California Air Resources Board set to weaken ZEV Mandate tomorrow
One day remains before the California Air Resources Board (CARB) votes on the latest proposed revision (read weakening) of the Zero Emission Vehicle Program, and the press is picking up the story, with headlines trumpeting Will California Kill the Electric Car Again? (here, here and here) CARB opted to promote hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles (FCV) over battery electric cars when it revised the program in 2003, and the automakers destroyed most of the electric cars that had been deployed.
A schedule was set for the manufacture of FCVs, rising to 25,000 by 2015, but the technology remains far from commercialization and automakers have been lobbying to lower the numbers. Although some major manufacturers, most prominently GM with its Chevy Volt, have announced intentions to begin commercial production of electric drive cars, all have signed on to a letter to CARB decrying the CARB staff proposal to reduce by 90 percent the number of required ZEVs as still too onerous. Plug In America, the Sierra Club, and a host of environmental organizations along with Tesla Motors and former CIA Director James Woolsey held a press conference this morning in front of CARB, and will be testifying at tomorrow's hearing to press the case for a higher numbers of ZEVs. Consumers who want electric options available sooner rather than later can make their voice hear via links to CARB and Governor Schwarzengger here. (Full disclosure: I am on the Board of Plug In America.)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Wildgoosechase73 4:42PM (3/26/2008)
By now it's obvious that California will not be able to regulate CO2, but they can achieve the same goal by using their existing mandate of ZEV's. To decrease the mandate is pure hypocricy
Reply
Dave 5:01PM (3/26/2008)
Why do people in CA actually PAY for CARB? They committed a worse sin than GM ever did with the EV-1. If you ask me, Payne should be ripping CARB in his next movie.
Reply
regguy 5:16PM (3/26/2008)
Let's take a step back and look at the issue objectively.
- A stricter ZEV mandate doesn't mean people will BUY the vehicles in sufficient numbers to meet the regulations. (The law won't allow freebies or sales ending with dealers either.)
- The ZEV mandate HAS pushed battery, fuel cell, and hydrogen technology but an industry in distress can only spend so fast...in balance with all the other consumer demands.
- MOST consumers will not pay extra in taxes for CO2 reduction measures. source http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Global_Warming_Gas_Tax_Poll_0308.html
- A reasonable BALANCE in regulatory push plus consumer pull has the greatest chance for success, i.e. minimum unhappy consumers.
- Fossil fuels have been too cheap to persuade consumers to become inconvenienced much, but that is changing.
- To all those who are convinced that a conspiracy exists to suppress ZEV's: OEMs would sell landau roofs if they made a respectable profit, the oil company profits ain't helpin no OEM's that exist today, and the electric car was not "killed" but rather sent back for more tuning after Beta testing.
The CARB decision should be based on sound science that balances the pace and realities of the state-of-the-art with the pace and realities of consumer expectations and acceptance.
Cars and vans contribute only about 9% of the world's CO2 emissions and thus other industries need to be put up on the regulatory podium for recognition. source http://www.wri.org/publication/navigating-the-numbers#
Reply
Peter 5:19PM (3/26/2008)
I bet GM spends more money on lobbying each year than Tesla has spent in its entire existence.
Reply
scappy 8:10AM (3/27/2008)
I have not been following this a lot, but from the snippet above it appears as though the number of fuel cell vehicles is way too high when compared to the rate of technology development.
Though a ZEV is a ZEV and the number of those vehicles should never be reduced, but I can understand holding it back a little so the technology can keep up.
P.S. Why doesn't Ford highlight that the Focus is a PZEV vehicle
Reply
superdart 6:37PM (3/26/2008)
I'l stick to my view that CARGB is just trying to keep itself relavent. If they ever AGREE with the EPA or CAFE standards, they will put themselves out of a job...God forbid we do away with a gov't agency and save tax money.
Reply
Mark 8:05PM (3/26/2008)
I'm still going to believe, that ANY move to reduce or eliminate Electric Vehicles from the market is all because of the oil industry and their profits. The Oil industry can pay off anyone it wants to at any price. It did with the Bush Admin, I'm betting they are involved with this.
Reply
Mike Weston 8:35PM (3/26/2008)
Well, it's already too late to comment electronically with CARB, since there cutoff was noon today. If any of you can be there in person though, that would be great.
How are the members of CARB elected/appointed? If they really do this insane thing how can we replace them with sane people?
Reply
Das Boese 10:09AM (3/27/2008)
"CARB opted to promote hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles (FCV) over battery electric cars when it revised the program in 2003"
Someone please explain to me why these people weren't fired and/or summarily beaten?
Reply
Paul 6:25PM (3/27/2008)
Should it be 2500 or 25000? What ever happened to 5% by 2005 (I think it was 2005). That would have been millions. I'm doing a conversion that is costing under $3000, and it will go 45 miles on a charge. The volt will go 40 miles on a charge (then switches to gas) and will cost $35,000. That's just embarrassing! I have a second vehicle for the long trips. I'm sick of waiting for the stupid government to do the right thing. I'll be Zero emmissions by the Fall (maybe winter :)).
Reply
Mike Weston 3:59PM (3/28/2008)
Well, it looks like they compromised on a 70% reduction (which they spin as 3 times more than staff recommended). The numbers are complex, so that if there are a lot of one kind of vehicle there don't have to be so many of another.
See http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr032708b.htm
Reply