To the editor:
It was with great concern that I read the article titled “Town charts course for EV transition” in the Feb. 26 issue of the Current. My concern is that there are a number of “options” to meet the town’s goals, but they do not seem to be the result of a viable plan. I will comment on the “options” that caught my attention.
What struck me as truly absurd is the stated need to increase the number of EVs in Marblehead by 1,295.8% over the next five years. In other words, unless I misunderstood, according to the article, in order for Marblehead to reach its 6,000 EV goal, 5,537 households, out of the 8,187 households (2024 Census), in addition to the 463 that have already invested in EVs, must be persuaded that EVs offer a better alternative than ICE vehicles.
Also, it appears that everyone has an idea about the deployment of charging stations and how we electrify the town’s transportation reality. Ms. Wolf, for instance, suggests that deployment of charging stations “should focus on locations like schools where teachers and staff are parked for the whole day.” Clearly a poor suggestion, when one considers that the same teachers and staff, who she assumes will be driving EVs, were recently on strike because they could not afford to live on their salaries!!!
Wisely, Mr. Casey noted that medium and heavy-duty town vehicles cannot be replaced with electric alternatives. In fact, Ryder, the transportation logistics company, concluded in a recent white paper that converting truck fleets to EV can impact the economy, because of the increase in infrastructure costs. In addition, many of the companies that manufacture electric trucks and buses are either going into bankruptcy (Nikola Trucks’ being the latest filing) or are reducing production as a result of faltering demand.
The article continues by talking about the possibility of electric school bus conversion. Sadly, wherever this has been tried, it has been an utter failure and an expensive lesson. About a year ago, Vermont discovered that electric school buses lose up to 80% range in the winter – when they are actually needed. This, in addition to the fact that some school buses come with more than “a quarter million upfront costs” in addition to a price tag of $300,000 to $400,000, as opposed to diesel buses that are priced between $125,000 to $150,000, according to the Vermont Daily Chronicle. As recently as last month, Winthrop Maine had to keep its four electric school buses out of service after a series of malfunctions and failures – including brake failures. In other words, the “technology” is not proven.
Converting fleets and developing infrastructure to accommodate a potential market or arbitrary goals may sound like a great idea – after all, it is done to reduce emissions. However, developing an expensive infrastructure does not guarantee that “if you build it, they will come” to quote the famous movie. Infrastructure upgrades, in addition to the $8 million for the new substation, will be necessary. Eventually, transmission and distribution lines will have to be upgraded, perhaps transformers will have to be replaced, and most importantly, more electrons will have to be purchased. Electrons themselves are not always the least cost option. In the end, all the associated costs will have to be recovered.
And to bring some reality to the situation. As I am writing this (early pm on 2/27/25), ISO-NE reports that the region’s (New England) electricity is generated by Natural Gas (56%), Nuclear (22%), and Hydro (3%); 11% is imports. As for renewables, Wind and Solar are at 4.3%, while the balance is biomass and wood. And right now, New England is also using Coal (at less than 1%). So, even if we truly go through with this expensive undertaking, and it will be expensive, all we are doing is transferring our emissions to some other area, while possibly increasing our reliance on oil and coal, like we do on many days during the summer and winter.
As I already mentioned, the intentions appear to be noble. However, I suspect that I am not alone in wanting to see a better-detailed plan that incorporates all costs and explains how the Light Department will recover these costs. Will the town receive a rebate from the state? Who pays for the charging stations — users or all electric customers regardless of whether they own EVs? How will the conversion of the town’s fleet be paid for? I am sure that more questions will come up as we get a more concrete plan.
Andreas Thanos, Cedar Street
