Tesla's Ze'ev Drori says CARB should not become a "mockery" this Thursday
California Air Resources Board's important meeting that will decide on the fate of the Zero Emission Vehicle Program (aka the ZEV Mandate) takes place Thursday (background here and here). As one of the big players in the electric vehicle space, Tesla Motors certainly has an interest in how the vote goes on the 27th. To explain his company's point of view, Tesla Motors President and CEO, Ze'ev Drori, published a letter to CARB on the Tesla website today (it was sent to CARB on the 18th). He will also attend the meeting to deliver his message in person. Drori's main message is that the proposed changes to the the ZEV Mandate, which would reduce the amount of pure electric cars the automakers would be required to make. Instead of 25,000 in 2014-2017, the revisions call for a 90 percent drop and claim that battery technology is not available yet to produce that many EVs. Drori, who knows at least a little about how to build an EV, says such a change could "make a mockery of CARB itself." For his detailed explanation of why CARB might be making this huge mistake, read his letter.
[Source: Tesla Motors]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
galv 9:08PM (3/24/2008)
someone make a facebook/youtube and some other blog group to show support for Tesla and Evs in general ...we dont want to miss our second chance at electric cars
Reply
Nicholas 9:25PM (3/24/2008)
I have already sent an email to Governor Schwarzenegger about this, giving my support to the ZEV-mandate.
Reply
Nicholas 9:33PM (3/24/2008)
I mean that, I support the idea of building 25.000 units at least
Reply
Mark 9:49PM (3/24/2008)
STALL, STALL, STALL. We all damned well know that the oil industry is pressuring California to drop the requirement by 90%. The technology IS here, it IS ready.
Reply
Chris M 10:19PM (3/24/2008)
The problem is, forcing the automakers to produce a large number of ZEVs that they fear might not sell will cause them to react badly and resist, perhaps even sabotage the program - after all, they already did it once.
A better solution would be to require all new car dealers to offer at least one ZEV model to their customers. The automakers could supply ZEVs to the dealers, or allow their dealers to get ZEVs elsewhere. With rising gas prices, this approach might actually get more ZEVs on the road!
Reply
roz 1:09AM (3/25/2008)
Chris - The proposed new rules are actually quite smart. They don't require individual automakers to make ZEV, they require them to either make them or buy offsets from an actual ZEV maker. So if Ford does not want to make a ZEV or plug-in it would need to buy production offset from Tesla or some other electric car company. Tesla can set its price. It basically creates a market to trade incentives to build cars.
The trouble is that while its a better mechanism the volumes in the proposed policy are very low, they were going to be 25k but have been gutted to 2000 over a few years. It effectively guts the policy. That means that the trading price for an offset will be very low, pointless.
Personally I think it should simple be a % of car sales volumes. Makes auto companies buy an offset for 5% of their sales.
Reply
ronal 12:23AM (3/26/2008)
It is time for california to show up why we are the most progressive state in the union.
I am with TESLA, let's not kill the electric car again.
what would be of ABG without electric cars.
Reply
ronnie schreiber 3:41AM (3/25/2008)
This has nothing to do with air quality or zero emissions and everything to do with Tesla's desire to have favorable treatment by government regulators.
It's funny. When the Big Three lobby against CAFE because of the cost to them, it's big bad corporations, but when it's a trendy high tech billionaire like Musk or Brin it's for the common good.
Some corporations must be more equal than others.
Anyone want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
Reply
roz 3:52AM (3/25/2008)
Uh yes some corporation are better than others. Like Tesla making cars that don't require us to send out boys to Iraq to get the fuel. That is a benefit to America. And yes those cars happen to have less emissions.
The Big 3 fight fuel efficiency tooth and nail and that means that our economy is less competitive because we are so dependent on imported fuel. They water down every policy that would lead to more environmental options for consumers - so yes they are not good companies. They deserve to have their asses kicked.
Reply
Whopper 8:38AM (3/25/2008)
roz, the Big 3 (GM, Ford & Toyota?) fight design by legislation, not necessarily fuel economy. The simple fact you want to avoid is when fuel economy is important to the GENERAL PUBLIC, the Big 3 will build economical cars. Today the GENERAL PUBLIC is not yet interested enough to buy economical cars.
The Big 3 is in business to make money. When economical cars become profitable they will build them. It is a lot more effective to "lure" someone into doing what you want rather than beat them with the big stick (legislation). Bob Lutz, the guy you all love to hate, made a good point when he said CAFE is like solving obesity by restricting the sale of slacks with larger than 36 waist. CAFE is political stupidity!
Reply
rgseidl 9:14AM (3/25/2008)
I've been critical of CARB's narrow focus on zero (tailpipe) emissions vehicles, because implementing the law has required manufacturers - and the taxpayer - to invest very heavily in air quality at the expense of improvements in fleet average fuel economy. With oil now at around $100, voter priorities have changed.
However, EPA has not (yet) granted CARB a waiver to regulate vehicle CO2 emissions - a proxy for fuel economy - so the agency is technically not yet at liberty to recalibrate the trade-off. Ideally, manufacturers should have to either stick with the current regs or, work toward meeting new ones that set ambitious goals for their corporate fleet average emissions of both toxic compounds and well-to-wheels CO2 (e.g. based on the peer-reviewed Argonne-DOE GREET model for the well-to-tank portion). Unfortunately, in the present climate CARB might well get sued merely for giving manufacturers this alternate compliance mode.
Simply cutting the ZEV target without demanding anything in return would imply a capitulation to oil and auto interests.
Reply
roz 1:05PM (3/25/2008)
Whopper, I think your argument made more sense when gas was cheap and the auto companies were profitable. Now that gas is expensive and the auto companies are losing money I don't think it washes. Everyone I know is frustrated over the price of gas and is eager to buy an efficient car the next time around. Yet when I go to check out cars in the dealership they are all 2x/3x mpg - even the smaller cars. That is just not good enough anymore.
Reply
ronnie schreiber 1:43PM (3/25/2008)
Roz,
If you think it's so easy to build fuel efficient cars that consumers will want to buy, you are welcome to start your own car company and prove it.
The reality is that fuel efficiency is expensive. Diesel engines are significantly more expensive to build than Otto cycle engines, they need stronger heads and high pressure fuel injection systems (diesels have about twice the compression ratio as gasoline engines). Parallel hybrids have the cost of a second powertrain plus an expensive battery. High strength steel (which is stronger per weight so it can be used to reduce the mass of the car) is more expensive than regular steel, as is aluminum. Composites like carbon fiber aren't cheap either.
When the market is there at a saleable price point and the technology is cost effective, there will be more fuel efficient cars.
Reply
Turbofrog 1:52PM (3/25/2008)
If the government had the intestinal fortitude to legislate a higher gas tax, as it should, that saleable threshold would be a whole lot lower...
Reply
Whopper 2:27PM (3/25/2008)
When I worked for one of the Tier 1 suppliers the gestation period was just under 7 years. It is now more like 4 years. In order to comply with existing regs in addition to changes and still meet quality demands it takes TIME. Individuals at these companies are charged with predicting what the public will want, and be willing to pay for, 4 years hence. Had the govt been adding a $.10 or $.15 tax increase annually over the years the vehicle mix would have changed gradually. To hit John Q. Public with a $3.00 tax per gallon now would send the economy into a tailspin the likes of which has never been seen.
roz, you and your acquaintenances may want better mpg cars, but the general public was in a horsepower/large size frenzy just a couple of years ago. Development of the new Camaro and Dodge Challenger started when gas was less than $1.50. When did mpg become important to you roz? The production tooling for the 2008's was placed on order in 2004-2005.
One last thought...Turbofrog, manipulating people's lives and actions with tax policy is abhorant. I know it is done every day but it still is disturbing. Giving Washington more of our hard earned cash so they can squander it as they do makes me sick. Most elected officials couldn't find their butts with both hands and a flashlight if they had written instructions!
Reply
roz 3:52PM (3/25/2008)
Ronnie et al,
I really don't think it is a question of difficulty or expense. Clearly there are plenty of examples of more efficient cars in other markets that are just not available in the US.
There is a question as to why these cars are not available in the US. One might argue, as the auto industry does, that there is little demand for these cars in the US. I find that hard to believe even with our comparatively cheaper gas. I for one am very motivated to find a more efficient car and don't see any that I would like. When I go shop for a car I see many options that add cost to the car, moon roof, leather, nav - but none of these are the so called costly features that would make it more efficient. Besides the Prius and a handful of hybrids there are very few options and most are very compromised "economy boxes". Its a very different story in Europe where nearly every car is available in a range of engine configurations that allow the consumer to pick a car that meets their tastes and is efficient.
I would grant you that diesel does add some cost to the price of the car, but not much and usually less that the top end gas engine that you typically get in the US version. Take the Volvo C30 for example, in Europe its offered in 8 engine configurations (http://www.volvocars.com/uk/Documents/All%20Models/C30.pdf)
The mpg on the UK C30 ranges from 20/30 for the gas T5 to 45.6/57.6 for the 1.6D.
The 1.6D with the stellar efficiency is GBP 2500 less than the UK price of the T5, which is the version sold in the US. The diesel is, granted. more expensive than the cheapest gas version but not by much. Its in the lower end of the range of options.
In the US Volvo only offers the C30 in the least efficient versions of the car. I asked someone at Volvo what it would take for the 1.6D to pass the Tier2Bin5 standard and his response, which surprised me, was that it already did. That it used common rail technology and it was already clean enough for the US. I am not sure he is correct on that point, but still I can't understand why a car like that would not be brought to the US.
I would not assume that because people in the US are presented with one high horsepower low efficiency option that that necessily means its their preference. If its the only option we simply don't know, and neither do the car companies what the actual demand is. It seems that the Prius, even though its rather ugly and strange, got a very good reception by the American market.
I have no doubt that in the US there would be a lot of people who'd like a car that got 45/57. It would at least be a hit in the Bay Area and places like this where people are into green cars. Yes, American are into power, but they also have a kind of dogmatism and if something is way more efficient, Americans are interested.
Generally I would trust a market to deliver a product that people want but my theory is that there is something corrupt going on in the auto sector that influences US car companies not to sell more efficient vehicles here. I can't tell you what the linkage is but its seems that time and time again there is this huge wall of resistance before an efficient car is introduced in the US. Yes I know that there is a big differential in terms of the price of fuel here compared to other markets, but even at US fuel prices I think you would see more demand for efficient cars.
Reply
KarenRei 4:39PM (3/25/2008)
If the auto industry thought they could make money on something, you couldn't buy them off. You do realize how big the auto industry is, right?
There's no need to try and insert a conspiracy in every shadow. For right or wrong, they have the mindset that they'll lose money on importing a number of these more fuel-efficient models. They probably have about two dozen market research reports in pocket that say that. And that's really the beginning and end of it right there.
Reply
roz 6:22PM (3/25/2008)
Globally the industry is huge and its making more efficient options, as I detailed. The US market seems to operate by different rules.
Also, are you so sure that US makers understand the market as well as you suggest? These are the same guys who totally missed hybrid and are stuck trying to sell giant SUVs and big cars when people don't want them.
I am not one for conspiracy theories, I can't say how it works but it seems to me that there is some scheme that limits our options more than they would be with a normally functioning market. I don't understand why but we have no choices in the US.
Here is another example: The VW Rabbit. Forget that in the UK they offer two smaller cars not on the market here, the Fox and the Polo. In the Rabbit they offer one and only one engine in the US, a 2.5l. It gets pretty poor mileage (22/29). The simple fact of the matter is that they don't even offer a 2.5l engine in the Golf in Europe! That engine is reserved for bigger cars. They offer 1.4, 1.6 and a Turbo 1.4 in gas and a 1.9 TDI and 2.0 diesel. The 1.4 gas version in Europe gets 41/52 - granted thats the UK number in mpg, its not the same test as the US, but it is mpg. You can't custom order a gas Golf/Rabbit here with a smaller engine that gets better mpg. You can trick it out in every other way but no way you can get a smaller engine. BTW, the TDI gets 48/62. Its shocking - is it just me who thinks we are getting the shaft?
Even in terms of their reintroduction of the 50 legal TDIs from VW, they are not going to offer a TDI in the US in the Rabbit/Golf.
I would not call it a conspiracy theory in every shadow, its just that here and there, efficient options are withdrawn, rendered not available. It may not fit your ideology, it doesn't really fit mine actually, but it seems to be the reality.
Reply
too simple minded 6:50PM (3/25/2008)
karenRei,
Exactly, the auto industry cant be bought off if they make money off of gas cars. That is why they wont make EVs even if it requires less parts, less maintenance, higher mpg equivalent. There is no conspiracy, they flat out dont want to make a better car that will destroy their entire market by making today's gas cars obsolete.
msn auto published an article a few months ago on how in europe there are 118 cars that go above 40mpg and only 2 in the u.s. and they're not even american! And worse yet, Ford is a maker of some of those 118 cars in europe. So it's a bunch of lies if they tell us that they cant make fuel efficient cars.
You're right they have research groups, aka cost-benefit anaylsis studies. I can bet on it but not on the subject you stated. They research on how much money they'll lose if they built an EV or diesel vs. keep making the gas cars. And if you haven't heard of this yet, check out history on the Pinto design flaw that caused fatalities but they decided to pay out the lawsuits and let people burn to death rather than fix the car itself because it was cheaper.
http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/166/Ford-Pinto.aspx
The difference is that it just doesn't fall under the ethical issues responsible by the automakers, at least, not quite like the pinto so instead of direct death to people, it is by emissions and gas vs. any alternative that'll make it gas cars go out of business.
So you've got your comparisons wrong.
And for the rest of the naysayers, EVs are like fluorescent light bulbs, their initial costs are more expensive but their fuel and maintenance and longevity makes their total cost cheaper.
And for toyota and Gm to sell 25,000 wouldnt be even 1 percent of their current sales. And as for losing money, Gm lost 38.7 billion yet they just gave out millions of dollars in bonuses to their executives. And they do that every year even if they lose money. But when fuel efficient cars are on the plans they miraculously don't have money.
Reply
roz 8:56PM (3/25/2008)
But just to be clear - the CARB policy represented here does not require any of the existing ICE automakers to make ZEV. It is not like CAFE. It does not force design or product decisions on them. It does not force them to make cars they don't want to make - it is purely a monetary mechanism that says - if you don't make these cars you need some sort of offset in the form of credits you purchase from a company making ZEV or plug-in. The concept is as I understand it is to incentive more consumer choice and light a small fire under automakers that if they don't want to make these cars, they will be subsidizing their competitors.
And for what its worth I agree with those who say it would be better to gradually raise fuel taxes than to have policies like CAFE.
I would add though that I think companies should be required where in other markets more efficient engine configurations are available, those versions should be available to the US market as a custom order.
Reply