The impacts of lithium-ion batteries on low- and middle-income countries are increasing as the global electric vehicle (EV) market continues to grow. The environmental and health burdens of production mainly affect countries that supply raw materials for EV batteries, while increasing exports of used EVs are going to poorer countries.

In the absence of strategic policies, the positive impacts of new EVs—such as decreased pollution and greenhouse gas emissions—could disproportionately benefit higher-income countries, while the negative impacts of second-hand EVs—such as battery disposal—could fall more on lower-income countries. 

To shed light on this problem and outline possible policy solutions, researchers at ITS-Davis collaborated with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and produced a March 2023 report entitled Electric Vehicle Lithium-ion Batteries in Lower- and Middle-income Countries: Life Cycle Impacts and Issues. Alissa Kendall, lead author and UC Davis professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering highlighted the aims of the study:

“The exponential growth of new EV sales in regions like Europe and the US is exciting to see given the key role that vehicle electrification will play in decarbonizing the transport sector. Second-hand or used vehicles from high-income regions are important sources of lower-cost vehicles in many lower- and middle-income countries, so the rapidly changing fleets have implications for the vehicles available in these regions. Unlike engines and other powertrain components in gasoline and diesel vehicles, which can be repaired, EV batteries aren’t as repairable, and as they age, their capacity and power inevitably fade. We undertook this research to make a first estimate of the magnitude of internationally traded second-hand EVs in the coming decades, and then explored the potential impacts, risks, and benefits to lower- and middle-income countries.”

The report and Figure 1 describe the life-cycle of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs)—from mineral extraction, to use in original vehicles, to secondary use in 2- and 3-wheel vehicles and microgrids, and finally disposal and recycling of components.

Figure1. Life cycle of lithium-ion batteries in second-hand electric vehicle exports.

The impact of second-hand EVs and batteries in lower- and middle-income countries, and whether they provide a net benefit or impact, is a function of the EV battery state-of-health at the time of import, the potential for repairing or replacing the battery, the availability of charging infrastructure, and the energy resources (fossil-fuel or renewable) used to charge batteries.

The authors of the report conducted an extensive literature review, consulted with an expert in a major used-EV importing country (Sri Lanka), and analyzed data from multiple sources on EV sales, imports, and exports. This last endeavor revealed major discrepancies in vehicle numbers reported by paired exporting and importing countries, such as the US and Mexico shown below.

Figure 2. Second-hand vehicle export and import estimates, showing discrepancies in data from paired countries. The number of vehicles going from the US to Mexico surged when the North American Free Trade Agreement began, then fell when policies limiting imports went into effect.

Policy suggestions stemming from this research, include:

• Upon export, provide information on battery condition, technical information for safe repair and repurposing of batteries, and data on the movement of second-hand vehicles.
• Ensure that secondary parties other than battery and vehicle manufacturers have the right to repair batteries and EVs and have access to real-time information on battery condition.
• Create a harmonized reporting system for collecting data at the point of export and import.
• Institute export and import controls, such as minimal requirements for the state-of-health of batteries.

Such measures can help prevent second-hand EV and battery exports from becoming a least-cost disposal option for exporting markets, burdening rather than benefiting importing markets.

Seth Karten is a science writer at ITS-Davis.

It’s September–the month when Californians (especially policy wonks) wait with bated breath for the Governor’s end-of-the-month deadline for signing or vetoing bills. This year, Governor Newsom has championed a portfolio of ambitious climate bills and the Legislature has delivered them, with measures seeking to cut carbon from the electricity grid, transportation, buildings, natural lands, and industry. While nothing is final until the bills are signed, the time and effort the Governor’s Office has spent on these bills over the last month presages a strong chance that they will be signed into law.

Climate Planning Bills

First, let’s speak to two headline bills that escalate California’s ambitious climate policy. AB 1279 codifies the current target of carbon neutrality by 2045 into state law, where it was previously an executive order. It also specifies that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be at least 85% below 1990 levels by that time, ensuring that no more than 15% of the goal could be met by carbon capture and sequestration, natural land uptake, or offsets.

SB 1020 enhances the state’s commitment to switching to zero-emission sources of electricity by specifying timelines and milestones. Existing law requires the state to supply 100% of its electricity from non-emitting sources—such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, or nuclear—by 2045. SB 1020 requires that 90% of electricity come from such sources by 2035, and 95% by 2040, ensuring that utilities make significant progress immediately, while recognizing that switching the last 5–10% of supply over to clean sources may be more challenging than earlier parts of the transition.

Several other bills help define how the state would achieve its GHG targets. AB 2438 aligns transportation spending with California’s climate goals, AB 1322 requires the California Air Resources Board to map a plan to reduce emissions from commercial aviation to align with state goals and get 20% of aviation fuel from sustainable sources by 2030. SB 1137 prevents drilling to create new petroleum wells, or expand old ones, within 3200 feet of schools, hospitals, residential areas, or other sensitive sites. These, combined with many others, help align state policies with the strategy for achieving carbon neutrality in transportation laid out by a research team from UC Davis, UC Berkeley, and UC Irvine in a major report released last year.

Electric Vehicle Bills

Electric vehicle legislation advanced in the legislature, and the Governor will have a chance to consider AB 1738, which would empower the California Department of Housing and Community Development to come up with standards for EV charger installations for California homes. San Francisco has already set requirements for new buildings to include EV-ready parking spaces. But solidifying statewide standards is critical, given that most EV owners charge at home and home is the most influential charging location affecting the decision to purchase and continue owning an EV. Ensuring equitable EV access was a big focus of the legislature this year. If signed, SB 1382 will reform the state’s Clean Cars 4 All program to support more outreach to encourage people with low-incomes to buy EVs with state rebates, and it also adds additional tax benefits as an incentive.

Car Free California

Lawmakers are proposing to just pay people to give up their cars. SB 1230 would reform the Clean Cars 4 All program, including benefits for qualifying Californians who do not have a car by providing a “mobility option” voucher for transit or shared mobility services like bikeshare or scooter share. And if vouchers weren’t incentive enough to shed their vehicles, SB 457 takes it a step further, offering Californians cash for not driving. The bill will give a $1,000 tax credit to car-free households in the state. Together these two programs would put some real money in the pockets of car-free California households.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Bills

Perhaps some people who receive the car free bonuses will buy an e-bike and really max their state kickbacks. AB 117 would offer CARB $10 million to get a new and improved e-bike incentive program off the ground, separate from the state’s clean vehicle rebate program, where it is housed currently. Other e-bike bills include AB 1909, which would update bike law to authorize local governments to decide whether e-bikes can operate on bike trails (taking this authority from the state). On the pedestrian side, AB 2147 would decriminalize jaywalking, “unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.” According to research by Jesus Barajas, jaywalking policies have been historical tools for discriminatory enforcement against people who walk, and especially people of color.

Public transportation Bills

In the wake of many local transit agencies providing free rides in the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, state lawmakers were actively debating how to make public transit free for Californians who need it most. The Governor will be considering AB 1919, which would provide funding to local agencies to offer a 5-year pilot for college and K-12 students to get free transit passes. A related transit bill, SB 942 would allow agencies to use certain existing funds for more discretionary purposes, including for free passes. Check out this Freakonomics episode featuring our UCLA colleague Brian Taylor explaining some of the pros and cons of fare-free transit.

Sustainable Land Use Planning Bills

There are also several sustainable planning bills for the Governor to consider. SB 922 would make it easier to build bike lanes, pedestrian projects, and transit, thanks to a streamlined environmental review process. Expediting these types of transportation investments can create a virtuous cycle that enables people to drive less. As Professor Susan Handy stated, “land use patterns shape travel behavior, transport investments shape land use patterns, transport is itself a sizable land use, and these relationships are self-reinforcing.” Another bill addressing the tension between land use and transportation is AB 2438, which seeks to align transportation projects with state plans. This bill will touch on some of the recommendations in the recent report by Betty Deakin that evaluated whether state planning efforts can succeed at reaching state climate goals. Other land use bills address parking, which is another hot (asphalt) topic. AB 2097 would restrict local governments from requiring parking minimums. This is another sign of research-backed policy, onsite parking has been shown to correlate with car ownership and use.

Bills that failed to get out of the Legislature

Some bills won’t get to the Governor’s desk. SB 917, the so-called “Seamless Transit Transformation Act” failed to make it out of its final committee. This bill aimed to streamline the San Francisco Bay Area’s 27 transit districts. According to the sponsor of the bill, Seamless Bay Area, it’s possible that the bill failed because many of the integration requirements are already being planned by regional regulators. Another bill that failed to get out of the legislature (dying in a nail-biter moment in its final committee) is AB 2133, which proposed to strengthen climate plans to strive for a 2030 goal of 55% of 1990 emissions levels (up from the 40% already required by law).

Looking Back to Inform Looking Forward

It’s important to note that all of these bills come on the heels of a record-setting budget package that was signed by the Governor in late June (with budget trailer bills tacked on in July). During the weeks of budget negotiations, lawmakers outlined plans to spend $308 billion (which includes a surplus of $49 billion more than initially projected), 6.4% of this to be spent on transportation. Big ticket items include $15 billion for the next four years of transportation infrastructure, $7.7 billion for transit, $4.2 billion for high-speed rail, $1.2 billion for goods movement and ports, and $1 billion for making active modes more safe and attractive. These historic investments are locked in, but it remains to be seen which transportation-related bills from this legislative session will receive the Governor’s signature and benefit from that windfall budget.

[UPDATE: AB 1919 was vetoed by the Governor on September 13th. A veto statement can be found here.]

Mollie Cohen D’Agostino is Policy Director at the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment, and the Economy (PIEEE)

Colin Murphy is Deputy Director at PIEEE

Josh Stark is Policy Analyst at PIEEE

There are many reasons to reduce our reliance on cars—they are polluting, inefficient, dangerous, and expensive to own. In dense urban areas, travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and public transit can be reasonable alternatives for many peoples’ transportation needs.

But what about suburban and rural areas with lower population densities and longer distances between destinations? Land use patterns in these regions make it challenging to get around without a private vehicle. Can emerging mobility options reduce car dependence in these environments?

Based on our research so far, the answer appears to be yes. Our research teams are at the forefront of evaluating how new mobility services such as microtransit (on-demand, small shuttles providing shared rides), carsharing, and ridesharing are being used and the extent to which they are substituting for private car travel in California’s suburban and rural contexts.

Microtransit in Suburban Sacramento

Suburban communities around Sacramento are not well served by fixed-route transit. In 2018, Sacramento Regional Transit launched a microtransit service called SmaRT Ride to fill this gap. SmaRT Ride is available in eight outlying areas and the downtown core that allows travelers to request a “door-to-door” or “corner-to-corner” ride via a smartphone app. Rides cost the same as fixed-route transit.

Dr. Xing’s team studied early adopters of SmaRT Ride, conducting surveys and focus groups of both users and non-users of the service. When asked about transportation choices, more than 40% of riders said that, without SmaRT Ride, they would have made their last microtransit trip by car instead. This suggests that microtransit has real potential to reduce dependence on driving.

The study also found that more than half of SmaRT Ride users had an annual household income of less than $50,000, and that users of the service are more likely than non-users to have physical limitations. Finally, people who do not like fixed-route transit or have a neutral attitude towards it are more likely to use SmaRT Ride than are those who like fixed-route transit. This suggests that microtransit is more of a complement to, rather than a replacement for, fixed-route transit.

Innovative Mobility in the San Joaquin Valley

Dr. Rodier has been engaged with regional partners since 2014 to plan, launch, and evaluate three mobility pilots in the rural San Joaquin Valley. The region is characterized by high levels of poverty and air pollution and long distances between destinations, presenting particular challenges for providing clean and affordable transportation.

In 2019, three services were launched in the region: Míocar, an electric carsharing program with vehicle hubs at affordable housing complexes in Tulare and Kern counties; VOGO, a volunteer ridesharing service; and Vamos, a Mobility-as-a-Service app that facilitates trip planning and ticket purchasing across the valley’s many transit services.

So far, the research shows that each of these services is helping people move around the region in new ways. More than 60% of Míocar trips would not have occurred without access to the service, and three-quarters of the miles traveled on these “new” trips were made by travelers from households below the median income level in their county. People who would have used another mode to make their trip in the absence of Míocar would have traveled almost exclusively by gasoline-powered cars. So the service reduces greenhouse gas emissions for those trips.

Similarly, most of those using the VOGO ridesharing service would not have otherwise been able to make their trips. Most VOGO riders do not have access to a personal vehicle and are uncomfortable driving vehicles due to medical issues or other concerns, leaving them with few options for trips that cannot be made via existing transit services. Finally, early study results suggest that Vamos is a valuable transit fare payment tool and contributes to an improved transportation experience for its active users. More study is needed to assess the effects of Vamos on transit use and mobility as this app expands its service area and user base.

Key Takeaways

Small mobility programs like these are proliferating as communities seek affordable, sustainable alternatives to private vehicle ownership. Our research is showing early indications that these programs can be successful in meeting rural and suburban transportation needs, particularly for low-income travelers. However, these services need continued support. Private ridehailing and carsharing companies typically offer their services in higher-income urban areas that already have plentiful transportation options. To increase clean transportation access in underserved communities, new business models may be needed. These may include direct service provided by a transit agency, such as SmaRT Ride, or a non-profit service operated with public subsidies, such as Míocar. Further coordination among transportation providers and community-based organizations will be essential in identifying and developing transportation solutions to meet the needs of individual communities. Rigorous evaluations of these programs as they develop can assess their contributions to policy goals related to transportation equity and climate change, and inform longer-term investments.

Further reading:

NCST SmaRT Ride report and policy brief: https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/project/exploring-consumer-market-and-environmental-impacts-microtransit-services

UC ITS Míocar report and policy brief: https://www.ucits.org/research-project/2019-44/

NCST San Joaquin mobility report and policy brief: https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/project/before-and-after-evaluation-shared-mobility-projects-san-joaquin-valley

Yan Xing is a postdoctoral researcher at ITS-Davis.

Caroline Rodier is a researcher at ITS-Davis and the associate director of the Urban Land Use and Transportation Center at UC Davis.

Brian Harold is the policy evaluation specialist at the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment, and the Economy.

Mike Sintetos is the policy director at the National Center for Sustainable Transportation (NCST) and UC ITS Statewide Transportation Research Program.

(Photo: Courtesy of the National Wildlife Federation)

The Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing in Agoura Hills, California, which will soon be under construction, is unprecedented in its size, cost, and primary purpose. Estimated to cost $90 million, it is the first major wildlife over-crossing primarily aimed at bringing genetic diversity to isolated animal populations rather than preventing roadkills—though it will do that, too.

The crossing, also known as the Liberty Canyon Wildlife Crossing, will be an overpass covered with vegetation, spanning ten very busy lanes of US Highway 101. It will allow mountain lions and other species to cross between the Simi Hills to the north and the Santa Monica Mountains to the south. Without this crossing, the mountain lion populations in the area would likely disappear in the next few decades because of inbreeding, vehicle strikes, and limited space to escape from wildfires.

Traffic Light and Noise

The planned crossing features design elements that will encourage mountain lions and other species that are sensitive to light and noise to actually use it. Barriers and berms will be built to reduce the amount of traffic-generated noise and light that reaches the areas that animals will use to approach the crossing. Three of our research projects at the Road Ecology Center on roadway light and noise helped influence this design. These projects were supported through state (SB1) and federal (USDOT) funds to the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies and the National Center for Sustainable Transportation, respectively. 

In the first of our related projects, we found that wildlife crossings are used by larger proportions of nearby, light- and noise-sensitive animal species if the crossings are comparatively dark and quiet. Our second study showed that the different behaviors among animal species in response to traffic noise and light determined how much they used wildlife crossings with varying traffic disturbance conditions. In the third study, we investigated ways of mitigating light and noise near the Wallis Annenberg crossing and a proposed over-crossing for I-15, near Temecula, California. First we found that light and noise from traffic could be detected more than 100 meters away from the highway in the animal approach zones of both crossings. We then used 3D-design software and traffic-noise modelling software to show that changing the configuration of barriers and berms near the crossings could reduce the traffic noise and light in the approach zones (Figure). Based on the results, we made recommendations to the designers to increase the chance that wildlife will approach the crossings.

Figure: Noise and glare mitigation in the approach zone to the crossing. (A) Typical approach to crossing structure without noise and light abatement. (B) Quiet and dark paths created by excavating and redistributing landscape materials (tan areas) and adding barriers along the highway.

The Need for Fencing and Crossings

Every year, more than 7,000 vehicle collisions with large, wild animals (e.g., deer, black bear) are reported in California, according to our California Roadkill Observation System (https://wildlifecrossing.net/California), and this is likely a significant undercount. For example, State Farm Insurance Co. estimates that there are upwards of 20,000 claims/year for deer-vehicle collisions in California. Not only can these crashes lead to loss of human life, property, and animal life, they can also affect the balance of ecosystems. 

One way to slow the decline of wildlife species is by lowering direct and indirect mortality from traffic. We know that we can reduce the number of vehicle collisions and alleviate genetic isolation with simple tools: 1) traffic calming and reduction, 2) fencing alone, and 3) fencing combined with wildlife crossing structures. Research done in California by the Road Ecology Center has shown where wildlife crossings and fencing are most needed and could provide greater economic benefits than their cost (https://wildlifecrossingcalculator.org). The state is already home to more than 100 wildlife crossings, used by a wide range of reptile, amphibian, and mammal species. But there is a grave need for at least ten times as many. 

Policy Environment

In the past few years, public support for wildlife crossings has grown significantly. Knowledge and awareness of crossings has spread from research scientists, to transportation planners and engineers, to the wider world. But policies and related budgets remain inadequate to the needs. Two Legislative efforts reflect this picture. 

First, the 2021 Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law initially authorized $350 million for new wildlife crossings. Ultimately, however, Congress appropriated $0 of the $350 million for crossings. Second, California Assembly Bill (AB) 2344 initially required the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Caltrans (the California Department of Transportation) to investigate areas that are essential to wildlife movement and habitat connectivity, to develop a plan to address these areas, and for Caltrans to implement 10 crossing structures per year. This last and strongest requirement was supported by hunting and environmental groups, but was recently removed from the bill. Although compromise of environmental legislation is an all-too-common occurrence in California, the future will tell whether this critical requirement will be negotiated back into the bill. 

In California, Road Ecology Center research shows that wildlife-vehicle collisions cost the state upwards of $250 million per year. While the state’s transportation budget is $20-25 billion per year, Caltrans has claimed that only two to three wildlife crossings are built per year in California, which, at most, would account for about 0.1% of the annual transportation budget. Yet, surveyed taxpayers consistently report that they would be willing to pay more taxes in order to protect wildlife. And state policy may finally be starting to reflect this outlook. SB 790, signed by Governor Newsom in October 2021, included $61 million for building wildlife crossings, $7 million of which was allocated for the Wallis Annenberg crossing. 

In sum, we know where to build wildlife crossings and fences; research is improving the effectiveness of these tools; and we can approximate their cost and benefits. We have a lot of information for decision support on how to address habitat fragmentation, wildlife deaths, vehicle accidents, and the cost to humans and nonhuman animals. While the policy and transportation planning response has grown significantly, we still need more from implementing transportation agencies to protect wildlife and from legislative bodies to require action and allocate more funding to make it possible.

Fraser Shilling is the director of the Road Ecology Center at the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS-Davis); Seth Karten is a senior writer at ITS-Davis.