Serious question: How will California charge all the new electric vehicles?

I went ahead and posted this in the Cider Press simply because of the potential for people to get emotional on this topic.  This is a serious question.  With California set to eventually ban the sale of gas/diesel engine vehicles, where/how will the state get the electrical capacity to charge a whole bunch of new cars when the state already has current problems with brownouts and shortages?

Does this mean more power generation?  Will it be wind and solar?  Coal (if it were would it be helping?  Again, serious question)?  Nuclear?  Something else?

Another issue:  most homes are not wired for the extremely high amperage required for a timely charge (recently read about some electrical fires—long story) and electrical codes may need to be rewritten.  This would be quite the undertaking (though hardly impossible).

The short version is that while the goal is certainly admirable, there are serious obstacles to overcome.  Does anyone know how these might be conquered?

Just to make clear, I am asking this a a serious question and not trying to provoke emotions.  As with any thread, please remember that the “be nice” rule will be strictly enforced.

Eric

LA Times

Quick google search pulled up this LA times article. Sounds like you aren't the first person to ask this question. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like there are any real answers here in this article. Mostly just some loose justifications for the black outs and suggesting institutions in the state make changes to accommodate charging during solar generation while employees are parked at their jobs. It's overly verbose and about halfway through I started skimming but didn't see any actual reference to a plan to increase infrastructure, just  dancing around the idea that it would have to happen.

Who knows man. I personally have very little faith in governments to provide efficient solutions and a great deal of faith in politicians ability to pander (especially the governments and politicians on the pacific coast). I doubt there is a plan, and if the state actually ends up enforcing this policy I see it going very poorly.

Each person will drive to the gas station and buy five gallons of gasoline, take it back to their house and run a generator for their cars. ;-)

I believe the usual answer to this is timing.

Most grids have a peak usage time that is fairly consistent on a daily basis. If everyone tries to charge their electric car at the same time as that peak, then yes the grid can't cope. if you delay the charge start time to later in the evening, there's plenty of capacity.

The question the becomes, how do we "make" this happen?

Option 1: All car chargers are linked to a central system that balances how much power each charger can draw at that time. This is extremely unlikely because "freedom".

Option 2: The electric companies create a tiered pricing system. At certain times of day electricity is much cheaper, people who are paying attention will time their charging to cost less and thus the system gets balanced by consumer "choice". This has existed for years in the UK in the guise of economy 7 and economy 10.

In my less than humble opinion, option 1 is slightly better as it can take into account the inconsistent nature of many renewable energy sources.

Again in my opinion, the much better option is for better town design, people choosing to live closer to work, people practising permaculture "lite" so that they commute less often, a steady state economy, people choosing to ride bikes and decent public transport systems. Please see the works of Strongtowns, Not Just Bikes and Mr Money Moustache.

Finally, in my slightly depressed opinion, option 2 is the cheapest and least effort for governments, businesses and people and will probably win out in the short-mid term.

This is also coinciding with record hot years that are expected to only get hotter...i.e. a lot more load for AC is likely.  

It would be good to see the math on off peak potential.  I go to work during peak hours here and come home and charge my car overnight with a standard 110V outlet.  I wonder how far the current grid can go with everyone charging overnight when grid use drops off?

It will be interesting to watch CA roll this all out.

I'm guessing California has a fair bit of solar potential?  Maybe that would come into the mix over the next decade.

Greg,

How well can you charge via that 110v?  As I understand 110v is only good for really slow changes.  Maybe charging overnight is long enough.

On a related note, home infrastructure might have to change if there truly are large numbers of EV’s on the road.  I had a conversation with a friend with an insurance company.  According to him, there is some evidence (not conclusive, but suspicious nonetheless) that several house fires have been linked to cars charging from home wiring that is not up to par.  What he told me is that home wiring might have to be rated to 400 amps.  *IF* this is true, then a lot of homes might need to be re-wired.  Also, along those lines, I am thinking about homes where two or possibly three cars are all topping off their batteries at once.  There could be be quite an electrical demand from this one hypothetical home,

And again, to be clear, I am not writing this as a way of being anti-EV.  I am asking a serious question about a legitimate issue that California, and possibly other states as circumstances may dictate, may encounter.

Eric

Mike,

Maybe solar is a significant part of the solution to this issue—at least in California.  It will be interesting to see how solar expands from it’s already impressive arrays at present.  

Eric

Eric Hanson wrote:home wiring might have to be rated to 400 amps.  
Eric

That may be true if everyone tries to install a level 3 DC charger (50KW output on split phase needs around 230A).
However, in the UK, people are installing level 2 chargers. These pull around 30-50A. The same sort of amount that an electric shower or large oven pull and so although a new circuit may be needed, a new grid connection is not.

James,

That was especially useful information.  The little bit of information I got did not distinguish between level 2 and level 3 chargers, but the information may have pertained to level 3 chargers (I bet those are the type everyone wants).  I suppose if one wants to plug in their car and get a really fast charge, they may be out of luck.  Perhaps though, if the same person has some patience, the same charge can be had over time.

All of this just screams (to me at least) that the obvious solution is to install a whole bank of solar panels on the roof.  Of course, for this to work, the car would have to be at home and plugged in around noon, right in the middle of work hours.  It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Eric

Eric, I'm pretty sure that market forces (massive difference in cost) will push people towards level 2 chargers.

You are going to need a HUGE roof to run a level 3 charger and a fairly serious sized roof to support a level 2 charger. My personal view is that the physics/cost equation doesn't work out well to use this as a drop in replacement for oil based car usage.

Eric Hanson wrote:Greg,
How well can you charge via that 110v?  As I understand 110v is only good for really slow changes.  Maybe charging overnight is long enough.

I probably should have mentioned that I have a plug-in hybrid, so my battery and EV range are smaller.  I use up my battery every day for my commute and then plug it in when I get home.  It takes about 5 hours with 110V to fully charge up.  I've read that slower charging is more efficient and so for me the plug-in hybrid was a good solution for my needs.  

I'm expecting my next car to be a full EV, but we'll see how far technology has advanced by then!

Again, that is really useful context Greg.  Presumably hybrid vehicles will also be banned in that future timeframe.  And charging yours is probably not the same as charging a full EV.  This really adds useful information to the context of the discussion.

Eric

James,

You might well be correct about the size of the array needed for a level 3 charge system.  I do have a real interest in solar but I still do recognize costs and limitations.  For many, solar is tempting because the fuel (sunlight) is free.  But the infrastructure is still an important and in some cases, a very significant cost.  

To reinforce your point, I deliberately built my house with southern exposure and a southern facing roof to take advantage of potential solar panels.  I got a quote (admitted, it is now quite dated and I am thinking about getting a new quote) and the price was frightening.  I won’t give you the complete figure, but multiple 5 figures would only replace 1/2 my electrical bill!  I understand that things have changed now so I may re-address this issue, but your point remains:  the “free” fuel might require a very significant upfront cost, at least for that level 3 charger.  Maybe for level 2 and level 1 charge systems the solar installation could be much cheaper.  To be honest, I don’t know specific numbers but I would be curious to see how those numbers work.

Thanks for the very good points!

Eric

Eric Hanson wrote:  Presumably hybrid vehicles will also be banned in that future timeframe.  

Which is odd, because according to the last chart I saw, hybrids were by far the most footprint friendly vehicle. It did not take long before they eclipsed the gasoline vehicle, while it took the EV with the 150 mile battery 90,000 miles to become more footprint friendly. And then there's a good chance that battery won't last that long. So it would cost another $20,000+ to basically restart the counter, since most of the footprint comes from the battery. And to make a more fair comparison, the vehicle really needs about a 400 mile battery to fully replace gasoline vehicles, which would multiply the timeframe accordingly.

Solar panels would seem the most logical power source. They too have a heavy footprint, and environmental cost. And about a $50,000 monetary cost for each vehicle. But most people need to charge overnight... this would require a battery. Due to inefficiencies, it would need to be even bigger (and more expensive than the $20,000+ dollar one). It will also need to be replaced about as often as the one in the vehicle. And last I heard, we are still not able to practically recycle the panels or the batteries.

Barring some miraculous technological breakthroughs, the only realistic end I see is people driving far, far, far less. Which could possibly be the point of the legislation. Though if the rate at which people are currently emigrating out of California continues to rise, the reduction in population could make such changes possible with the current power grid, though maybe beefed up a little.

Currently charging is often done at stores. Tesla provides the charging stations for their vehicles. It's likely that some employers will install solar panels and charging stations in their parking lots.

It's important to keep in mind that they are only prohibiting the purchase of new gasoline cars. So many will still be on the road for 20 years following this prohibition. Meaning it won't be a huge increase all at once.

I doubt that the exodus from California will continue at the same rate. Some of the people who have left moved to completely unsustainable areas. This will become more and more apparent with time.

What I understand is that the ban is for new gas and diesel automobiles. Does the ban also prohibit the sale of all used petroleum fueled vehicles? Does the ban prohibit the sale from businesses or does it also include prohibiting a person from selling a vehicle out of their driveway? I understand the ban does not include banning the sale of gasoline and diesel, so all the millions of petroleum fueled vehicles will still be there, and if people don't want a new electric vehicle, certainly it seems likely to me they can drive across state lines and purchase what they desire in a neighboring state. And if the state of California prohibits registering petroleum vehicles, to prevent such a flow of money out of California into neighboring states, it seems to me many people may just move and go live in another state with less restrictions and limitations dictating what people can and can't do. People in this country don't like being restricted or limited in their choices. In my opinion, I doubt we'll see an overnight surge in demand for electric vehicles or the ability to charge them. I believe it will be a transition that will take many decades, going well beyond 2050 in my mind, and will provide much time for mistakes to be learned from, and also the development of new electric technologies that we currently (no pun intended) haven't invented. I believe the people of California will figure it out as it happens. Or, maybe the ban will be repealed at some future date - things voted in can be voted out.

I see a version of James' early post which is a blend of options 1 & 2, where favorable rates are given to drivers who sign up for various tiers of allowing charging control of their vehicle by the utility. Paired with usage data from the vehicle to possibly charge you enough to get home, but not more, maybe with a confirmation text/reply in case you have other plans than your routine.

I also see in-person workers given EV charging as a part of their compensation package, with charging stations at the office (a likely place to handle high loads) possibly in the shade of ground-mounted solar PV arrays. With WFH, demand for the charging stations could be managed somewhat.

There is also the possibility of utilities having DIS-charging control of people's vehicles, for peaking demand and time-shifting. Freedom, WFH, solar generation during daytime, usage during nighttime, are all factors to consider...

Eric's concern for home infrastructure is real. There's going to be some more fires before new codes get written, there's going to be a boom for electricians in California!! Hopefully supply chain issues are resolved by then.
Conservation and regulation on other infrastructure like streetlighting, outdoor lights might help on the capacity side, I'm sure lots has already been done in on this front in replacing old fixtures. I could see reduced hours/reduced intensity, motion/thermal/proximity sensing, and bans on certain lighting equipment (first new, then at all, like the cars).

Oh, and further down the road, I see catenary-capable EVs, able to autonomously road-train in a separate highway lane (similar to HOV lane now) to skip the need to charge at all (or possibly charging at the same time) while speeding past the congestion.

Stacy, Jordan,

Yes, prohibits new gas cars only.  I assume this means any vehicle with a gas engine and thus the hybrid cars also, but who knows, with the deadline that far off, maybe that point gets adjusted.  This is pure speculation as it just makes sense that hybrid vehicles would have some special status, but who knows.

I don’t know what this would do about trucks and similar vehicles.  Also, do diesel vehicles get banned or is it just gas?  I am afraid I don’t know the actual specifics.

James,

Fair points about the time frame.  As I understand, when the law goes into effect there will still be plenty of gas engine vehicles running around, diminishing slowly as they wear out and get replaced.  And yes, people can vote with their feet if they do choose, thinking that they might live a better life in a less regulated state.

Given the long timeframe, I guess we have time to find out what the initial impact will be.

But just to pour a little gas on the fire, I just got done watching a news segment stating how California was struggling to keep the lights on as A/C units kick on in the heat of late summer.

Eric

I expect that by the time this ban comes into effect, there will be electric pickup trucks. Semis likely have different laws. It is quite a ways off. I seriously doubt that many people will move to another state solely because of this. Most people leave California because of the cost of living. Some because of the fires,  but there really isn't any good place to go to avoid all climate issues.

California leads the nation in the laws that are necessary to deal with climate problems other states will follow suit. Having done so recently, I can tell you moving states is a huge pain in the ass. The amount of things that are different are ridiculous.

Jordan Holland wrote:

Eric Hanson wrote:  Presumably hybrid vehicles will also be banned in that future timeframe.  

Which is odd, because according to the last chart I saw, hybrids were by far the most footprint friendly vehicle.

This thread got me curious, so I did some digging and found that they are only blocking the sale of gas or diesel only vehicles.

"Aug 25 (Reuters) - California on Thursday moved to require all new vehicles sold in the state by 2035 to be either electric or plug-in electric hybrids"

Greg Martin wrote:
This thread got me curious, so I did some digging and found that they are only blocking the sale of gas or diesel only vehicles.

"Aug 25 (Reuters) - California on Thursday moved to require all new vehicles sold in the state by 2035 to be either electric or plug-in electric hybrids"

That makes more sense.

Stacy Witscher wrote:I expect that by the time this ban comes into effect, there will be electric pickup trucks. Semis likely have different laws. It is quite a ways off. I seriously doubt that many people will move to another state solely because of this. Most people leave California because of the cost of living. Some because of the fires,  but there really isn't any good place to go to avoid all climate issues.

California leads the nation in the laws that are necessary to deal with climate problems other states will follow suit. Having done so recently, I can tell you moving states is a huge pain in the ass. The amount of things that are different are ridiculous.

My dad looked into getting one of the new electric trucks, but the waiting list is a mile long and they aren't taking any more names. I know there is a feud between Musk and Gates over the semi's, but I imagine it's coming. One thing that strikes me that I haven't heard anyone talk about is that a standard semi-trailer has quite a bit of roof to carry several thousand watts of solar panels. Especially if the batteries are mated with the trailers rather than the tractor, a trailer could be set aside between uses to charge the batteries on its own. Laws regarding commercial machines do tend to lag behind consumer products.

Interesting about the semis. But, of course, the trailers and the tractors aren't typically owned by the same people so that might complicate things. I have a couple of friends that drive semis. One is a teamster and one is an independent. Their experiences are vastly different, as one might expect. To my mind if you aren't a teamster, it's a shit job to be a long haul truck driver.

Stacy Witscher wrote:Interesting about the semis. But, of course, the trailers and the tractors aren't typically owned by the same people so that might complicate things. I have a couple of friends that drive semis. One is a teamster and one is an independent. Their experiences are vastly different, as one might expect. To my mind if you aren't a teamster, it's a shit job to be a long haul truck driver.

Yeah, I know a guy who still drives and it's pretty tough for him. I'm not even sure if he still works for himself anymore (haven't seen him in a while). Between costs of the equipment and maintenance and now fuel, I don't see how they do it. Even a CDL is such a hassle anymore. Electric would be different, I'm sure. As I pondered, it would be more practical with a large fleet, like for a company like Walmart. Someone told me the other day that they are actually already testing a few of the new semi's. Long-haul is quite a way off, I would imagine.

Another idea: batteries that could be switched out with just a forklift. Like the LP tanks people use for grills.

Ok, thanks to some investigation by Greg, we now know that plug-in hybrids would still be available.  This makes a whole lot of sense and it would really relieve the extra demand on the power grid, at least until the whole grid can be beefed up from power source, through transmission lines, right to the wiring in homes charging the grid.

So far most of the proposed extra power generation would come from solar.  Certainly smart grids and solar parking lots can play a role, but will that be sufficient?  Will extra main line generation have to come on line?  Will new power plants need to be built or existing ones either expanded or replaced?  What type of power plants would they be?  Hopefully they won’t be coal.  I haven’t done the actual math, but swapping coal fueled electricity for gasoline fueled cars seems like a step backwards.  

Like I said, I haven’t done the math but I fear that using a coal fired plant to generate electricity to charge a battery to propel a car down the road has enough losses in the generation and charging to offset gains made by having the car be all electric.  Having the power plant be fueled by natural gas would certainly be a step up, but we would still be stuck in the carbon cycle.  I don’t bring this up lightly but would nuclear, particularly a more advanced nuclear that is inherently safe and gets more use out of its fuel than current Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) be the logical and appropriate next step?

And just to be clear, I am referring to newer designs that can be factory built so as to really get costs down.  These newer designs would produce orders of magnitude less waste because of their efficient use of fuel.  I am not trying to be an unqualified, relentless fan of nuclear power, I am simply asking the question.  We have had a great discussion about the benefits of solar, and I wholeheartedly support the logical, practical expansion of solar, especially ideas such as solar parking lots.  But since Solar has some obvious limitations—people would likely want to change their cars at night—would a modern, cheaper, more robust nuclear generation be the logical step?  It does produce power very reliably (the most reliable production on the grid today) and is carbon emission free.  California is looking very seriously at extending the life of its one remaining reactor at Diablo Canyon.

And if not nuclear, then what else?  Again, this is a serious question.  I am not writing this post as a shameless plug for nuclear but I do recognize nuclear’s benefits in a world that needs carbon-free electricity.  Can wind and solar go it alone?  

There are some experimental grid-scale batteries designed to soak up the extra power generated by countless arrays of solar panels turning Southern California sunlight into electricity so that it can be released during the off-hours.  It has about a 80% charge-discharge cycle efficiency (not too bad!) and is based on an odd concept called a molten salt, liquid metal battery (when I heard about it, I had to check it out). Basically, two low melting point metals and a salt are piled into a battery.  The battery gets heated, melting everything.  The two metals separate because one is very heavy (such as lead) and the other is very light (such as magnesium) the salt sits in the middle as an electrolyte.  The real benefit is that the battery is completely resistant to cycle wear.  This could be an exciting way to really make solar practical in a way that it just can’t at present (try typing Anbri battery into a search engine).

Again, or is the solution something else entirely?  Fusion is always attractive but, despite recent excitement, is perpetually 30 years away from implementation and we would need a solution now (I guess I would accept 5 years for implementation, but certainly something operational by the time 2035 rolls around.  And given that I just read an article about how California was struggling to make enough electricity during the heat of late summer, it only makes sense to have something on line ASAP.

So I went and did it again and wrote a really long-winded post, basically re-asking my original question:  how does a state the size of California generate electricity for fleets of new EV’s when it can barely meet energy demands at present?

Eric

I'm going to double-down on deferment. Investment in reducing commuting by car solves charging AND reduces use of remaining ICE fleet, which would be more effective than a simple direct replacement of ICE with EV.
Want a 20% reduction? make WFH mandatory on Friday. Or 50% workforce WFH on Mondays and Fridays. Such a mandate would also ease congestion regarding road maintenance, or refitting existing infrastructure with mass transit, EV catenary or inductive charging lanes, bike lanes, highway solar farms, etc...

Right now in Boston, one branch of our subway is shut down for massive overhaul to make years of repairs due to age and wear within one month. Usually these repairs take place during a few short hours in the middle of the night, needing to return the system to operation the following morning. Having more time, on day shifts, and not needing to return to service daily, makes real progress possible.

Eric, I should probably have started my reply with a question. Is california struggling with the energy demand or the power demand?

James, could you clarify for us what you mean by the difference between energy demand and power demand?  I have an idea but I don’t want to be presumptuous.

Eric

I believe they make huge battery banks that could hold the solar energy for a half day until it is squirted into the electric cars.

Well hey, here's one in California: World's largest battery bank

I expect that if the laws require electric cars, then the battery tech and transmission tech will improve between now and then to resolve the issue.  Don't worry Eric, they'll do just fine.

Thanks for that information Mike.

Its not so much that I worry.  I am half a continent away.  My real weakness is that I am super-curious, so little technical conundrums like this rattle in my brain incessantly.  

And if by energy vs. power demands we mean that the total energy needed for the state (or whatever area) could be generated but not utilized all at once, but the power needed, or energy needed at a specific time--say in the evening when solar panels are not working but people are getting home and turning on their homes and presumable charging their EV's, then I think I understand the energy vs. power demands.  And certainly grid-scale batteries could be a significant part of that solution.

Eric

Kenneth,

I guess my brain was too dense to remember that WFH was the abbreviation for Work From Home.  And I wholeheartedly agree that WFH can be a significant source of fuel savings.  In fact, I experienced something like this during the early phase of COVID lockdown when schools suddenly just shut down and there was little reason for me to drive every day.  The price of fuel plummeted, but it made no difference to me as my tank never emptied anyways.

So for some, WFH can be a significant source of fuel/electricity savings.  Obviously there are industries where this would not work (think construction).

Eric

People have made lots of valid points, but I'll add that my son just saw an article that claimed there is a plan afoot to put solar panels on top of the canals that move water around California. This has already been done in areas of India. It's win-win in the sense that the water benefits from the shade (less evaporation), and they're not having to use "land" to put the panels on.

I've also seen several already built examples of parking lots with massive solar panel structures built over them. Again win-win - the cars stay a little cooler and the power's generated where it's needed. I think if California is going to count on solar electric generation to make this transition, there will be much more of this happening.

Lastly, I also agree that there is finally a push for battery research. There's evidence that China's doing a lot of research in that field and we're way overdue for the same in North America. We need short term portable (like car batteries), medium term for evening out peaks in production and time shifting (like some of Tesla's projects), but the real kicker will be long term. I read a recent article out of a local University that's teemed up with a far north Indigenous community. They've installed photovoltaic panels which will produce a surplus of energy in the long summer days. The research part of the project will be to use some of the surplus electricity to make some sort of biodiesel (the exact parameters were a little sketchy) that would run their existing diesel generator in the winter. We're talking a small community, but the cost of transporting diesel that far makes their plan sound at least plausible. It won't save California!

Just saw this from Babylon Bee:

It won't fly in Canada - no seat-belts! Does it come with airbags?

Jay Angler wrote:It won't fly in Canada - no seat-belts! Does it come with airbags?

No, but a horse's rear end is fairly well padded!

My suspicion is that there really is no plan at this point and whole systems thinking wasn't involved in the legislation or we'd probably be hearing the plans laid out because this does seem like an obvious question to ask.

My guess is that if the law actually remains in place when it is to be enforced there will already be a serious reduction in miles driven based on cost alone.  There is a general energy crisis underway now and I don't see how it will get resolved any time soon, at least not by increasing energy supplies.  From what I understand alternative energy systems like wind and solar actually rely on an industrial system that runs on fossil fuels, in particular oil.  We seem to be essentially at the peak of that production.  Personally I will be quite surprised if in another 13 years (2035) our overall energy supply available isn't significantly reduced and thus radically more expensive, forcing most people to make major changes in how they live their lives.  I don't know how the culture of the personal automobile for most trips can survive.

To emphasize this I recently read that the current power crises in Europe has meant that it now costs $100 to fully charge a Tesla.  I questioned whether this was true or not.  I just looked up what the average cost to charge it is now in the US.  USA Today said in June of 2022 that the average price ranged from "$9.62 to $18.30" depending on the model, with the average cost at $13.96.  Ok, if I take that info and combine it with the understanding that some places in Europe are now actually seeing electric bills increase 10x from the same time the previous year that would mean the average cost to fully charge a Tesla in those regions at least really is $139.60!!!  Yikes!  What will prices be in another 13 years?

Personally I'm now even more happy with my purchase this year of an ebike to use instead of my car for most local trips.  It's something I can easily charge with my off grid solar system... except in the winter when I have very little spare capacity.  Though this is also the time of year when biking become less viable due to snow and ice.

Between cost increases and dwindling supplies of energy and water, could it be that California is already envisioning a significantly de-populated future?  If I'm reading the graph below correctly, only recently for the first time in 100 years has California seen a net decline in population (?).Irrespective of how state and local governments will be funded, one could speculate that the cost(s) of either the vehicles and/or fuel would skew the declining population even more towards those who could afford to live there.  Even as much of California is synonymous with agriculture, both in output and diversity, I was surprised to see that sector contributing so little, relatively speaking, in recent years ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-gdp-by-industry/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20finance%2C%20insurance,state%20GDP%20in%20that%20year ).  Perhaps in one of the largest gentrifications ever witnessed, the reduced, specialized population of that state will loosely resemble Monaco.  So what technological fixes may rise to alleviate resource problems will be aided by declining household demand.....yet with sufficient incomes to keep the lights on.

The news came into Japanese papers too, I heard about it from my wife. It was already mentioned earlier, but California has been doing this pushing the envelope on climate issues for a while now and in many cases the USA and Europe tend to follow about 5-10 years later, and Japan another 5-10 years after that... So it seems as others mentioned like a bit of a blind leap of faith.

My guess is they're trying to create incentives for car (and other) companies to go all in on electric and innovate in the private sector, probably branching out into charging infrastructure, batteries, etc.

I believe there is also massive potential for tidal/wave and offshore wind production in California waters. The research is being done, but not a lot of companies are biting. If I understand correctly one of the reasons is that the tax incentives right now favor solar.

My post is all information that I've heard and am regurgitating, so the information might be wrong or out of date, but that's my understanding of the situation.

In Japan anyway the EV charging infrastructure is pathetic. I was strongly considering buying an EV since I just changed cars, but the limitations didn't justify it for me yet. I think it's going to take another 10 years before EVs have critical mass here. As it is I see maybe 1 EV in 500-1000 cars on the road, and about 1 PHEV in the same amount.

I'd like to be more like Edward Norton and get a cargo bike going! But I'm a wimp and don't want to bike in the rain. Maybe California will do some more cycling incentives to support the transition?