The Burlingame Voice

EV Chargers: On the blink in Lot Y

The bloom is off the EV market for a variety of reasons.  Unit growth is slowing dramatically.  Now that early adopters have made their purchases, the mainstream buyers' reluctance to go all-electric is hitting home hard with car companies, parts suppliers, battery factories and infrastructure players.  A number of EV start-ups will likely go bankrupt by summer according to the WSJ analysis and the big manufacturers are losing their rear bumpers on every sale.  Some to the tune of more than a $100,000 loss per sale!  Ironically, sales of high-end gas pickups and SUVs are propping up companies' EV divisions!

Range anxiety is one of the key causes of EV reluctance--and it is helping the hybrid market accordingly.  My only experience with a Tesla rental drove that anxiety home as I got about half of what the range gauge estimated.  Paying the supercharger rate wasn't dramatically cheaper than gas in the state I rented in.  Heightening range anxiety is charger malfunctions and vandalism (stealing the copper filler wire for scrap value).  Malfunctions are a national problem (estimated to be one in five) and very much a local issue as reported by the DJ this weekend:

In Burlingame’s Broadway District, continued issues with its electric vehicle charging stations are inconveniencing businesses and residents alike, Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District president John Kevranian said.   A representative for EVgo, which owns and operates the six fast-charging electric vehicle stations located at 1133 Chula Vista Ave., confirmed that five of the six stations have likely been out of operation at times for a couple of months. One has been out of operation for weeks, she said.

Now, however, eight parking spots in the tightly packed Broadway District have become largely nonfunctional.   “This is the holiday season, too. It’s crucial these work during the holiday season. If EVgo is not going to repair them, maybe they can cover the stations, and use them as public parking,” Kevranian said.

John is on-the-money with the idea of covering a charger if it is broken so everyone could see that they can use the space.  Given they don't have meters, it would be a freebie, too. The sad part is that EVgo cannot keep chargers working that only went live in 2019, as we noted here.  The DJ piece notes that EVgo may not be complying with the city contract.  I'd say that is a safe bet, but did we negotiate any performance penalties?  Usage in Lot Y ramped up pretty slowly as we noted here, but random outages are likely to stunt future usage.  Anxiety is bad for business.

Gasoline prices: Get ready for more pain

After reading about our Air Resources Board move this month to tighten gasoline "standards" even more I was reminded of this post from 2015.  The California average was $3.22 back then and in February 2017, I noted the price of regular at the Peninsula Ave. Shell was $3.05.  With apologies to composer Mary Hopkin

Those were the days my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and drive forever and a day
We'd buy the fuel we choose
We'd fight and always cruise
For we were young and sure to have our way

Today regular at that Shell station is $4.99, 64% higher than 2017.  And we need to get ready for more pain at the pump as Calmatters writes about the November 8th CARB vote

The new rule’s potential effects on California fuel prices are largely unknown. The air board said today that oil companies typically already pass 8 to 10 cents per gallon of costs on to consumers because of the state’s fuel standard.  Environmentalists and consumer advocates opposed the new rules, warning the changes will boost alternative fuels — such as biofuels made from cow manure or soy beans — that may have limited environmental upsides, and will allow oil companies to stay in business because they can buy credits or switch to producing those fuels.

In an initial assessment released last year, the air board projected that the proposed new standard could potentially raise the per-gallon price of diesel by 59 cents and for gasoline, 47 cents, in 2025. Air board officials have since disavowed that estimate, writing last month that the analysis “should not be misconstrued as a prediction of the future credit price nor as a direct impact on prices at the pump.”

Oh, let's not "misconstrue" anything.  We just won't make any forecast.  Other estimates put the gas increase at 65 cents per gallon or higher.  Meanwhile over in EV world, where CARB would like to push all of us, the WSJ has a piece titled "The Withering Dream of a Cheap American Electric Car".  Tesla has backed-off building a $25,000 car and all the other, non-profitable car companies see no way to succeed making a cost-competitive version either.  The Lucid CEO notes

“That market is notorious because you get into mass manufacture—terrible, low margins,” he said of the low-price EVs. “To install the manufacturing base for millions of these units makes little sense to me.”

Abandoning the idea of a $25,000 car comes as a blow to those who were betting that the electrification of the automobile was on track to happen seemingly overnight—with EVs for every pocketbook replacing the tens of millions of vehicles on the roadways.

Get ready to pay more--probably a lot more--because 12 unelected, activist bureaucrats say so.  By the way, it pays well too for a part-time gig.  CARB Chair Liane Randolph is pulling down $278,876 in pay and benefits.  She's probably buying premium.

"Stove grabbers" get singed in Washington and Berkeley

The natural gas "stove grabbers" had a bad day on Election Day as Washington State passed Initiative 2066 by 3% and Berkeley gave a gas tax a big thumbs down.  Californian politicians like to say we lead the nation in implementing change, but perhaps Washington is leading this time around.  About the initiative, the WSJ noted before the election

Anthony Anton, CEO of the (Washington state) hospitality association, says 84% of the restaurateurs he represents rely on natural gas. Remodeling to go electric is a “massive cost at a time where operators just can’t afford it,” he says. Some say the quality of their product would suffer, as some cooking methods, such as stir-frying, are difficult to perform on lower-heat electrical stoves. Most of the association’s members are very small businesses with substantial debt from Covid lockdowns.

The building association worries the new energy code will raise the state’s already high housing costs, locking out potential buyers. The code requires that new buildings meet a certain environmental “score.” Without the points from an electric heat pump, a builder will have to make up the difference with other green measures that run between $15,000 and $20,000 in a single-family home. “Every time they raise the price $1,000, it prices out another 500 Washington families,” says Greg Lane, the association’s executive vice president.

The Washington State Tree Fruit Association is concerned about rising costs of refrigeration to keep produce fresh. A sudden power outage could be catastrophic for the state’s apple industry. Trade regulations for its top two export markets require that fruit be constantly refrigerated at a specific temperature for as long as 90 days.

The state’s cheapest energy plan would almost double electricity demand in Washington by 2050, putting an unprecedented strain on the grid.

The Seattle Times writes "Initiative 2066 adds provisions to state law that explicitly protect access to natural gas and ensure that local governments and the state’s energy code cannot “prohibit, penalize or discourage the use of gas.”"

And over in Berkeley, they had their own Measure GG which the Comicle notes is going down bigly at 70/30 opposed.  Per the Comicle:

Measure GG would assess a special tax on buildings of 15,000 square feet or more that use gas for heating or other purposes, with exceptions for single-family homes, residential buildings with at least 50% affordable units and government buildings.  The measure required a simple majority to pass, but as of Friday the opposition was winning 68% of votes, with 32% in favor.  The tax would amount to nearly $3 per therm, which is more than double typical natural gas retail prices from Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

There are so many Unintended Consequences and unseen-by-politicians costs to these poorly thought-out initiatives, but voters appear to be figuring some of them out and sending them down in flames.  Hopefully the new B'game city council will leave this issue in the off position.

PG&E: The numbers behind more shut-offs

A year ago, we looked at the evolving strategy PG&E has for reducing wildfires by doing Less Trimming, shut-offs .... and more digging.  Just as last year, the Wall Street Journal is ahead of the local pack on reporting on results to date.  Here are a few snippets:

The California utility company has reported to state regulators 62 ignitions in high-threat fire areas so far this year, compared with 65 for the entirety of 2023, according to company executives. Twenty-nine of them occurred in recent weeks after an early July heat wave that set record temperatures throughout the state and dried out grasses and brush, making them more likely to catch on fire.

Most of the ignitions in recent weeks were caused by vegetation coming into contact with the company’s power lines. Most of the remainder occurred as a result of equipment failure and bird contact. None of the fires spread to become significant.  The company has since been relying more heavily on new power-line settings in areas at high risk of fire. The lines shut off within a 10th of a second when branches or other objects touch them, reducing the risk of sparks.

The task force is now evaluating those settings and the current ignition data to determine whether changes should be made. The company has in recent weeks been installing thousands of pole-mounted devices that detect when animals, objects or trees come into contact with the lines.

And yet it seems like trimming is still a major part of the mitigation plan.

PG&E has also been working to reduce the risk of fires spreading by removing flammable shrubs and brush within 10 feet of utility poles that historically haven’t been cleared. The company has about 190,000 poles that aren’t subject to clearance requirements. Though it isn’t required to, the company is working to clear about 50,000 of those poles in the highest-risk areas by Sept. 1. It has so far performed work on about 22,000 of them.

Having just completed my second day of homeowner defensible space work in Tahoe this summer, it's readily apparent this is a never-ending project.  One can only wish Sacramento would put more priority on this instead of the nonsense that passes for governing these days.

ECR: How is this maneuver legal?

Change is afoot for our beloved El Camino Real as the Axe man cometh for the Eucs.  The city e-newsletter notes that pothole repair on a systemic level (as opposed to when someone calls) as "Caltrans is currently completing pothole repair work on El Camino Real, between Howard Avenue and Sanchez Avenue. Work will take place daily, between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. One lane will remain open in both directions, but drivers should expect delays."

One thing that will have to change as 91% of the Eucs get cut down, huge swaths of pavement get dug up at one time, trenches get dug for power/phone lines and drainage piping is the commercial parking habits of various truck drivers.  It's not just Amazon, UPS, FedEx, et al.  Check this guy out resupplying Walgreens!  There's a city lot right there, but hey, let's just shut down half of northbound ECR for half an hour or more.  How is that legal?

Climate Observations: Google, CalFire and You

This is a placeholder post for when we get to the point where we cannot replace our gas stoves or gas water heaters or gas furnaces or gas barbeques.  Hopefully that day is still a few years away, but the smart bet is the climate fanatics will eventually get us.  When we complain about the costs (many hidden including the soft costs of your time), we will be told to suck it up.

In the meantime, two types of events are taking place.  There are 3,543 wildfires of more than 10 acres burning right now in California per the CalFire incident page.  Your barbeque is a problem, but Sacramento (looking at you, Newsom, even though I know you are busy thinking about a promotion) still hasn't addressed the real need for more manpower, equipment, forest surveillance, etc.  Year after year, same old story and the news media always acts surprised.  Massive amounts of smoke, emissions, and cancelled insurance policies that end up as a State (read us) liability via the FAIR program.

And then there are these two tidbits buried in the business news this week:

Google and Microsoft have vowed to slash emissions by the end of the decade, but new disclosures show their numbers are moving in the wrong direction.   Google’s overall emissions increased by 13.5% from 2022 to 2023, according to its annual sustainability report released Tuesday. They are up by nearly half since 2019. A recent disclosure from Microsoft told a similar story. Its total emissions were up by 29% between 2020 and 2023.

Big Tech's servers are using so much electricity that they are doing direct connections to power plants with "behind-the-meter" access.  Some observers are worried this will destabilize the grid and it certainly won't make it any cheaper.  Stay tuned so we can alert you when to start hoarding gas appliances. 

ECR: The Axe man cometh

I should not be surprised, but I still am regarding how few people realize nine out of every ten Eucalyptus trees on El Camino are on Caltrans' chopping block.  People see the survey team out and about up and down the state highway and wonder "What's that all about?"  When you tell them they go "NO, really?"  To which I say "Really".  It interesting to see where some of the stakes are landing--much further into the sidewalks and private property than you would think.  That may not mean what some think it means, but we shall see when property owner notices start going out.  Here's the theodolite--and yes, I did have to look that word up.

Squatter zoning restrictions being studied for B'game

In a proactive effort to get ahead of the burgeoning trend of squatters taking over uninhabited residences, the Burlingame City Council has asked staff to quickly assess which sections of town should be zoned for squatting.  Staff has been asked to assess whether the zones should be patterned after the new city council districts, the elementary school districts or the zones for legal leaf blowing on a particular day of the week.  There are legal guidelines for squatters to follow as shown here:

Squatters’ rights, also known as “adverse possession”, refers to laws that allow a person to gain legal ownership of a property they have occupied without permission from the legal owner. In California, squatters can make a legal claim to own the property they are occupying after residing there continuously for 5 years. 

Squatters differ from trespassers, in that trespassers occupy a property illegally but make no claim of ownership or legal right to live there. Squatters, on the other hand, occupy the property without permission but may be able to gain legal rights if they meet the criteria for adverse possession.

With the recent arrest of a squatter at the Burlingame train station master's quarters after flying below the radar for several years, the city council felt some urgency to codify which sections of town should and should not welcome squatters.  Enhanced surveillance of the no-squat zones would preclude the 5-year window from opening.

State Senator Scott Weiner immediately attacked the proposed ordinance as "knee jerk NIMBYism of the first degree" and promised to introduce legislation in Sacramento to prevent local governments from reducing the squat-friendly housing supply in the name of fairness and equity.  Weiner did not rule out including affordable squatting requirements based on income and reduced gas and electric rates for young, first-time squatters. 

PG&E: Open Your Wallet a Bit More...and Keep it Open

The story of past, steady increases in our electric bills is here.  One could see the next PG&E hand reaching into our pockets a mile away.  The CPUC's four commissioners rubber-stamped the latest request on Thursday (NBC notes a new board member, who until recently headed the consumer watchdog arm of the CPUC, recused himself from voting.)  The Merc is reporting this vote's effect will be:

This year’s January bills were roughly $53.77 higher than the bills in January 2023, when combined monthly charges for residential customers receiving combined services were averaging $240.73.  (Ed:  That is a 22.3% increase in a year).

Monthly electric bills for a typical residential customer monthly bill are slated to increase by an average of $3.65. The gas bill for a typical residential customer is expected to rise by $1.03 a month, PG&E estimated.

Starting in April, the average monthly PG&E bill for combined services is slated to be around $299.18 a month — just shy of the ominous milestone of $300 a month.

NBC also notes "There is another rate hike in the works. In that case the utility wants to charge $10 more per month, on average, to pay for PG&E’s repairs related to storm damage last year."

Keep that in mind as you run your numbers on a new induction stove, a heat pump, the electric leaf blower you must buy and that EV you have been thinking about.  Hoping to stem the rising tide with rooftop solar just got harder thanks to the very same CPUC.  Commercial customers aren't immune so these increases will ripple through to grocies, restaurant tabs, and pretty much everything else.  It turns out Bidenflation isn't the only source of the pain.

3/12:  Here's a little update from today's Comicle front page.  I'd call it Unintended Consequences, but it is totally foreseeable....

EV charging ahead with preferred parking spots at Walgreens

The news is all pointing to a deceleration in EV sales as car companies' losses per EV pile up and consumers start to really question the benefits of going electric.  People who don't worry about the high initial costs or the lengthy payback (some estimates put it at 7 years) have bought their EVs already.  We are now approaching the trough of adoption while waiting for cheaper versions, longer range and more charging stations.  These trends haven't stopped B'game from going full speed ahead with 16 new charger spaces downtown.  The latest swap of fully public spaces to preferred parking for EVs in need of a boost is coming to the public lot (K) between Walgreen's and Safeway.  This is a busy lot for much of the day and early dining evening.  Per the Daily Journal piece

The City Council authorized the city manager to proceed with negotiations on a contract for Tesla to rent the parking lot space from Burlingame, although councilmembers said they’d like to see details on lease and fee rates as well as plans for signs that would delineate the chargers as usable for all electric vehicles.  Tesla has said they will pay a monthly rent of $6,000, and everything will be free to the city, including installation.

Let's go easy with the F-word (i.e. "free").  It's only "free" if $6K per month covers the lost revenue of the 19 spaces lost.  That's about $315 per month or about a dollar a day per space.  My math says these new charger spaces are far from "free".  

After Beach inquired about the leasing agreement and rental cost, Tesla Supercharger Project Developer Caitlyn Hanner said the company would require a 10-year lease minimum but could provide a rent increase of up to 3% a year.   Installation of the Tesla superchargers would create a loss of three parking spots.

Ten years with a very modest rent escalator is quite a deal.  There are about 57 spaces in Lot K now.  Three will be taken for the e-infrastructure, so about 30 percent of the lot is planned to be preferred parking for EVs.  As the DJ article notes, several council members are Tesla owners and others own other brands which these new superchargers will accommodate.  Did we just witness a conflict of interest that should have caused recusals on the vote?   Just kidding.  But it would have made a great April Fool's Day post.

Maybe the time has come to require chargers to also pay for the parking.  EVs already skirt the gas tax and they inflict more wear and tear on our roads than gas cars due to their higher weight.  I will tag the "Friends with benefits" category as well since this looks like a sweet deal for a few people and the car companies.