The Fallacy in the EPA’s Push to Electric Vehicles

Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules in its efforts to push the car industry toward electric vehicles. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the new rules, which govern how much greenhouse gasses new vehicles can emit, “ratchet up more gradually than regulators originally proposed, pushing the car industry toward majority EV sales by early next decade.”

However, as I’ve written before, the push to all electric is a fallacy—including the EPA’s push to electric vehicles. Why? Because measuring the carbon footprint of a vehicle purely based on tailpipe emissions is deceptive. EVs have no tailpipe emissions. To the average consumer, this may sound like EVs have no emissions overall—but this doesn’t take into account the emissions caused by the manufacturing process of the electricity used to charge the car. The fact is, to truly calculate the carbon footprint of any service or product, you must factor in what are known as “Scope 2 emissions”—as established in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol developed by the World Resources Institute.

The GHG Protocol is “the world’s most widely used greenhouse gas accounting standards. The Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard provides the accounting platform for virtually every corporate GHG reporting program in the world.” The Protocol “establishes comprehensive global standardized frameworks to measure and manage greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from private and public sector operations, value chains and mitigation actions.”

The WRI GHG Protocol breaks emissions down into three “Scopes”:

Scope 1 is all direct greenhouse gas emissions—i.e. emissions from sources owned or controlled by the company—including:

Emissions from vehicles, furnaces, equipment, machinery, etc. owned and/or controlled by the company

Emissions created by the generation of electricity, heat, or steam through the burning of fossil fuels in boilers, furnaces, etc. owned by the company

Emissions created by the manufacture or processing of materials or chemicals (such as cement or aluminum) done by the company

Emissions from all transportation of materials, products, waste, and employees by vehicles owned by the company

Emissions from a vehicle owned or controlled by the company for transportation, including any cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, buses, etc. owned and used by the company

Scope 2 is all emissions from the purchased electricity consumed by the company—i.e. any electricity not produced by the company itself. This includes all electricity used by all parts of the company—equipment, buildings, etc.

Scope 3 is all other indirect emissions—i.e. emissions from sources not owned by the company, but that are produced as a consequence of the company’s activities. These are broken down into upstream and downstream emissions.

Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions are dependent on what grid you are drawing your energy from. Different electrical grids in different locations have different carbon footprints, depending on the source of power used to produce electricity. A grid using fossil fuels or coal will have a much bigger carbon footprint than a grid using primarily hydroelectric or wind power.

As of 2015, the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard “requires organizations to quantify emissions from the generation of acquired and consumed electricity, steam, heat, or cooling (collectively referred to as “electricity”). These emissions are termed “scope 2” and are considered an indirect emissions source (along with scope 3), because the emissions are a consequence of activities of the reporting organization but actually occur at sources owned or controlled by another organization (here, they are owned or controlled by an electricity generator or utility).”

As the Protocol points out, “Scope 2 represents one of the largest sources of GHG emissions globally: the generation of electricity and heat now accounts for at least a third of global GHG emissions. Electricity consumers have significant opportunities to reduce those emissions by reducing electricity demand, and increasingly play a role in shifting energy supply to alternative low-carbon resources.”

When it comes to EVs, Scope 2 emissions—emissions from the production of the electricity used to charge the vehicle—make all the difference. For example, the CO2e emissions on the Long Island grid is 1,209.3 lbs./MWh. I have done studies on the carbon footprint of an electric vehicle versus the same vehicle powered by gas. I compared a Nissan Leaf and a Nissan Versa—the same car, same platform, but one is electric, and one is gas. I looked up the gas mileage of the Versa, and through the EPA I looked up the carbon footprint of burning a gallon of gas. Then, I calculated the carbon footprint of charging the battery of an electric vehicle. If you are charging the vehicle on a fossil fuel grid, you are causing more greenhouse gas emissions than if you drove a gas-powered car.

Now, if you could charge your electric vehicle on a renewable grid or use solar panels on your house, then the carbon emission reduction of an electric vehicle would surpass a gas-powered vehicle. But if you are charging an electric vehicle on a grid with electricity produced by fossil fuels, your Scope 2 emissions will outweigh the reduction of Scope 1 emissions achieved by having no tailpipe emissions.

Electricity produced by fossil fuels is only 33% efficient. When this is factored into the emissions produced by charging EVs on a fossil fuel grid, the effective efficiency of EVs plummets. Simply measuring tailpipe emissions does not paint an accurate picture of the greenhouse gas emissions created by EVs. Without factoring in Scope 2 emissions, the EPA’s argument for their push to all electric vehicles falls apart.

Electricity produced by fossil fuels is only 33% efficient. When this is factored into the emissions produced by charging EVs on a fossil fuel grid, the effective efficiency of EVs plummets. Simply measuring tailpipe emissions does not paint an accurate picture of the greenhouse gas emissions created by EVs. Without factoring in Scope 2 emissions, the EPA’s argument for their push to all electric vehicles falls apart.

-PARTNER CONTENT