Can this be true, does the Clean Air Act stop most of us from buying clean cars?
A story by Lawrence Ulrich on MSNBC over the weekend made a claim I think we need to explore a bit here on AutoblogGreen. Ulrich writes about driving a very clean six-cylinder gasoline engine 2008 Honda Accord, then says the car is only available in certain states:You can't actually buy this ultra-green Accord, or the four-cylinder version that also produces near-zero pollution. That is, unless you live in California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules. Only there can you buy this Accord, or the roughly two dozen other models that meet so-called Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, PZEV for short.
Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act-in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off-anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500.
This law against selling PZEVs outside of certain areas is a topic we haven't really explored on AutoblogGreen. Until now.
Currently, fourteen states have adopted or are poised to adopt California's rules. Florida is the most recent, taking the step in July. The others are Vermont, Connecticut, Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, Oregon, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Mexico and Washington. To see when these other states followed California's lead, check out the Pew Center on Global Climate Change's map here.
So, how does the Clean Air Act prevent PZEV sales outside of the California-law-abiding states? Or, is Ulrich full of it and this law he's talking about simply doesn't exist? Click past the jump with me to investigate.
Let's start with what the law is that we're talking about. The overall law is the Environmental Protection Agency's 1970 Clean Air Act and, specifically, changes made to the law in 1990. The text is available online here. Section 249 established a test program in California "to demonstrate the effectiveness of clean-fuel vehicles in controlling air pollution in ozone nonattainment areas." I'm guessing one of the pertinent passages for our discussion today is this one (part of Section 249): "Nothing in this section authorizes any State other than California to adopt provisions regarding clean alternative fuels." There's also Section 177:
Notwithstanding section 209(a), any State which has planprovisions [sic] approved under this part may adopt and enforce for any model year standards relating to control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines and take such other actions as are referred to in section 209(a) respecting such vehicles if- (1) such standards are identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been granted for such model year, and (2) California and such State adopt such standards at least two years before commencement of such model year (as determined by regulations of the Administrator). Nothing in this section or in title II of this Act shall be construed as authorizing any such State to prohibit or limit, directly or indirectly, the manufacture or sale of a new motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine that is certified in California as meeting California standards, or to take any action of any kind to create, or have the effect of creating, a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine different than a motor vehicle or engine certified in California under California standards (a "third vehicle") or otherwise create such a "third vehicle".
So, while the Clean Air Act was passed to, well, clean the air (I think 1970 was before the Bush Administration began naming laws the opposite of what they do, like 2002's Clear Skies initiative, which the Sierra Club says weakens the Clean Air Act), only California was singled out in 1990 to have power to control new motor vehicle emissions. It's not like the federal government was really doing a whole lot to control them. While the EPA was tasked with figuring out MPG ratings for vehicles in the original Clean Air Act, only recently did the EPA begin to establish limits on carbon dioxide emissions, which for the first time will effectively limit fuel consumption. For more on the Clean Air Act and why California's global warming laws are such a bold step, check out this explaination from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
So, we're clear on the legal structure, right? California (through CARB, the California Air Resources Board) can make rules about clean cars (and other states can adopt those laws) but no one else can. In response to these laws, automakers have made all sorts of vehicles, from the Accord in the lede to the EV1 to a whole bunch more. Heck, there might not be much of a green car industry without the California provision in the 1990 Clean Air Act revisions. The question now is why, since these cars exist, is it illegal to sell them in markets where California's regulations do not apply.
Let's return to Ulrich's article:
Naturally, no company wants to bring too much attention to a car that most people can't buy, unless it's Ferrari. And there's the catch. PZEV models are already available from Toyota, Ford, Honda, GM, Subaru, Volvo and VW. They're scrubbed-up versions of familiar models, from the VW Jetta to the Subaru Outback. But chances are, you've never heard of them. [snip]
It's not all the fault of the car companies. The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. And it costs real money to make a car this green. So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand, automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions-or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.
Honda appears to be doing just that. It currently charges Californians and other green-staters about $150 extra for these solid-citizen models. But experts suggest that it costs carmakers closer to $400 a pop to install the gear.
Another issue: The PZEV cars don't get any better mileage than conventional versions. Would most self-interested Americans even pay a lousy 100 bucks for cleaner air that doesn't put fuel savings back in their pocket? "With hybrids, the selling point is fuel economy, so there's a dollar amount on that," said William Walton, Honda's product planning chief for U.S. cars. "We want to give people the cleanest vehicles we can produce, but how much are people willing to pay for clean air?"
That's nice Ulrich, but it doesn't answer the question of "Why?" Readers over at Reddit who discussed this article wondered the same thing. It's not just marketing that is stopping PZEV cars from appearing on dealer lots across the country, right? Ulrich explicitly says at the beginning of his article that selling these cars out of bounds can result in large fines, and that "Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states." But he does nothing to back up his claim that there's a law somewhere that would punish me for selling you a PZEV car here in Michigan. In fact, if we take a look at CARB's list of 41 PZEV vehicles, there are a lot of vehicles there that are being sold across the country. Whether it's the 2007 Saturn Ion or the 2007 Hyundai Elantra, these cars are available, no? What am I missing here?
What I think Ulrich means is that car companies cannot sell a car and call it PZEV outside of states that have taken California's laws as their own. The vehicles might be the same, but the name is different. Am I right or wrong? To get the final word on this, I'm asking the AutoblogGreen community to flex our blog/reader muscles. What's going on here? Is Ulrich right or wrong about this law? If he's right, can you point me to a copy of the law, because I haven't been able to find it yet. If he's wrong, let's find out where and how.
[Source: MSNBC, Pew Center, Union of Concerned Scientists, EPA, Reddit; h/t to Ann]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bruce Friedman 7:21PM (1/28/2008)
Is there anything to stop me from going to California (where there are plenty of Excape Hybrids), making my purchase and driving home to Massachusetts, not accounting for possible extra taxes and other fees. I am being told there is 4 to 5 month wait around here while there seem to be plenty of Excape Hybrids in california.
Reply
Donna Perry 4:12PM (2/21/2008)
I just heard of Gov. Easley's proposal to establish a research initiative at NC State with cooperation from Duke Power and Progress Energy called the Wolf Pack Power Pack. The initiative is to develope more powerful hybrid batteries that hold a charge longer, take less time to charge, and are more efficient and to develop vehicle chassis and engineering components that will be lighter and stronger. I'm thinking...great! Wonderful! Then I think, well, if Gov. Easley really wants to do something immediately that will help consumers make better vehicle choices, he should sign on to the Calif. emissions bill. I especially got angry when I discovered that the NC DMV charged someone who owns a biodiesel vehicle a huge fine because he wasn't paying enough in gas taxes. It's a converted diesel truck that he makes his own fuel for by collecting oil from restaurants. Now that I'm good and angry, I'd like to start a grass roots movement for the CA Emissions bill here in NC. Any suggestions or advice?
Reply
webmaster 1:55AM (11/12/2009)
Ya i feel by time period it will happen We may "stop buying cars".
To know more about acts one can visit:
www.johnbuchananlaw.com
Reply
Wyatt 9:31PM (9/04/2007)
Whether true or not, it happened to me as well. I live in TX and I called several dealerships in the multiple states, which currently sell the Nissan Altima Hybrid. Every dealer I called said they were not allowed to sell me a car, and would not help me in the slightest. So if you live in Texas, your options for driving clean and green cars is severely limited.
Reply
Tim 8:30AM (9/05/2007)
Well, the Clean Air Act is keeping me from buying a new, more efficient diesel car. So I guess it's working?
Reply
Chris M 11:28PM (9/04/2007)
There is a misunderstanding of the law. It doesn't prohibit sales of a "California standards" clean green car outside of CA, especially since in many cases there is only one model for the country and it meets CA standards. It does prohibit any state from enacting a "third standard" different from CA or Federal standards.
So why are some green versions sold only in CA? The charitable excuse is limited availability, they only have enough for the CA market. The main reason would be that the non-green model sold outside of CA is cheaper to make and has a higher profit margin, so the dealer has to come up with a silly excuse for not being able to sell the green version, hoping not to loose the sale. I'm betting that the "illegal to sell" and the "$27,500 civil fine" were made up by a dealer on the spot, and has now become another urban legend.
Could you imagine the squawking and ruckus that would erupt if the government actually tried to levy such a rediculous fine on someone wanting to drive green?
Reply
Chris M 11:54PM (9/04/2007)
There is a misunderstanding there. Nothing in the law prohibits the sale of clean green cars anywhere in the US. The Clean Air Act does prohibit any state from setting up "third standard" different from the California or Federal standards, or requiring a car model different than one meeting CA or Fed standards.
So, why aren't some of these green versions not sold outside of California? The charitable excuse is limited availability, they only have enough for the CA market. The real reason is that the non-green version is cheaper to make and has a higher profit margin, so that is the only one the manufacturers want to sell outside of CA. It's the manufacturers that won't allow dealers outside of CA to "sell green", not the government.
That puts dealers on the spot. Some dealer made up the excuse about it being illegal and the "$27,500 civil fine" when confronted by a customer wanting the unavailable version, and didn't want to loose the sale. It has now become another urban legend.
Could you imagine the squawking and protests that would erupt if the government actually tried to fine someone $27,500 just because they wanted to drive green?
Reply
nilk 7:39AM (9/05/2007)
I'm not sure what the extra costs to manufacturers is for the emissions equipment (and whether it is subsidized or not), but I would be willing to pay a large premium for a PZEV vehicle. Like $3000 more than the non-PZEV. I'm sure many other people would pay for the privilege of having one as well.
Right now my only option is to buy a hybrid or go to a clean air state and try to buy a car there (is there anything stopping that?). I'd buy a Prius if it did have so many bugs in it and poor handling. Fortunately for me, I am in Florida and am going to wait until the PZEV vehicles become available.
In my search for PZEV vehicles, I have found used PZEV vehicles available here in Florida and other states that don't yet follow CA's emissions standards.
Reply
Jack S. 8:40AM (9/05/2007)
Wholly agree with Tim. Check out the stats at 40mpg.org (mentioned often on this very site). CA and other states have created a perverse market for efficient diesels, notably the VW flavors.
Europe has privileged efficieny over NOx emissions knowing that one with come with the other in a reduction of the other.
I shake my head every time I see BWM, Audi, VW, Mercedes and lesser manufacturers announce a super hot, fast, efficient diesel only to finish by saying it will only be sold in the EU market (535d, Toureg V6 TDI, C220 CDI with brabus chip, etc.)
Reply
Josh Brown 9:56AM (9/05/2007)
I worked for the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association for 18 months recently. And CARB and the Clean Air Act are very big ussues within that community (car dealers). To confirm what another poster has said, and something in which I fail to see the logic, The Clean Air act forbids any other state to set their own standards for clean air (i.e. emmissions, etc.) So for a state to adopt any standard other than the federal levels, their only option is to adopt the California standards and other facets of legislation that require a certain number of PZEV and Hybrid/alternative fuel cars to be sold every year. Two sticking points here... 1.) Once a state has adopted the California standards, they have to accept any new levels set by Carlifornia going forward, so they are essentially giving up the ability to govern themselves in this way, which is an extremely unattractive situation in principle. 2.)Car dealers dance on a fine line of profitability when it comes to new car sales (used car sales are by far more profitable). And no car dealer wants a law passed in his/her state that mandates that so many of (insert PZEV/Hybrid/Alt Fuel car here) must be available for sale. If they don't sell, the dealers (not the manufacturer) will eat the cost on that one.
Dealer/manufacturer relationships are complicated and often times, the dealer is the one who loses out. A handful of states have laws that protect dealers from being vulnerable to any and all wishes of the manufacturer, but most do not (North Carolina does).
Reply
Bill 3:50PM (9/05/2007)
I agree that Diesels are great but they are dirty.
It is my understanding that the fuel that is the biggest roadblock to cleaning up diesels. In Europe diesel fuel is cleaner and therefore diesel automobiles burn cleaner. In the US the trucking industry essentially owns the diesel market and demands cheap dirty fuel to clean diesel.
Reply
stevejust 6:08PM (9/05/2007)
Wyatt: Nissan's decision not to sell the Altima hybrid outside the states that follow the CA emissions standards has nothing to do with any law-- they are worried about supporting servicing of the hybrids. There's a guy in New Mexico who was told that he could have his serviced at a dealership there, but that any repairs would take much longer, so he had to buy at his own risk. (see Nissan Altima discussion on www.greenhybrid.com).
Nilk: I agree on the prius handling, I refer to them as "mini mini vans" but "bugs"? What "bugs"? C'mon, Toyota has sold over a million cars with hybrid synergy drive.
Reply
Chris 4:04AM (9/14/2007)
Josh brown, get you and your buddies at the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association and propose an amendment to the clean air act. I know it may seem daunting, I'm sure many other legislators in various other states are facing the same problem(adopt CA's standards and give up right to govern, or adopt federal standards and get dirtier cars). As for the dealers being unable to sell, couldn't the manufacturer have the car sold on an order basis? In other words, the dealers would collect orders from potential customers of a certain model, and the manufacturer would deliver a certain amount of cars to the dealers in that state instead of requiring a quota of an unreasonably large amount of units.
Reply
eric hepburn 3:34PM (10/14/2007)
I am also from Texas. According to Subaru's website, their PZEV vehicles are available in all 50 states. However, when you go to the dealer, you can't get one. The dealer I spoke with received a shipment of PZEV vehicles when they were first released, sold them quickly and asked for more. The dealership was then informed that Subaru was not permitted to ship any more of the PZEV vehicles except to PZEV (or adjacent) states. I am working to uncover the rest of the story and I am attempting to get some investigative journalists involved/interested in the story. According to my local Subaru dealership, there are no issues with service or national warranty with the PZEV vehiclex (so buying one in another state seems to be a viable option).
Reply
radler63 4:53PM (12/20/2007)
Well folks the story has economic foundation.
It cost money to build a few green cars for motor shows but it cost a lot to roll out a bigger series production. If you cannot earn enough money for the green car its better for the manufacturers to have a small line producing a few cars and a shipping to certain spots only.
The single one company having massive synergistic effects is Toyota since the value of the brand is profiting a lot and the production of the Prius has been streamlined so they loose not so much money more per sale.
Reply
mbl 2:50PM (1/19/2008)
Hey, I am a freelance journalist doing a story on the auto industry and I think I found the answer (from and MSN article)
"The Catch
Geography can be conspiring against eco-conscious buyers. The PZEV's limited availability is not a result of sales volume, marketing or any other political force; it's all about fuel quality. The reformulated fuel available in what's called the California Emission States—California, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and Maine—make PZEV possible. Take a PZEV to Kansas and the change in fuel quality will knock down its emissions performance. Many PZEVs like the Ford Focus may be available in states bordering the California Emission States but in the case of Ford the 130-hp DURATEC 20E engine is a no-cost option."
Reply
mike 5:14PM (1/19/2008)
mbl, I don't think you're right. Subaru has been selling the PZEV in all states for a long time. This is strictly an auto company decision. You can't buy what they don't want to sell.
As for diesel, someone else has put a different spin on it. The US allows the refineries to put waste product in the diesel, they'd otherwise have to dispose of. Dingle?
Reply