Silver lining: CARB creates huge new market for plug-in hybrids
Reader reaction to last week's California Air Resources Board vote to cut the ZEV Mandate by 70 percent was pretty resoundingly negative (although it's only fair to note some of you said the result was a good thing). Automotive News' Richard Truett has written an article that finds the decision's silver lining: it created a "sizable" market for plug-in hybrids. While pure EVs took a hit in the revision, automakers are now required to sell 66,000 PHEVs between 2012 and 2014. Considering you can't buy a single one today, this would be a nice change. Truett notes that Chrysler, Honda and Nissan could be face "major headaches" to comply with the rule, since they don't have any PHEVs in development. At least, there are no public plans for such vehicles from these companies. Smart grid PHEV charging technology is here, at least in testing form. What plug-in vehicles will
[Source: Richard Truett / Automotive News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Yanquetino 3:43PM (3/31/2008)
Well, yeah...! Plug-in hybrids are an improvement over ICEs, no question.
However, the problem with this iteration of the ZEV mandate is that it doesn't specify the ZERO-emission range of those plug-in hybrids. Ergo, if a vehicle goes only 10 miles per charge before the gasoline engine kicks in, it gets the same credit as one that goes 100 miles per charge! I fail to see how both those vehicles are equally reducing pollution --let alone helping to break our oil addiction. Duh!
As I've said in other posts, CARB should forget about percentages, forget about numbers, and forget about what kind of technology to promote. It simply needs to mandate ZERO-emission ranges up to at least 125 miles. Period. Let the auto manufacturers then develop whatever they think is best to adhere to the standard: EVs, plug-in hybrids, fool-cells, compressed air, flywheels, solar panels --whatever! May the best technology win.
Reply
Karkus 3:45PM (3/31/2008)
CARB isn't really creating the market. They are just encouraging it. Basically, they are looking at what seems reasonable in the future and bumping up the numbers to encourage it.
Lots of people/firms have projected demand and sales for PHEVs. Higher gas prices is creating demand, and better/cheaper LiIon batteries are required to enable mass market PHEV sales. If the battery development doesn't go forward as fast as expected and car makers can't make PHEVs as expected, CARB will just revise their numbers (again).
I wouldn't worry to much about the car makers that aren't currently working on PHEVs - either they will make some, or CARB will change their rules.
Reply
kert 3:54PM (3/31/2008)
So what happened to Nissan Mixim, the EV ? Adding a really small "limp-home" generator/heater to it would make it a PHEV.
I bet Honda could pull a fast PHEV as well.
Reply
Lad 4:37PM (3/31/2008)
Do you remember the last zev requirement was scraped by Governor Wilson because of Big Auto and Big Oil pressure, favors, campaign funding,etc?
Is this a repeat performance from Arnold? I hope not! In the Wilson case, he simply replaced the chairman of the CARB and had the new guy do Big Auto’s bidding. Let’s watch CARB and see if it is also weakened this time around. I’m sure by now people realize that the oil and auto industry is all about who controls the market and that they know that Washington lobbying groups are the coordinators for these industries, It’s the AAM for the auto makers and the API for the oil companies.
I would like to see a non-AAM member become a force in the market. It would be good to see someone challenge the AAM’s control of the market and to move to a truly open marketplace instead of putting up with the slow progress created by the AAM to protect their client’s profits and interest. The AAM and API are special interest operating in their finest fashion to the detriment of our middle-class. No doubt they squeezed CARB on this one.
Reply
Throwback 5:00PM (3/31/2008)
I still don't see how you can "mandate" sales. What happens if a manufacturer doesn't sell the required cars? How is it their fault if they offer the cars and don't get the buyers?
Reply
Mark 6:26PM (3/31/2008)
They should mandate sales of EV's. It'll be just like the last round...the auto companies won't allow people to buy EV's, only lease. And make weird/obscure commercials that won't excite people to buy an EV. Then they'll go to CARB and ask for the required number of EV's to be reduced (again).
The auto industry won't innovate or sell EV's unless they are forced to by some means. Even then, they'll do it kicking and screaming and go to the Federal Government for help in fighting the rules.
Reply
Kardax 6:52PM (3/31/2008)
I'm not so concerned about electric range. It'll become a competitive feature like horsepower or cylinder count. If Car A has 8 miles range and Car B has 20 miles range for a little bit more money, the customer gets to decide which is a better fit for their lifestyle, and weigh the costs against how much gas they'll save.
Reply
what da? 7:41PM (3/31/2008)
I don't know whether it is Truett being inaccurate or CARB but PHEV should be rephrased as ***Plug-in vehicle requirements*** because an EV is a plug-in vehicle so it ought to count as one!
It's ridiculous if it means hybrid plug-ins only. That would actually mean we're going backwards. So technically Nissan is and has been developing a plug-in because all electrics are plug-ins.
This silver lining seems to be quite vague and emphasizes on gas rather than electric vehicles and drivetrains.
We've made another step backwards to go "forward".
Reply
Wildgoosechase73 7:14PM (3/31/2008)
The best way to ensure that ZEV's are sold is for the California State government to mandate that a their fleet purchases match the percentage required. If the cars are too expensive, or do not meet the requirements of government use, how can they mandate that consumers buy them.
Put up or shut up!
Reply
Hmmm 8:07PM (3/31/2008)
This isn't totally true. The automakers will get to chose which way they satisfy the requirements. They were going to have to make 25,000 qualifying ZEV's from 2012 through 2014, now they can chose to make less than that (as low as 7,500) but will have to make multiple more plug-ins as well (as high as 66,000 if they chose the minimum 7,500 all electrics). They can still make 25,000 ZEV's if they choose; they simply have a sliding scale of other options now. It's not predestined that all automakers will definitely pick the minimum 7,500 all electrics and get the rest of their credits from plug-in hybrids. If they can make a cheap enough type III ZEV that earns credits more economically than their PHEV's, they would go with the ZEV.
Reply
Cervus 8:17PM (3/31/2008)
I said it in the last thread on this topic, and Throwback also mentioned it. But it bears repeating.
There is no mandate CARB can proclaim that will actually "create" a market for anything. CARB can't force me to purchase a ZEV of any flavor. End of story. Ergo, sales mandates display a worrying attitude towards consumers ("They'll buy what we tell them to buy.")
No auto company can guarantee they'll meet the mandate. There's no conspiracy at work here. Ultimately, the best way to ensure ZEVs are sold is to produce a vehicle that meets what the consumer wants.
We're not talking about emission controls. We're talking about a whole new type of vehicle, with very different capabilities, maintainance requirements, safety issues, and insurance costs. Auto companies are understandably reluctant to risk losing billions producing vehicles nobody wants to buy.
Reply
Mike Weston 9:23PM (3/31/2008)
I missed the earlier post about their vote since you forgot to file it under EV/Plug-in and I only subscribe to that subset.
I agree with some that a plug-in hybrid with a very short all electric range (or heck, does it even have to have any all electric range?) is a pretty poor substitute. But the large numbers of vehicles if the manufacturers go that way mean that there should be a non-trivial reduction in greenhouse gases.
In other words, it's disappointing, but not as bad as it could have been.
Reply
mike 3:01AM (4/01/2008)
What do you guys mean there's no market for EV's? Did you just start reading this blog this morning? There's a VAST MARKET, there's NO SUPPLY.
There was a BIG market for the EV1, there's a Much Bigger market for the EV1 TODAY.
You've got Global Warming, Anger about 9/11, Energy Independence and China/India buying Oil on World Markets. And the Auto-Industry doesn't see a need for EV's?
If you were CEO would you see a need? I Would, unless I was getting a SUBSTANTIAL portion of my income as a KICKBACK from Big Oil.
Reply
Chris 7:45AM (4/01/2008)
Having the government mandate sales of vehicles is wrong. It is also ignorant. Simply put you are not telling the manufacturer what to build you are telling the consumer what to buy and government does not have that right.
What it will mean is that Californians will pay more for their cars than the rest of the United States. Then again that might be a good thing. Unless your poor that is
Reply
Throwback 8:53AM (4/01/2008)
Mike, perhaps everyone on ABG wants a EV. But if sales of light trucks are anything to go by, people don't necessarily choose fuel efficient cars over trucks now. Half of all new vehicles sold are light trucks. You honestly think most car buyers are looking to inconvenience themselves with having to plug in a EV with a limited range? Where is the proof of that? If there was this mass uprising of car buyers wanting electric vehicles Cali would not have to mandate sales. I keep reading about how most people drive less than 40 miles per day. Where is this number coming from? Does it include people who live in rural America? Does it include people who only drive a few times per week, or not at all? When I lived in NYC I drove only on the weekends, I averaged no more than about 10 miles per day for the week. What is the average commute of people who drive every day? I can tell you in my small town everyone drives everyday to and from work and there are few jobs in town so most people easily exceed 40 miles per day. This may come as a shock but there are millions of Americans who don't live in cities, and don't want to. Should they mandated to do so?
Reply
Whopper 9:55AM (4/01/2008)
Throwback, you have hit the nail on the head. With Prius sales running around 1.5% of the US market, the VAST MARKET seems to be miniscule.
Reply
justin 1:07PM (4/01/2008)
all i want for xmas is an all Electric Outback. how long will i have to wait?
Reply
mike 12:28AM (4/02/2008)
Throwback,
1) Trucks, let's be honest, if you're in a profession that NEEDS a truck( Plumber for example), a Bigger truck can be a better tool. It helps you hold more Inventory( in the truck ), you have a part on hand, you fix the job quicker, and eliminate a trip to a parts broker. I don't begrudge guys that Need trucks ( should be diesels ) if they need them.
2) The rich POSER's, what can you do with people who have personality issues. They need shrinks more then trucks, but if trucks help their mental health, well this is America. Their going to pay the Gas Tax for their mental health
3) Commuters: I could sure use one with a City commute, which gives me poor gas mileage no matter the hyper mile techniques I use. If I get my plugin, then there should be more gas for you and the Chinese. I pull a plug out of my garage, which is more convenient to me then stopping at a gas station. I may need only to charge it up once or twice a week.
4) How can you measure demand for a PLUGIN? There are No Plugin's for sale. Toyota seems to be ramping up production for the 2009 Prius, so, I believe they have a good measure of Plugin demand.
5) China and India, have economic growth of approx. 10% last year. That train may slow down, but it isn't going to stop. Those auto markets are untapped. There is no way you're going to pay less then $4 gas if these markets even approach the size of the US car market. There's no reason to believe they will stop at the size of the US car market. EV's are the ONLY way to go for US and THEM to co-exist.
Reply