Veloz’s Digital Dialogue on EV Policy: Working Under a New Administration
VX News shares the following excerpts from Veloz’s recent Digital Dialogue on EV Policy: Working Under a New Administration. Moderated by Josh D. Boone, Executive Director of Veloz, and Rosa Davies, Veloz Business Development Director, the discussion featured policymakers including Liane Randolph (California Air Resources Board), Nancy Skinner (California Energy Commission), and Doreen Harris (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority). Panelists examined the future of EV policy amid federal funding pauses and regulatory shifts, emphasizing state-led initiatives, industry collaboration, and policy stability to sustain market momentum. Discussions also addressed infrastructure challenges, investment strategies, and the role of state leadership in advancing transportation electrification. Read or watch the full Digital Dialogue on the Veloz website.
“As with any aspect of the energy transition, by making the progress, you’re sort of testing the systems that exist and pushing on the changes necessary to facilitate the adoption that we know is possible.
”
Ross Davies (Moderator): Given the new federal administration's executive orders and funding pauses, what is your vision for CARB's role going forward, and what are these waivers and how will they impact EV adoption if revoked? Just talk to us a little bit about California's plan to move EV adoption forward in the current context.
Liane Randolph (CARB): Sure. I'll start with a very quick primer on California's regulatory authority. The Clean Air Act provides that California can adopt vehicle emission standards that are equivalent to US EPA or more strict than US EPA. The reason for that is because California's clean air efforts predated the Clean Air Act and US EPA. So when the act was passed, there was an understanding that, given the air quality challenges in the state of California, that we needed to be able to continue making progress on cleaning the air for our residents. That is why over the years we have vigorously defended our ability to do that because we still suffer from poor air quality in many parts of the state. We still have areas that are not in attainment for federal standards. So as we think about the criteria pollutants and tackling those issues as well as greenhouse gas emissions, it's critical that we be able to make the right policy choices that create that progress.
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, so we need this authority to meet our goals. The way the authority works is it's rule by rule. So we adopt a rule, and then we get authorization to implement that rule from US EPA. We have authorization to implement Advanced Clean Cars 1 and 2, we have authorization to implement Advanced Clean Trucks, but we have an administration that is now saying that they want to revoke those waivers and those abilities for us to implement those rules.
As we think about where we are in the market, it's important to note that the market is well ahead of what we anticipated the adoption would be when the original Advanced Clean Cars rules were adopted. So Advanced Clean Cars 2 start with model year 2026. As you look at the previous model years, adoption is way above what we anticipated, which to me tells me that the quality and the product offerings for light-duty zero-emissions vehicles have really driven market adoption way beyond the regulatory framework. So I think we really need to lean into that. We really need to continue to work with the private sector, with the OEMs, with the infrastructure providers to really ensure that that market continues to grow and continues to build no matter what happens at the federal level.
We, of course, will do everything we can to protect our authority and to stand up for not only our rules, but the US EPA light-duty standards that the Biden administration adopted. Assuming that they follow the law, they will need to go through a full administrative procedure to repeal those rules. That gives us and advocates around the country the opportunity to say, "Hey, this is not just important for California. It's important for the entire country." So that's our focus right now is being there to defend what we have legally and administratively, but also thinking about, how do we work with industry to continue to make progress?
Rosa Davies (Moderator): Doreen, over to you. New York is investing in EV adoption and EV charging stations being developed in communities. What incentives are helping build out these EV charging stations for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles? What would you say are the top two to three challenges that need to be solved to keep that momentum going in the current landscape?
Doreen M. Harris (NYSERDA): Thanks for the question, Rosa. We're obviously thrilled to be part of this discussion with Veloz, and generally, the interest here in New York State has never been higher in EV adoption. It's a bit of a unique landscape in the state, first because of course the population center being New York City creates both opportunities and challenges with respect to EV charging. But generally, unlike California, transportation is not the largest source of emissions in our state. It's actually the building sector, because we obviously have a rather efficient transportation system in the form of the MTA in the first instance.
However, all that to say, we have a number of different agencies that are all working together to advance EV adoption at a greater scale across our state. NYSERDA is the state's energy office. We deploy a number of different planning functions on behalf of the state, but also programmatic functions including our Charge Ready NY program, which is essentially providing up to $2,500 per plug to advance various forms of charging infrastructure and has seen extraordinarily strong participation.
But from other perspectives, we have our utility regulator, the Department of Public Service. One major thing they do is implement the Make-Ready Program, which is intended to really get after the broader needs, the infrastructure necessary to advance charging deployment in EVs writ large. At the same time, we have our sister agency, the New York Power Authority, with whom we've worked very closely to get those NEVI funds to use also to really address the corridors across our state, and we're among the first really to do so. I also drive an EV, and I use our state's network quite regularly, the EVolve NY network, to charge while on the road. I want to highlight the fact that it is a multifaceted effort, including our environmental regulator who has been involved obviously in some of the Advanced Clean Cars and Trucks regulations that were previously discussed coming out of California.
So all that to say, it's necessary for us to all coordinate because it is a complex ecosystem with many actors working together. It's also challenging for the very reasons you asked, the challenges themselves. The upfront costs are an area that remain a challenge and perhaps a barrier to adoption. That's why we have the Make-Ready Program. Meaning, if we're going to electrify everything, let's make the ecosystem (i.e the infrastructure) ready for that work.
We also work with our utility regulator on the topic of demand charges. That has emerged as a real challenge for those who are trying to expand the adoption of charging infrastructure in their workplace, or in the case of schools, there remains a need to have EV-friendly rates to allow for charging in a timely manner.
We also, I'd say, face some challenges with respect to local roadblocks. Sometimes, obviously, we have local permitting needs with advancing various EV charging stations. We've helped through the development of Model Permitting processes and forms to really help local municipalities better understand how to permit the charging infrastructure necessary to get from here to there. So progress, but certainly as with any aspect of the energy transition, by making the progress, you're sort of testing the systems that exist and pushing on the changes necessary to facilitate the adoption that we know is possible.
Rosa Davies (Moderator): Nancy, the next question's over to you. But first a little bit of backstory, which was going to lead into my question. You were behind AB 2514, which established California's large-scale battery storage program which reduced the state's reliance on fossil fuels. In turn, this led to California's utilities cleaning the grid. Then let's not forget SB 100, which set a goal of California using 100% renewable energy by 2045. These laws exist in part to direct the state towards cleaner air, increasing public health, and enrich the lives of Californians. So knowing that state legislation can be the key to continued transportation electrification, what do you see as the most important state policies that can help keep EV momentum across the nation, and how can we all work together in this effort?
Nancy Skinner (CEC): Thanks for that question. Yes, I'm very proud of that... It was back in 2010 that I did the law AB 2514 to in fact have our Public Utilities Commission put an amount of utility-grade battery storage on all-electricity purchasers so that when they entered a contract to purchase new electricity generation, they would also include a certain amount of storage. Because we were beginning that path, we had not yet adopted a goal to have 100% of our electricity be renewable. We had adopted the goal of, well, I think we only had the 20% goal at that point, but we knew we were on a path. We knew we were on a path of going to renewable electricity.
Of course, given that most of our sources of renewable electricity generate only during certain times of the day, how do you make the grid stable? That was the idea of the utility-grade storage. There was none installed yet at the point that I did the law. But now California is the global leader in that. The market has completely changed. We see even long duration, the original while I was technology neutral and also ours sort of neutral, we're now seeing even developments in long duration storage, which is a great thing and will greatly help all of our electrification goals including our transportation electrification goals.
Now, meanwhile, my great colleague, Liane from our Air Resources Board, referenced, as load demand increases and we plan for peak, that the batteries in an EV have, I'm going to say, 10 times, I'm not exactly sure, but approximately 10 times the capacity of that battery pack that you buy to put on the side of your house. That battery pack you buy to put on the side of your house is there to be your backup for either outages or to help you deal with when the demand is greatest or when the prices are the highest for your electricity.
Well, your car could do that. Your car is battery storage on wheels. So to me, by unleashing that and people being able to see that this thing has more attributes than just getting me to my workplace or doing my errands or picking up my kids, it can also help me reduce my electricity bill because I could use it at the time when the rates are the highest. I could use it as my backup power, for example. Now, that's a little into the capacities there now, but that's a little into the future to really being practical for everybody, but it could certainly help us in terms of staying on course with our goals and getting that much more market adoption for EVs and others.
Your question really was about legislation. What more legislation might we need? I don't know if it's so much that we have... As far as I can tell right now, we don't have a lot of statutory barriers to some of these goals. Our barriers for things like unleashing that capacity and having people really be able to adopt it and having our utilities really engage is much more potentially regulatory and potentially just buy-in and working with our stakeholders.
Clearly, well, our governor has set this incredible executive order for having only zero-emission vehicles sold or EVs specifically sold as of model year 2035. It's not so much in my opinion at the moment that we need new statutes to help us get that. It's really much more both in our regulatory activities and others, again, setting those right market signals so that we keep the momentum to achieve it. For example, EV charging companies, that there's a business case for them, that they're no longer going to need, say, and who knows, we'll have to see over time, but that they don't need the public investment of dollars but that they are able to be revenue generating, and there's enough of them and such that we're at that place where, again, the state or federal dollars are not as essential to back them up.
It didn't answer your question of what laws, if I were a lawmaker right now, for example, what laws I'd be introducing to help our different goals. But at the moment I think it's much more other work. We have the laws in place, and it is our being nimble and clever and smart in implementing them.
Audience Question: How can we ensure long-term policy stability so that EV investments remain viable even with shifting political winds?
Liane Randolph (CARB): The way I think about it is being consistent about the goals. As a state in California, we have been very consistent as we have progressed to cleaner and cleaner vehicles. Now the technology is at the point where we are able to support fully zero-emission vehicles, and our program does include plug-in hybrids so long as the range is 50 miles or above for a portion of the company's compliance.
So I think that consistency of purpose is the most critical thing. Because what ends up happening is different strategies come to the fore based on the current situation. For instance, early in the work, the utility support for infrastructure and vehicles was really, really critical. Using the market-based funding was really, really critical. Then as we got to the point where the technology was really supporting strong regulation, the regulations became stronger, became more at the forefront, the incentives started to be oriented more towards lower and middle income because they didn't need to be quite so technology forcing. Now as we are looking at the challenges around being able to fully implement our regulations, the incentives come back to the fore. The need for more of the carrot approach becomes more critical. So having a clarity of purpose and then addressing the policies to address any sort of external challenges but continuing to communicate that the goal does not change. The tactics may change, but the goals do not change.
Tim Echols (Georgia PSC): For me in Georgia working towards first-in-line privileges, for example, for EV rideshare vehicles at the airport, being able to provide some things that really doesn't cost the government anything to do and keeping this growing commercial sector going. Let's have more Amazon vans. Let's have more delivery vehicles that are electric. These are out in our neighborhoods. People are seeing them. They have a subliminal effect on people as they see these high-tech-looking vehicles, and I think they can help move the general population forward.