By Steven Cohen, Ph.D., Director of the M.S. in Sustainability Management program, School of Professional Studies
As the world transitions to electric vehicles (EVs), with Donald Trump and his team being at best reluctant to support this transition, it is worth exploring the indirect impacts of the adoption of EVs. This includes funding road construction and maintenance, demands on the electric grid, cleaner air, quieter streets, fire risks from batteries, toxic pollution from discarded batteries, and a full lifecycle comparison of internal combustion and electric vehicles.
For many years, the main way America has funded road construction and repair has been via taxes on gasoline. It made sense that the more fuel you used, the more you drove on the roads. and that utilization should set your road-use fee. Since electric cars don’t use gasoline, we need to figure out a way for electric vehicles to pay their fair share of road-use fees. The key is to do this without discouraging the use of electric vehicles. According to the National Conference of State Legislators:
“As automakers produce and consumers purchase more highly efficient vehicles that use little or no gas, state transportation budget writers regard the future with wary eyes. For more than 100 years, states have leaned on revenue from gas taxes—Oregon established the nation’s first one in 1919—to support the planning, construction and maintenance of their surface transportation systems. But with electric vehicle purchases increasing, and heightened fuel efficiency for gas-fueled vehicles, the gas tax is on shaky ground for the first time in its history. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, while gas taxes still represented the largest state revenue source for transportation in fiscal year 2024 at 35.9%, this was a considerable decrease from 2018, when gas tax revenue comprised 41.1% of state transportation revenue. Given this context, states are studying, piloting and implementing road usage charge (RUC) systems to eventually replace declining revenue. Also known as Mileage-Based User Fees (MBUF), such programs require drivers to pay based on miles driven, instead of gallons of fuel consumed. These state-led efforts began in the early 2000’s when Oregon and Utah passed legislation to study alternative user fees such as RUC. Today, state legislatures in Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Virginia have created RUC programs.”
Even without electric vehicles, autos have become more fuel-efficient, although Americans have shifted from sedans to less fuel-efficient crossovers and SUVs. Still, it is clear that the traditional method of funding roads will need to change. Perhaps during a vehicle’s annual inspection, an auto’s odometer can be read, and a fee based on miles driven might be assessed.
A good piece of news about this is that the EV ideology of the federal government will not have much influence here. Whether it is the anti-EV ideology of Trump or the pro-EV ideology of Biden, most of the money collected for road construction is by state and local governments (71%), with less than a third (29%) collected by the federal government. Each year, we spend over $265 billion on highways. Road maintenance is one of the most visible functions of state and local governments because most of the public drives or, at a minimum, rides in motor vehicles, and potholes and patched-up roadwork are directly experienced and cannot be spun or wished away. There is some ideologically driven rhetoric that EVs damage roads more than internal combustion vehicles because they are heavier. They are heavier, but light when compared to trucks, which are the major cause of road wear and tear.
Charging EVs can strain electric grids, particularly if charging takes place during times of peak demand. There are several ways to address this. The first is to price electricity so that it is more expensive during times of peak demand and less expensive at other times. This should help relieve grid pressure. The second way is to develop the technology of solar cells and batteries so that more charging takes place off the grid. Still, with the increased energy demands of Artificial Intelligence and economic development globally, we will see increased demand for electricity and EVs will contribute to the problems of managing that increased demand.
While generating more electricity could lead to more air pollution, the vehicles themselves do not pollute the air, and so many of the places where people live will enjoy cleaner air. Additionally, electric vehicles are quieter than vehicles powered by internal combustion engines, and so crowded urban neighborhoods would be quieter. Unless we see greater access to high-speed charging stations in urban areas, equity issues arise where home charging is not possible. Luxury buildings with their own garages might well install charging stations, but people without access to driveways or garages could be shut out of the EV transition.
Another hazard results from the possibility of fire from batteries. This is a particular issue for E-Bikes powered by highly flammable and exposed lithium-ion batteries. Charging stations that are not installed properly can also be a fire hazard. We also face the issue of EV-battery disposal. If batteries are not carefully recycled or put to less energy intensive uses, they can result in the release of highly toxic chemicals.
Finally, there is the issue of the lifecycle comparison of pollution from manufacturing and driving EVs to that produced when manufacturing and using internal combustion vehicles. A recent study by Pankaj Sadavarte, Drew Shindell, and Daniel Loughlin of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke observed that:
“While lithium-ion battery electric vehicles (BEVs) produce no emissions during operation, they increase electricity consumption, affecting emissions from that activity. Furthermore, there is an ongoing debate about the overall cleanliness of lithium-ion batteries when assessing emissions throughout their lifecycle compared to fossil fuels. To address these concerns, we use the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) integrated assessment model (IAM) to evaluate criteria air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions across four scenarios of increasing BEV adoption in the United States (US). We include emissions from fuel and battery production, vehicle manufacturing, and operation for both BEV and fossil-based internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Results indicate that each additional kWh of lithium-ion battery output leads to an average reduction of 220kg of CO2 in 2030 and 127kg of CO2 in 2050… In a life cycle assessment, all else equal, the CO2 emissions associated with BEVs are 30% higher than those of ICE vehicles during the first two years. However, after the second year, BEVs result in a reduction in cumulative CO2 emissions. Accounting for the effects of both air pollution and climate change, the economic value of the damages attributable to ICEs over their lifetime is currently 2 to 3.5 times that of BEVs. This ratio increases over the coming decades as the emissions intensity of the electricity sector decreases.”
These findings indicate that there are short-term losses but long-term gains from the adoption of electric vehicles, and I believe it is important to acknowledge that EVs are not environmentally perfect. The main argument for them is that if we are to transition from fossil fuels, we need to develop and implement transportation technologies that have the potential to run on renewable energy. New York City’s subways have been powered by electricity for over a century. Many light rail systems are electric. They are ready for renewables. But currently, most electricity is generated by fossil fuels. Full adoption of renewable energy is a generation away, and the EV production process also has negative impacts that should be addressed in the long run.
Technological transitions are complicated, messy, and take time. They should not be approached ideologically but pragmatically. The urgency of the climate crisis is immediate, but changes in the economy and in society are rarely rapid. It is obvious to most analysts that the use of oil, coal, and gas for fuel is coming to an end. But our economic dependence on energy continues to grow, and over the short term, so too will the greenhouse gases that cause climate change.
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
The Columbia University M.S. in Sustainability Management program offered by the School of Professional Studies in partnership with the Climate School provides students cutting-edge policy and management tools they can use to help public and private organizations and governments address environmental impacts and risks, pollution control, and remediation to achieve sustainability. The program is customized for working professionals and is offered as both a full- and part-time course of study.
