By law, electric car batteries must last 120,000 miles (or the real reason behind GM's battery leasing plans?)
Update: Commenter Rgseidl tracked down the law (link is to pdf) and found it's actually 150,000 miles not 120,000. Also, commenter Chris M. points out the law may not apply to the Volt because technically a series hybrid may not be an electric car.
I contacted GM about the recent drive.com.au article which said the operating costs for the Volt would not be much different than a regular gas car. GM was quick to deflate concerns by saying nothing was set in stone. GM is "evaluating several vehicle ownership models" and "have much to learn before a final decision will be made." The full quote is below. That's great because GM is really taking the risk off our hands leasing the battery ... or maybe not.
The above video is the former CEO of GM. He runs an alternative energy company now. In the Bloomberg interview, he mentions an obscure federal and California law that says electric car batteries must last the "life of the car." That means you really don't take any risks if you buy the battery for an electric car. GM has to replace the battery if there are any problems. This could be the real reason GM is considering a battery leasing model.
The full text of GM's response to AutoblogGreen on its plans for leasing the battery:
"As you can imagine, this article generated significant interest in this element of GM's battery strategy. However, I can assure you that we have not made any decisions on purchase price or battery leasing for the Volt. The Volt's cost of ownership (purchase price, fuel costs, cost of battery,etc.) over its life will be significantly different compared to current vehicles and may warrant a different ownership model. The E-Flex team is evaluating several vehicle ownership models that take the initial cost of the battery into account. as well as maintenance, potential upgrades, replacements and end of life considerations. In the end, this may lead to different retail strategies like battery leasing, but we have much to learn before a final decision will be made."
[Source: Youtube, GM]
I contacted GM about the recent drive.com.au article which said the operating costs for the Volt would not be much different than a regular gas car. GM was quick to deflate concerns by saying nothing was set in stone. GM is "evaluating several vehicle ownership models" and "have much to learn before a final decision will be made." The full quote is below. That's great because GM is really taking the risk off our hands leasing the battery ... or maybe not.
The above video is the former CEO of GM. He runs an alternative energy company now. In the Bloomberg interview, he mentions an obscure federal and California law that says electric car batteries must last the "life of the car." That means you really don't take any risks if you buy the battery for an electric car. GM has to replace the battery if there are any problems. This could be the real reason GM is considering a battery leasing model.
The full text of GM's response to AutoblogGreen on its plans for leasing the battery:
"As you can imagine, this article generated significant interest in this element of GM's battery strategy. However, I can assure you that we have not made any decisions on purchase price or battery leasing for the Volt. The Volt's cost of ownership (purchase price, fuel costs, cost of battery,etc.) over its life will be significantly different compared to current vehicles and may warrant a different ownership model. The E-Flex team is evaluating several vehicle ownership models that take the initial cost of the battery into account. as well as maintenance, potential upgrades, replacements and end of life considerations. In the end, this may lead to different retail strategies like battery leasing, but we have much to learn before a final decision will be made."
[Source: Youtube, GM]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
bioburner 2:15PM (9/08/2007)
Whow that didn't take long. "Looks like the squeaky wheel is going to get greased". GM love them/hate them at least they are listening.
Is it just my eyesight failing or was the attached video from youtube from May 25th?
Reply
jcwinnie 3:18PM (9/08/2007)
For someone that has never driven a vehicle with electric drive, such a statement would seem to make sense.
If you have an electric drive vehicle, then you understand that GM is saying they want to rent you an engine. This is because batteries are a similar key component.
And, if you leased an EV1, you probably will smile grimly and think, Same old GM, this time they can come take away the batteries and won't have to be bothered with crushing anything.
Reply
rgseidl 3:34PM (9/08/2007)
The minimum life expectancy rule does indeed exist in California, where HEVs are - somewhat bizarrely - considered ICE vehicles with special emissions control systems, so manufacturers could be awarded credits toward their ZEV quota. The rule would presumably to PHEVs as well, but not to pure BEVs.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/recall06/ssm.pdf
"The extended warranty on a hybrid electric vehicle battery packs used
for vehicle propulsion shall be limited to the lesser of 1) the applicable useful life
of the vehicle or 2) 10 years or 150,000 miles (whichever first occurs)." - p.10 (j)
Of course, an HEV/PHEV with a broken battery pack can still be operated safely and cleanly on its gasoline ICE, because that has a working three-way catalyst. Ironic, really: the law was originally intended to foster vehicles with zero *tailpipe* emissions. After the EV1 fiasco, it was modified to pursue this goal via a complex set of credits and alternate compliance options. Now, those modifications are making it very hard for manufacturers to bring PHEV/BEV concepts to market. The fuel cell lobby has succeeded in introducing a systematic bias against its main competitor, batteries.
I expect there's a separate law requiring that all automotive batteries be recycled or safely disposed of, to avoid fire hazards and ground water contamination. That's not a bone of contention though, because recycling electrode metals makes business sense anyhow.
Reply
rgseidl 3:38PM (9/08/2007)
I'm not a lawyer, but if the battery is leased, is it no longer considered an integral part of the vehicle? If so, could GM merely be trying to sidestep the high-mileage requirement, even if it means losing out on ZEV credits?
Reply
jcwinnie 3:58PM (9/08/2007)
Er, no. A series hybrid requires some form of electricity storage since the propulsion is the electric drive. No batteries or equivalent, no go.
In a parallel hybrid, yes, you could rely upon the range extender. Although, I think anyone who believed in a PHEV40 sales pitch and was then told they could run on the range extender might be a wee bit displeased.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 5:41PM (9/08/2007)
Bioburner, Yes, the video is a year old.
Jcwinnie, Thanks for the link to the law. I could not find it.
Rgseidl, That's an interesting point. I will look into the energy bill to see how that works out. I would not be surprised to see sell or lease in there. If it's not, they could probably get around it by selling it to a leasing company.
Reply
Domenick 10:48PM (9/08/2007)
I think the A123 batteries have been touted by some as capable of 100,000 or 10 years. Law complied with. N'est pas?
No dumb leasing scheme necessary. ^_^
Reply
Chris M 12:16AM (9/09/2007)
The title is misleading and incorrect. After reading the link provided by rgseidl (Thanks!) it became obvious that the law involved legal remedies that could be applied if a certain engine model or design had an excessive number of emission test failures. The remedies could include repairs, recalls, and if warranted, an extended warranty to protect customers even if their vehicle currently passes the test, but might not in the future. Batteries are mentioned only as they may be an important part of the proper operation of some hybrid models.
The law does not require any special battery warranty on vehicles that have no problems with emissions testing, which I believe woud include all EVs, and perhaps some HEVs and PHEVs.
Of course, from a marketing standpoint, it makes sense for car makers to offer a good warranty, and is especially important when introducing new technology.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 9:55AM (9/09/2007)
Chris M, Did you read this part?
"The extended warranty on a hybrid electric vehicle battery packs used
for vehicle propulsion shall be limited to the lesser of 1) the applicable useful life
of the vehicle or 2) 10 years or 150,000 miles (whichever first occurs)."
Even if the former GM CEO got the law wrong or it has changed, I still consider it good reporting because I only quoted what he said, not the law. This article was really all about GM's response to the weekly payments. I wanted to give everyone something a little more interesting than a statement from GM and so many comments mentioned the risk so I thought I would add it.
Reply
larry 10:21PM (9/09/2007)
Lascelles, Chris M is right on track here. This law covers components in the pollution control system of the car. Now, it's very possible the the cite from rqseidl is not the one referred to by the GM exec. You quote him as speaking about electric cars, but this law cited specifically says that this law is not applicable to ZEV's. Actually, if you look at the part you cited:
"The extended warranty on a hybrid electric vehicle battery packs used for vehicle propulsion shall be limited to the lesser of 1) the applicable useful life of the vehicle or 2) 10 years or 150,000 miles (whichever first occurs)."
It says the "lesser" of the two, where the applicable life of The series VOLT would be whenever the battery is dead! Whereas with a parallel hybrid the applicable life would continue as long as the ICE was still running. So, no worries for Volt here!
Reply
Lascelles Linton 11:35AM (9/10/2007)
Larry, I will update the article. He did get the mileage wrong. However, I am not totally sure the Volt is not a ZEV.
Reply
Belasarius 9:28AM (9/12/2007)
If GM or others mark the batteries up too high, then an aftermarket will quickly form to sell the batteries. I once consulted for an aftermarket automotive supplier. One of their products was transmission solenoids for GM cars. This was a very simple electro-mechanical part that cost nearly $400 each if you bought from GM. There were several of these in each transmission.
The aftermarket supplier sold them for about $70 each and they probably cost about $6 to make. At the time, this company was considered to be a hero by the non-dealer car repair world.
Of course GM will disavow their warranty if you don't use their batteries, but this will eventually get handled by law or otherwise.
It looks like super efficient capacitors could replace these batteries anyway. Then we can plug in at the house for ten minutes or so and away we go. And capacitors don't wear out and rarely fail. So-long to gasoline autos and most car repair.
Reply
Chris M 5:23PM (9/10/2007)
Yes, Lascelles, I read that part, and the paragraphs preceeding it as well. Check out the reference provided by rgseidl at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/recall06/ssm.pdf
Click the "find" icon in the Adobe reader and search for "extended warranty". There are several references, and the surrounding paragraphs on all of them make it clear that an "extended warranty" can be required as one of several possible legal remedy for excessive failure on emissions tests.
I don't blame you for not referencing the law - I wouldn't have found it myself, if someone else had not provided the link. Perhaps you should have attributed that quote to the GM official, making him responsible for any erroneous assumptions.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 7:39PM (9/10/2007)
Article updated! Thanks for the corrections. You are making AutoblogGreen better. I still can't believe a reader's comment corrected a government website :D Add Ex-GM CEO to your list readers.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/22/autobloggreen-readers-correct-government-website/
Reply
ev2g 5:31PM (11/15/2007)
NANOSAFE 2nd generation to the rescue.
NanosaferEV.com
Reply