mileage as a direct benefit of reducing pollution.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        “LarrytheG | February 12, 2021 at 10:38 am | Reply
        I has never been about reaching zero pollution – EVER! That’s a false narrative from the “anti” folks.

        We have cleaner IC cars right now BECAUSE of government actions and California – changes made some time ago that, by the way, require the use of rare earth metals in catalytic converters.

        What a reasonable position cuz it’s certainly not the “anti” folks and not the far left zealots. MOST people WANT less polluting vehicles… they LIKE the fact that our cities have less smog and that their cars get better gas mileage as a direct benefit of reducing pollution.”

        If Virginia was about less polluting vehicles, PPT wouldn’t penalize people for buying new vehicles which are more environmentally friendly.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            PPT (Personal Property Tax), you know the thing you pay annually based upon the NADA book value of your vehicle.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Oh, so the PPT is actually based on something? It always appeared pretty random, especially when you tossed in boats and trailers.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yep… that’s local. Local doesn’t give a crap about that – they need to fund the deputies and schools no matter what kind of car (or house) you have.

          4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Thanks for the link, but I was being facetious. OTOH, boats and localities are pretty random on PPT. It’s free market taxes because any county/city on the Bay recognizes that boats are movable… easily. If Portsmouth taxes you too much then move the boat to Suffolk, or Mathews, or… you get the idea.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar

      Well people love to complain about METRO (rightfully so) however they don’t understand the power consumption required to move those vehicles. When birthing at a station an 8 car train pulls ~6000 DC AMPS.

      If they were really about the environment they wouldn’t be pushing tech that can’t be recycled and who’s process of harvest is more detrimental to the environment than say oil or gas. They ‘d also be all about Nukes.

  18. Is nuclear ever discussed anymore?

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Seldom. Dominion does plan to extend the licenses of the four reactors it has for additional 20 year periods, and if approved they will be around for some solid baseload.

  19. Is nuclear ever discussed anymore?

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Seldom. Dominion does plan to extend the licenses of the four reactors it has for additional 20 year periods, and if approved they will be around for some solid baseload.

  20. As a senior citizen, I could artificially qualify for low income by electing to defer IRA income for one year. That would work until I am forced to withdraw, which Congress is thinking about raising RMD age to 75 I believe.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Trust me, the car dealer won’t turn you in. They will happily submit the paperwork for your grant….That bill is going to be fun in October. For example, a bill to create tax credit for families that lost a child pre-term was defeated. So imagine this brochure: “So and So voted against a tax credit for mother’s who’s infants are still born, but instead will give a millionaire $2,500 towards a Tesla.” You can fill in the front part with all kinds of dead tax proposals….

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      AND I think you also can put more in your IRA now when you could not before. win-win.

  21. As a senior citizen, I could artificially qualify for low income by electing to defer IRA income for one year. That would work until I am forced to withdraw, which Congress is thinking about raising RMD age to 75 I believe.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Trust me, the car dealer won’t turn you in. They will happily submit the paperwork for your grant….That bill is going to be fun in October. For example, a bill to create tax credit for families that lost a child pre-term was defeated. So imagine this brochure: “So and So voted against a tax credit for mother’s who’s infants are still born, but instead will give a millionaire $2,500 towards a Tesla.” You can fill in the front part with all kinds of dead tax proposals….

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      AND I think you also can put more in your IRA now when you could not before. win-win.

  22. As usual, Jim nails it with respect to total reliance on EV’s.

    I’d love to have the electric car rebate, but I want it now, not in 2025. That way I get a windfall for something I’ve already decided to do. EV”S do not need rebates sometime in the future, if at all, at least with respect to the Tesla. There are enough people buying Teslas and passing the word by mouth (you notice you don’t see a lot of Tesla ads anywhere…zip, nada, rien, kodal) that electric vehicles will sell themselves.

    As a clue, just go test drive one of these puppies. I haven’t driven anything this quick since I drove a Kawasaki 2 cycle, 3 cylinder crotch rocket in 1971. (0-60 in 4 sec,, except you could never do that unless you were a pro. The front wheel would immediately come off the ground, and if you didn’t let off the throttle, you’d go over backwards).
    There is some loss of range for using the Tesla’s power, but nothing like what you lose in an ICE vehicle (that’s: Internal Combustion Engine for those of you from Rio Linda). Then there’s that really low center of gravity because of the battery placement that makes the handling to die for.

    Ultimately, that is what will sell the EV: they are fun to drive, and..oh yeh, there’s litle or no maintenance, except for tires or if you crash it. Musk’s innovations are so far out front of everyone else that he will break the back of those who argue against him. It probably helped that Musk is a little nuts.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      When they first came out with cars with engines that were tuned for less pollution and needed unleaded gas AND catalytic converters – they needed work – no question but over time they did optimize and got to a good place.

      The very same thing is going to happen with EVs – “anti” folks notwithstanding – once again.

      (and yes, Musk is nuts. Check out his hyperloop concept.

      1. John Harvie Avatar
        John Harvie

        “Musk is nuts”. Hasn’t much hurt his net worth … guess he’s also part genius also, n’est pas?

        Also pretty smart to name his car Tesla rather than Edison since the former had the right idea where practical distribution and transmission are concerned. But then again, that’s just old EE history stuff nobody cares about.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Also too close to Edsel.

  23. Fairfax I think has the largest school bus fleet in the Country, so converting to elec is a whale of a big job and expense. I know a school bus driver, and for them it is interesting to not have to deal with the hard-to-start diesels in the winter. But I gotta think heating up those EV buses in the winter I guess they could use supplemental heaters that plugin at the bus depots. Lots of expenses and electric use.

    1. I would ask what the experience with elec school buses has been in Northeast climates with cold in winter and heat in summer months re: air conditioning. And electric use.

    2. idiocracy Avatar

      ” not have to deal with the hard-to-start diesels in the winter”

      Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they use 15W-40 in them to save a few bucks. A 5W-40 is a bit more expensive but makes for easier starting in the winter.

  24. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    This path will recreate the old black market gasoline rackets from the days of WW2.
    https://i1.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Gasoline-Rationing-Poster.jpg?resize=740%2C1024

  25. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    This path will recreate the old black market gasoline rackets from the days of WW2.
    https://i1.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Gasoline-Rationing-Poster.jpg?resize=740%2C1024

  26. djrippert Avatar

    Why would Dominion provide the school buses? Does Exxon-Mobil provide the school buses now in use?

  27. As I’m sure all readers and writers understand, VA decided years ago that the “best” way to provide electricity for all Virginians was to establish a “regulated monopoly utility model” under which the large utilities could be investor-owned and would be guaranteed profits and the State Corporation Commission would be tasked to ensure that the utilities truly operated in the best interests of stakeholders, including ratepayers (but, arguably) also including shareholders.

    The General Assembly, in its infinite wisdom, has decided on numerous occasions to tie one or both of the SCC’s hands behind its back, usually if not always at the behest of those same “regulated” monopoly utilities.

    The current GA session is once again considering bills that might level the playing field among the utility stakeholders. As has been noted, it’s questionable if/how these efforts will succeed.

    When utilities began moving from coal to natural gas, they were able to take advantage of the statutorily inscribed largesse. Basically, this meant that the folks who receive electricity pay for maintenance, operations, and improvements, and then some. What’s going on now isn’t different in the respect that the utilities will for sure profit from the shift away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy. Not only will we ratepayers pay for the new infrastructure, we’ll also use electricity (perhaps powered by wind, hydro, solar, and the ever-present bio-mass (wood and pig) to recharge our EVs.

    I’d like to hear from you all about your reactions to, for example:
    –75% of Virginians have an untenable energy burden.
    –Dominion bills are high, compared to other utilities (as distinguished from their rates, but due in part to RACs and fuel costs)
    –Dominion hasn’t had an SCC rate review in a looooong time. One’s coming up this year and may, or may not, result in any overcharges actually coming back to customers. In fact, under current law they only have to pay back 70% and that’s only if they can’t come up with an approved project that they can use that money for.
    –It’s likely electricity usage will increase because of EVs and other factors.
    –The market has seen great decreases in the costs of solar and will likely see EV costs reduce as more are supported. Wind? Who knows, might be a while.

    When we stopped using horses and started driving, our transportation costs went up. But we didn’t return to horses.
    When we could buy refrigerators, we shut down the livelihoods of those delivering and producing ice.
    Etc. re phones, radio/TV/internet….

    If we think our utility model doesn’t serve us well, we need to come up with a better one. Or, we need to tweak the current one to overcome its shortcomings. And, more than likely, we need to elect folks who will make the new rules and then live by them.

    How can we object to the particular effects noted in this post and others if we want to keep our current “conveniences”, make our air cleaner, and stick with the current utility model, “gerryrigged” as it is.

    FWIW

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      A little quick and dirty Internet searching suggests that it takes about 350 windmills (size not specified) to replace a single “typical” two unit coal fired generating plant. Then if there are some estimated 241 of those operating today in the USA that’s over 84,000 windmills (size unspecified).

      Considering where to put them and their imagined required investment in space and $s kind of boggles the mind, including the added battery capacity needed for light or no wind conditions. Also, might not please those Audubon folks.

      Of course we have lots of available land for solar and batteries if that’s the way we want to go, don’t we? Ditto Audubon and farmers.

      Guess you should retire/decommission/demo those coal plants environmentally but it also just might have some associated cost, no? I’ve heard you can use coal ash under new golf courses, or is that no longer considered good practice.

      And no, I don’t own any mining or Norfolk Southern stock.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        might need to do some more internet searching to get specific numbers but is totally true than renewables are way less energy dense than fossil fuels.

        But you also need to take into account – what it takes to get the coal or gas to the generating plant if you want to compare apples to apples with renewables that don’t require all that other infrastructure.

        At the end of the day – all thing not necessarily equal – the wind/solar – even requiring a lot more land or windmills will generate a LOT less pollution – no matter about climate. It’s just a much lower polluting fuel.

        “We” the folks that use electricity are fat, dumb and happy if they take off mountaintops and the generating plant is polluting like hell but not in our back yard.

        WHY – we are happy that way not seeing the damage but we ARE concerned about wind/solar NOT in our backyards seems curious.

        Why not concerned with coal/gas but very concerned about wind/solar?

        1. John Harvie Avatar
          John Harvie

          Nowhere have I EVER said I’m not concerned about coal/gas. I’m committed to your view there, Larry. It’s just that the alternatives are not always the panacea they are frequently assumed to be. Maybe it’s the investor in me or my engineering education but I’m trained to consider costs/benefits in looking at things.

          In re mountains, however please refer to my post above.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Well first,I was not referencing your personal view but rather the general views I’ve heard espoused that often neglect a true apple-to-apple comparisons.

            Second, I don’t think wind/solar are panaceas by a long shot. I think they are another fuel with impacts as well as pro/cons.

            In terms of “mountain” impacts – there are many – take the roads we travel on and huge and deep quarries are where we get the stone.

            True of a lot of other things that we depend on – like titanium or a range of other metals that are mined.

            But overall, I’m on board with your (correct) need to consider all benefits and impacts.

            I just think they need to be brought up fully in discussions about renewables – we need to look at ALL of them for ALL sources.

            Finally, on the precious metals – we’ve been doing that for quite some time before we talk about batteries. For instance, we’ve been putting catalytic converters on vehicles now for some time – and we’ve had to mine the metals they need and use for us to have less polluting vehicles. Not like we only started doing this with electric batteries.

    2. Virginian’s have among the highest electric bills in the nation. The reason for that is Heat pumps: we already use a lot of electricity instead of natural gas for heating our homes, due to our relatively southern but northern climate.

      So with our blue GA’s intent to accelerate even faster on replacing fossil fuel with electricity, and add costs like coal ash relocation (perhaps frivolous over cap-in-place) , planned CO2 surcharge taxes, etc, we can pretty much be assured of as being forever known as the state paying the most per person for electricity. Not necessarily the most per KwHR, because California has a much milder climate than we do.

      Another way to state this, Virginia is already quite low CO2 per capita, but for liberals only zero CO2 is acceptable.

      1. another thing we do in Va. is give business a relatively big elec discount, so that puts the cost burden on the homeowners. Further insuring Virginia homeowners will probably keep the pride of paying the most of any state for household elec.

        1. I said we are already among the highest users of electricity, not the highest per KwHR. But our monthly bills are among the highest because we already use more elec than most.

      2. idiocracy Avatar

        What’s with all of the neighborhoods built in the late 70s/early 80s in Northern Virginia that have no natural gas available at all?

        I can understand no natural gas being available in the boonies. I cannot understand no natural gas being available in neighborhoods in Sterling or Manassas.

        1. There was a ban on natural gas in the late 70’s due to shortage…that was pre-fracking and we had a natural gas shortage. Both my house here and in NJ were built in 1979 during the gas hook-up ban. NJ we had oil heat.

          NJ we had sky-high electric rates due to the new nukes, so oil heat was huge bargain. I also did oil hot water there. Here in Va. I assume elec was cheaper so homeowners went with heat pumps.

  28. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Larry,

    Have at ’em. Now you can compare a 10-year EV-B vs. gasoline, ng, diesel.

    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/

  29. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Still not taxable, Steve?
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/florida-man-pleads-guilty-using-233021336.html

    Assuming it happens here too, of course.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The word being used was “fraud,” so my guess would be no deduction. But it did stimulate the economy of Italy….

  30. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Still not taxable, Steve?
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/florida-man-pleads-guilty-using-233021336.html

    Assuming it happens here too, of course.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The word being used was “fraud,” so my guess would be no deduction. But it did stimulate the economy of Italy….

  31. djrippert Avatar

    The average Virginia household uses 1,120 kWh per month. I believe that I recall Steve saying that the “Northam Plan” will cost the average home $800 more per year by 2030. That would add another 6 cents per kWh bringing us to 17.3 cents per kWh.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The number comes from the SCC and covers more than just the bills signed by Wise King Ralph, but he gets a big share.

  32. djrippert Avatar

    The average Virginia household uses 1,120 kWh per month. I believe that I recall Steve saying that the “Northam Plan” will cost the average home $800 more per year by 2030. That would add another 6 cents per kWh bringing us to 17.3 cents per kWh.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The number comes from the SCC and covers more than just the bills signed by Wise King Ralph, but he gets a big share.

  33. djrippert Avatar

    Why would Dominion provide the school buses? Does Exxon-Mobil provide the school buses now in use?

  34. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Larry,

    Have at ’em. Now you can compare a 10-year EV-B vs. gasoline, ng, diesel.

    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/

  35. Dominion would have to subsidize electric buses because school districts aren’t going to get the budget to spend an extra $225,000 per bus– and Dominion will get the ratepayers to cover it. So, Dominion gets their storage units that will be charged up and ready when they need them…at no cost to them. Although the school districts will still have to front the $100K for every diesel bus they replace.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Okay, that’s the initial purchase price, and the difference is substantial. Now project cost of operation for, oh say, 10 years. Oil changes, fuel, etc., add up. Enough to chew up that initial difference? Don’t know, but somebody really needs to look at that. The price of gasoline has bounced between $2 and $4 per gallon with an underlying increase. Electricity has increased from 8 to 11 cents per KWh over the last 10 years.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        ” School transportation industry statistics show the annual average costs for operating and maintaining a single school bus range from $34,000 to $38,000.”

        https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=7584#:~:text=School%20transportation%20industry%20statistics%20show,of%20transportation%20service%20to%20students.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Still have to determine if the annual cost of an EV-B is less than that by enough that in the life of the bus it’s cheaper… or not.

          I will say that the State should NOT estimate any climate benefit. Right now, in the decision, it should be $ to $.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            I actually agree with that but ask what’s the justification for the credit for EVs – again – long before climate was an issue.

  36. LarrytheG Avatar

    There is some perspective worth noting. First, US government incentives have been around for more than a decade – agreed to by both Dems and GOP and prior to all the fru fru about climtate change and it not about “hatred” of fossil fuels when the incentives started.

    The “hatred” thing came about – about the same time that climate becaame an issues which was maybe a decade after we started incentivizing EVs.

    Next, it’s not just the US – it around the world , Europe and Asia and China:
    Every single developed country has a similar approach to EVs.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_incentives_for_plug-in_electric_vehicles

    So, this is not exactly a USA “liberal” or “dem”, or “fossil fuel”, or “true believers in Climate change” idea – it’s worldwide.

    As with any emerging technology – the initial versions are not yet optimized. There are issues that need further work. And economies of scale will happen.

    Look at computers or cell phones in their early days. (1970s)

    In the early days of the cell phone – it was a large cumbersome , heavy device that did not connect to the internet and there were plenty of skeptics – land line phones and these things were ubiquitous:

    https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/KpiUcH7NrPEYVk9TdOFhFWDlfy8=/fit-in/1600×0/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/95/f6/95f60f6d-fb83-4f6d-92a3-a02874b66cc4/42-15823756.jpg

    Now try to find one .

    We’re on a similar path with EVs.

    It’s progress. It’s far less maintenance costs, much less pollution, and cars today are basically computers on wheels anyhow. In fact, there is a world-wide shortage of chips for vehicles as demand has far outstripped supply. The most popular and profitable Ford is the F-150 pickup and assembly lines are dropping shifts because they simply cannot get enough chips for it.

    cnbc.com/2021/02/04/ford-forced-to-cut-pickup-production-due-to-semiconductor-shortage-.html

    Note – it’s not a shortage of IC engines or even the rare earth metals used in the catalytic converters… it’s chips, and modern cars can have as many as 50.

    EV are here to stay and like other technology progress… some dinosaurs just have to age out… as they become more and more unable to deal with change – even good change!

  37. Dominion would have to subsidize electric buses because school districts aren’t going to get the budget to spend an extra $225,000 per bus– and Dominion will get the ratepayers to cover it. So, Dominion gets their storage units that will be charged up and ready when they need them…at no cost to them. Although the school districts will still have to front the $100K for every diesel bus they replace.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Okay, that’s the initial purchase price, and the difference is substantial. Now project cost of operation for, oh say, 10 years. Oil changes, fuel, etc., add up. Enough to chew up that initial difference? Don’t know, but somebody really needs to look at that. The price of gasoline has bounced between $2 and $4 per gallon with an underlying increase. Electricity has increased from 8 to 11 cents per KWh over the last 10 years.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        ” School transportation industry statistics show the annual average costs for operating and maintaining a single school bus range from $34,000 to $38,000.”

        https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=7584#:~:text=School%20transportation%20industry%20statistics%20show,of%20transportation%20service%20to%20students.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Still have to determine if the annual cost of an EV-B is less than that by enough that in the life of the bus it’s cheaper… or not.

          I will say that the State should NOT estimate any climate benefit. Right now, in the decision, it should be $ to $.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            I actually agree with that but ask what’s the justification for the credit for EVs – again – long before climate was an issue.

  38. Paul Sweet Avatar

    “The Senate bill funds the school buses by treating them as mobile energy storage devices.”

    This may work for now, but what happens if a school district goes to year-round school (as other posts have advocated), and the summertime air conditioning load peaks at the same time that school lets out? Either the buses won’t contribute much stored energy to the grid, or school children will have to wait until evening to go home.

    The gasoline or diesel powered ICE will eventually go away because something better will come along. Right now electric shows the most promise, but other superior technologies might be developed over the next couple decades, or somebody might figure a way to sequester carbon from an ICE exhaust. I’m not sure it’s a wise idea for the government to lock the state or country into one technology.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I don’t necessarily disagree but it looks to me that there are two kinds of “fuels” – the kinds that come over a wire (electricity) and the other kinds that are liquids and come over pipelines, tanks, hoses, etc.

      are there others?

  39. LarrytheG Avatar

    There is some perspective worth noting. First, US government incentives have been around for more than a decade – agreed to by both Dems and GOP and prior to all the fru fru about climtate change and it not about “hatred” of fossil fuels when the incentives started.

    The “hatred” thing came about – about the same time that climate became an issue which was maybe a decade after we started incentivizing EVs.

    Next, it’s not just the US – it around the world , Europe and Asia and China: Every single developed country has a similar approach to EVs.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_incentives_for_plug-in_electric_vehicles

    So, this is not exactly a USA “liberal” or “Dem”, or “fossil fuel hater”, or “true believers in Climate change” idea – it’s worldwide and started before climate change.

    As with any emerging technology – the initial versions are not yet optimized. There are issues that need further work. And economies of scale will happen.

    Look at computers or cell phones in their early days. (1970s)

    In the early days of the cell phone – it was a large cumbersome , heavy device that did not connect to the internet and there were plenty of skeptics – landline phones and these things were ubiquitous:

    Now try to find one .

    We’re on a similar path with EVs.

    It’s progress. It’s far less maintenance costs, much less pollution, and cars today are basically computers on wheels anyhow. In fact, there is a world-wide shortage of chips for vehicles as demand has far outstripped supply. The most popular and profitable Ford is the F-150 pickup and assembly lines are dropping shifts because they simply cannot get enough chips for it.

    cnbc.com/2021/02/04/ford-forced-to-cut-pickup-production-due-to-semiconductor-shortage-.html

    Note – it’s not a shortage of IC engines or even the rare earth metals used in the catalytic converters… it’s chips, and modern cars can have as many as 50.

    EV are here to stay and like other technology progress… some dinosaurs just have to age out… as they become more and more unable to deal with change – even good change!

    1. The “hatred” came in with fracking and when China surpassed USA in CO2 emissions. Prior to that the eco argument was the USA was leading emitter and had to change ways, and also peak oil. Without peak oil argument libs changed to “fossil fuels are killing us all” argument.

  40. LarrytheG Avatar

    There is some perspective worth noting. First, US government incentives have been around for more than a decade – agreed to by both Dems and GOP and prior to all the fru fru about climtate change and it not about “hatred” of fossil fuels when the incentives started.

    The “hatred” thing came about – about the same time that climate became an issue which was maybe a decade after we started incentivizing EVs.

    Next, it’s not just the US – it around the world , Europe and Asia and China: Every single developed country has a similar approach to EVs.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_incentives_for_plug-in_electric_vehicles

    So, this is not exactly a USA “liberal” or “Dem”, or “fossil fuel hater”, or “true believers in Climate change” idea – it’s worldwide and started before climate change.

    As with any emerging technology – the initial versions are not yet optimized. There are issues that need further work. And economies of scale will happen.

    Look at computers or cell phones in their early days. (1970s)

    In the early days of the cell phone – it was a large cumbersome , heavy device that did not connect to the internet and there were plenty of skeptics – landline phones and these things were ubiquitous:

    Now try to find one .

    We’re on a similar path with EVs.

    It’s progress. It’s far less maintenance costs, much less pollution, and cars today are basically computers on wheels anyhow. In fact, there is a world-wide shortage of chips for vehicles as demand has far outstripped supply. The most popular and profitable Ford is the F-150 pickup and assembly lines are dropping shifts because they simply cannot get enough chips for it.

    cnbc.com/2021/02/04/ford-forced-to-cut-pickup-production-due-to-semiconductor-shortage-.html

    Note – it’s not a shortage of IC engines or even the rare earth metals used in the catalytic converters… it’s chips, and modern cars can have as many as 50.

    EV are here to stay and like other technology progress… some dinosaurs just have to age out… as they become more and more unable to deal with change – even good change!

    1. The “hatred” came in with fracking and when China surpassed USA in CO2 emissions. Prior to that the eco argument was the USA was leading emitter and had to change ways, and also peak oil. Without peak oil argument libs changed to “fossil fuels are killing us all” argument.

  41. You probably missed the part where I said “it probably helped” that he’s a little nuts. Many, if not most, of the real advances in just about anything are brought forward by people who are not the usual article.

    For once in that proverbial blue moon, I probably agree with Larry more than not, though he underestimates the work that Musk be done.

    1. There will be the cluster problem, requiring electrical infrastructure to be rebuilt to accomodate chargers. The average home charger, to be effective and do the job overnight on a Tesla, must operate at 30 KWh at 220V. If there is more than one or two Teslas on your block, the charge rate will go down and the job will no longer be done overnight. This will first occur in upscale subdivisions, places like the West End of Richmond, or McLean, where the folks will be able to afford a Tesla. Be the first on your block will take on new meaning. Enjoy it while you can.

    2. There won’t be enough chargers along major routes to accomodate travelers, in spite of Musk’s build-out of his Supercharger network. Right now there are roughly 15-20 Tesla Supercharging outlets at every station. There just aren’t that many Teslas on the road right now as a percentage of vehicles, so the supply is adequate. As the number of EV’s increases, you can anticipate the problem. At best, you can get 80% charge in about 20 minutes. Pretty good. You fill your gas tank and move on in maybe 3 minutes. Do the math on just the space it will eventually take to charge all the EV’s you guys are projecting will take over the planet.

    3. Right now Tesla projects a savings of about $4000 in maintenance and fuel savings over 6 years. They use $2.85/gal for gas and .13c/kwh for fuel costs. Under this scenario, you won’t save quite as much in Virginia as projected until gas reaches the$2.85 price. And this assumes you will charge at home, where our costs are .12c/kwh. On the road using a Supercharger, it costs .26c/kwh, and the costs to operate become about the same. That is why range of the vehicle is all important. Perhaps counterintuitively, you save much more operating your Tesla around town. Start and stop traffic is meaningless to a Tesla, partly because of regenerative braking. I calculate that with the standard range entry level Tesla, I could drive back and forth from Charlottesville to Richmond every day and have range left over to do errands in either town . I can probably drive all week just around either town, though Tesla recommends putting the car on charger every night.

    Bottom line: right now, you will probably get some savings with an EV, but I maintain that’s not what will sell these cars at this point. After many decades of the EPA envionmental Nazis screwing up our cars and forcing us to drive slugs on wheels (can you say Continuously Variable Transmission?), the Tesla is one helluva lot of fun to drive. Bat outta Hell, corners like a TR-3, even in their Y model pretend-SUV with 3 rows of seats. This factor alone will overcome the many fit and finish problems they have in their manufacturing process trying to get these things out the door.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Musk is a concepts guy but not really a practical guy in getting things to market. The Telsa thing is still problematical longer term.

      I don’t think Telsa is going to become the “go-to” EV…. it’s the proverbial tip of the spear for that technology but I think other start-ups and/or GM/Ford will be the ones to bring EVs to the market for the common man.

      Yeah… there are issues to be worked-out. I know folks who have EVs and their employer has put up chargers as bennies – no charge.

      so perhaps charging may be equivalent to paying for gas but how about maintenance ? oil changes, etc? There still will be belts and brakes and other so still maintenance.

      I’m looking at EV like some/many of us looked at the first Cell Phone or computer for that matter – and tried to understand if they were just weird technology or a significant important and evolving technology.

      Can’t fully explain my thinking but EVs feel like they will be here to stay and will replace great numbers (not all) of IC vehicles. Like everything else, we’ll never reach ZERO pollution just like we’ll likely not see ZERO coal plants anytime soon.

    2. Yes we are talking super massive EV/electric infrastructure that is probably going to be a pain in the butt. This partly why the liberal focus on full electric cars is problematic. If liberals could get over their hate of fossil fuels, then the hybrid and plug-in hybrids offer a more practical solution and substantial CO2 reduction. Also coming quite quickly is H2 fuel cell technology, which will lift the humongous infrastructure burden of the dream of full electric roads. But U.S. EVanglelists want to ban H2 fuel cells and would like to pronounce EV as the only solution for USA, like corn ethanol mandates in my view. The rest of the world will leave us in the dust on H2 fuel cells, but US liberals are OK will getting behind on all technology except what they like ( EV’s).

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I don’t think people like Musk or companies like GM “hate” fossil fuels and for that matter, I don’t think a lot of ordinary people do either, not withstanding some zealots which exist both left and right.

        People want less/lower polluting cars and stuff very similar to their support of recycling and not wasting, conserving, etc.

        The “hate fossil fuels” would not go anywhere at all if that’s all that was driving EVs and other.

        One does have to ask themselves where they are on this. Are they opposite the “left” zealots and as such not in the middle themselves either?

        I’ve never seen any of it as an either/or , all or nothing proposition.

        It’s just like with cars 40 years ago, gradually evolving to less and less polluting and more and more efficient – that the vast majority or ordinary people “in the middle” do support and who comprise the vast demand for those things..

        The cave-dwellers versus anti-cave dwellers only see their opposites and not what is really happening in the middle and they CHOOSE to be that way for some reason I just don’t understand.

        1. I have witnessed the GM/Auto hate years ago during the Auto/Oil joint study days. But it is not just that anti-oil for GM, I do not think GM feels they can compete with Toyota/Honda in the hybrid space. So they are pushing for full electric which they think gives them a leg up. Japan is not so interested in full-electrics like the liberals here are so adamant about.

          PS- new gaso cars do not pollute much due to the vast improvements. What data do have on that except liberal extremist rhetoric? Diesels are different story but vast improvements have been made there too.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            but Germany, China, Korea?

            aren’t EVs now being built around the world and not really being built in response to “hate” of fossil fuels?

  42. You probably missed the part where I said “it probably helped” that he’s a little nuts. Many, if not most, of the real advances in just about anything are brought forward by people who are not the usual article.

    For once in that proverbial blue moon, I probably agree with Larry more than not, though he underestimates the work that Musk be done.

    1. There will be the cluster problem, requiring electrical infrastructure to be rebuilt to accomodate chargers. The average home charger, to be effective and do the job overnight on a Tesla, must operate at 30 KWh at 220V. If there is more than one or two Teslas on your block, the charge rate will go down and the job will no longer be done overnight. This will first occur in upscale subdivisions, places like the West End of Richmond, or McLean, where the folks will be able to afford a Tesla. Be the first on your block will take on new meaning. Enjoy it while you can.

    2. There won’t be enough chargers along major routes to accomodate travelers, in spite of Musk’s build-out of his Supercharger network. Right now there are roughly 15-20 Tesla Supercharging outlets at every station. There just aren’t that many Teslas on the road right now as a percentage of vehicles, so the supply is adequate. As the number of EV’s increases, you can anticipate the problem. At best, you can get 80% charge in about 20 minutes. Pretty good. You fill your gas tank and move on in maybe 3 minutes. Do the math on just the space it will eventually take to charge all the EV’s you guys are projecting will take over the planet.

    3. Right now Tesla projects a savings of about $4000 in maintenance and fuel savings over 6 years. They use $2.85/gal for gas and .13c/kwh for fuel costs. Under this scenario, you won’t save quite as much in Virginia as projected until gas reaches the$2.85 price. And this assumes you will charge at home, where our costs are .12c/kwh. On the road using a Supercharger, it costs .26c/kwh, and the costs to operate become about the same. That is why range of the vehicle is all important. Perhaps counterintuitively, you save much more operating your Tesla around town. Start and stop traffic is meaningless to a Tesla, partly because of regenerative braking. I calculate that with the standard range entry level Tesla, I could drive back and forth from Charlottesville to Richmond every day and have range left over to do errands in either town . I can probably drive all week just around either town, though Tesla recommends putting the car on charger every night.

    Bottom line: right now, you will probably get some savings with an EV, but I maintain that’s not what will sell these cars at this point. After many decades of the EPA envionmental Nazis screwing up our cars and forcing us to drive slugs on wheels (can you say Continuously Variable Transmission?), the Tesla is one helluva lot of fun to drive. Bat outta Hell, corners like a TR-3, even in their Y model pretend-SUV with 3 rows of seats. This factor alone will overcome the many fit and finish problems they have in their manufacturing process trying to get these things out the door.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Musk is a concepts guy but not really a practical guy in getting things to market. The Telsa thing is still problematical longer term.

      I don’t think Telsa is going to become the “go-to” EV…. it’s the proverbial tip of the spear for that technology but I think other start-ups and/or GM/Ford will be the ones to bring EVs to the market for the common man.

      Yeah… there are issues to be worked-out. I know folks who have EVs and their employer has put up chargers as bennies – no charge.

      so perhaps charging may be equivalent to paying for gas but how about maintenance ? oil changes, etc? There still will be belts and brakes and other so still maintenance.

      I’m looking at EV like some/many of us looked at the first Cell Phone or computer for that matter – and tried to understand if they were just weird technology or a significant important and evolving technology.

      Can’t fully explain my thinking but EVs feel like they will be here to stay and will replace great numbers (not all) of IC vehicles. Like everything else, we’ll never reach ZERO pollution just like we’ll likely not see ZERO coal plants anytime soon.

    2. Yes we are talking super massive EV/electric infrastructure that is probably going to be a pain in the butt. This partly why the liberal focus on full electric cars is problematic. If liberals could get over their hate of fossil fuels, then the hybrid and plug-in hybrids offer a more practical solution and substantial CO2 reduction. Also coming quite quickly is H2 fuel cell technology, which will lift the humongous infrastructure burden of the dream of full electric roads. But U.S. EVanglelists want to ban H2 fuel cells and would like to pronounce EV as the only solution for USA, like corn ethanol mandates in my view. The rest of the world will leave us in the dust on H2 fuel cells, but US liberals are OK will getting behind on all technology except what they like ( EV’s).

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I don’t think people like Musk or companies like GM “hate” fossil fuels and for that matter, I don’t think a lot of ordinary people do either, not withstanding some zealots which exist both left and right.

        People want less/lower polluting cars and stuff very similar to their support of recycling and not wasting, conserving, etc.

        The “hate fossil fuels” would not go anywhere at all if that’s all that was driving EVs and other.

        One does have to ask themselves where they are on this. Are they opposite the “left” zealots and as such not in the middle themselves either?

        I’ve never seen any of it as an either/or , all or nothing proposition.

        It’s just like with cars 40 years ago, gradually evolving to less and less polluting and more and more efficient – that the vast majority or ordinary people “in the middle” do support and who comprise the vast demand for those things..

        The cave-dwellers versus anti-cave dwellers only see their opposites and not what is really happening in the middle and they CHOOSE to be that way for some reason I just don’t understand.

        1. I have witnessed the GM/Auto hate years ago during the Auto/Oil joint study days. But it is not just that anti-oil for GM, I do not think GM feels they can compete with Toyota/Honda in the hybrid space. So they are pushing for full electric which they think gives them a leg up. Japan is not so interested in full-electrics like the liberals here are so adamant about.

          PS- new gaso cars do not pollute much due to the vast improvements. What data do have on that except liberal extremist rhetoric? Diesels are different story but vast improvements have been made there too.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            but Germany, China, Korea?

            aren’t EVs now being built around the world and not really being built in response to “hate” of fossil fuels?

  43. Yes we are talking super massive EV/electric infrastructure that is probably going to be a pain in the butt. This partly why the liberal focus on full electric cars is problematic. If liberals could get over their hate of fossil fuels, then the hybrid and plug-in hybrids offer a more practical solution and substantial CO2 reduction. Also coming quite quickly is H2 fuel cell technology, which will lift the humongous infrastructure burden of the dream of full electric roads. But EVanglelists want to ban H2 fuel cells and would like to pronounce EV as the only solution for USA.

  44. Paul Sweet Avatar

    “The Senate bill funds the school buses by treating them as mobile energy storage devices.”

    This may work for now, but what happens if a school district goes to year-round school (as other posts have advocated), and the summertime air conditioning load peaks at the same time that school lets out? Either the buses won’t contribute much stored energy to the grid, or school children will have to wait until evening to go home.

    The gasoline or diesel powered ICE will eventually go away because something better will come along. Right now electric shows the most promise, but other superior technologies might be developed over the next couple decades, or somebody might figure a way to sequester carbon from an ICE exhaust. I’m not sure it’s a wise idea for the government to lock the state or country into one technology.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I don’t necessarily disagree but it looks to me that there are two kinds of “fuels” – the kinds that come over a wire (electricity) and the other kinds that are liquids and come over pipelines, tanks, hoses, etc.

      are there others?

Leave a Reply