Plug In America criticizes CARB loophole that could help BMW with its MINI E
MINI E - click above for high-res image gallery
BMW has gotten a lot of press (some bad) for their MINI E project. Even though the all-electric car comes with a plug, the plug-in advocacy group Plug In America (PIA) has a problem with the way that the Bavarians might be able to get a lot of legislative good will without really putting EVs on the road for good.
PIA released a statement (read it after the jump) that criticizes CARB's loophole that could allow BMW to get as many Zero Emission Vehicle credits for the one-year lease of the electric cars as it would for a standard vehicle production program. PIA's legislative director, Jay Friedland, said that, "CARB is allowing BMW to game the system by accruing the maximum number of ZEV credits with the least amount of effort." Friedland said that lease-only programs are what led to the EV crush-fest in the 1990s, something that long-time PIA members still remember as a real slap in the face. PIA wants BMW to only get the credits if the MINI Es are also offered for sale.
Another criticism of the lease program is that, according to PIA, when the June 30 deadline got closer and closer, BMW began:
dumping dozens of cars into municipal fleets to be leased for only $10 a month, most recently pulling some of those vehicles from retail consumers who had been willing to pay full price and complied with the nearly 8-month process required to get one of the cars.
Not long ago, we heard that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department got a good deal on some MINI Es.
CARB's response was to say that it will look at its regulations next year and that "we've urged BMW to consider extending that one-year lease." Undoubtedly, there will be more to come on this.
Gallery: MINI E
[Source: PIA, Reuters]
UPDATE: typo fixed.
PRESS RELEASE:
PLUG IN AMERICA URGES CALIF. REGULATORS TO CLOSE DAMAGING LOOPHOLE
CARB Loophole, Allowing BMW to Lease its Mini E, Could Stunt EV Proliferation
Plug In America is urging Mary Nichols, chief of California's air board, to close a gaping loophole that could deal a blow to the proliferation of plug-in vehicles just as the federal government is awarding billions of dollars to automakers large and small to advance battery technology.
The California Air Resources Board's Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program has no minimum timeframe for vehicles used for compliance. Therefore, BMW's one-year pilot program consisting of just 500 converted electric Mini Coopers leased at an astonishing $850 per month will earn the same full credit as a standard vehicle production program.
"CARB is allowing BMW to game the system by accruing the maximum number of ZEV credits with the least amount of effort," says Plug In America legislative director Jay Friedland. Previous lease-only programs led to the crushing by automakers of thousands of vehicles in the 1990s, Friedland notes.
"We encourage pilot programs, which get cars on the road and enable valuable early feedback, but in order to receive full credit, these vehicles must be offered for sale," he says.
The ZEV program loophole, which Plug In America denounced before a critical 2008 air board vote, extends through 2011. "CARB had plenty of time to see this coming," Friedland says. "BMW is not the first automaker to take advantage of the loophole, but it should be the last. Consumers should have full access to the fuel efficient cars they are demanding."
Adds Plug In America advisory board member Chelsea Sexton: "This is turning out to be a half-baked, poorly executed program by BMW, who is acting solely for the sake of regulatory compliance. Shame on CARB for allowing it."
BMW's poor planning has caused a host of problems. The first Mini Es were delivered in late May, some six months after BMW's stated delivery date. This delay caused a large percentage of people to drop out of the program. Furthermore, BMW did not have enough proper charging cables manufactured, leaving up to 300 lessees with a minimum 23-hour recharging time. As a result, many drivers are not able to use the vehicle daily.
Meanwhile, in order to meet today's(6/30) deadline for maximum CARB credit, BMW has been dumping dozens of cars into municipal fleets to be leased for only $10 a month, most recently pulling some of those vehicles from retail consumers who had been willing to pay full price and complied with the nearly 8-month process required to get one of the cars.
"We're concerned that this situation won't be seen for what it is-a botched BMW program," Sexton says. "Instead, plug-in vehicles will be perceived as too expensive, problematic and not ready for prime time. BMW's mistakes reflect badly on other car companies, on the technology itself and on the plug-in vehicle movement."
Santa Monica resident Jeff U'Ren is one customer who was dropped from the program, without explanation, the night before he was to take delivery of his Mini E.
"I longed to drive a high performance EV again," says U'Ren, a former GM EV1 driver. "Just having that car on the road is such an important tool to show that EV technology is viable. People continue to think it's way too expensive and impractical."
In contrast to BMW's lease plan, Nissan has announced a late 2010 delivery of 5,000 all-electric vehicles designed from the ground up and offered for sale for between $25,000 and $33,000, before federal tax credits. The Japanese auto company, recently awarded a $1.6-billion loan from the U.S. Dept. of Energy to build a battery plant and modify its existing Tennessee facilities, has also announced that it will deliver hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles in 2012.
The Dept. of Energy also awarded $465-million and $5.9-billion loans to Tesla Motors and Ford, respectively, to make electric and other fuel efficient vehicles.
About Plug In America: Plug In America is leading the nation's plug-in vehicle movement. The nonprofit organization works to accelerate the shift to plug-in vehicles powered by clean, affordable, domestic electricity to reduce our nation's dependence on petroleum and improve the global environment. For more information: http://www.pluginamerica.org.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jpm 8:04PM (7/01/2009)
The CARB group is worthless. Fire them all at once. Get some sensible people in there please.
Reply
Tim 8:44AM (7/02/2009)
Where there is Statist central planning, there will also be rich giant corporations who will make the best use of the loopholes their congressional "friends" place in the legislation for them.
Congress is OWNED by big (not small) business and special interests. Us poor working taxpayers are SCREWED!
Liberals/Progressives/socialists/statists etc. must be stupid, blind or both.
Reply
xyz 4:01AM (7/03/2009)
Man, get a life and put your political BS somewhere else. It sucks.
Tim 9:39AM (7/03/2009)
You seem to like YOUR free speech.
As a typical "progressive", you just don't like OTHER'S free speech.
If you can't stand the heat...
RAN 8:52PM (7/01/2009)
Tim, it's been my experience that liberals and conservatives both want Big Government... they just want it for different reasons. Thus, they're both part of the problem, not the solution.
Reply
Tim 9:29AM (7/02/2009)
Ran,
I understand your confusion; however there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the New Conservatives (NeoCons) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism ) and TRUE Constitutional Conservatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_conservatism
It is BOTH the NeoCons and the Progressive Liberals who have taken over Congress!
YES, you are right. The whole "left-right" argument is a Red Herring! “Left-Right” is a ONE party, 2 headed Federalist Snake and now you know why things NEVER seem to REALLY “change” regardless of which head is singing.
The real argument is WHERE does the power (rights) originate and WHO is in control?
Do you believe that power and rights flow from "the Gov't" or is it "We, the People" who are vested with the power? Read the Constitution, Bill of Rights and ANTI-Federalist papers.
Constitutional Conservatives (Anti-Federalists) believe that rights are Inalienable (not unalienable), because they come from our creator (insert belief system here) and that Gov't can't take them away and WE can not give them away.
Does this sound familiar:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was an Anti-Federalist! He HATED the Oligarchy which they had suffered under for so long.
NeoCons & Liberals/progressives/Socialists/Fascists and other Statists believe that you and I are serfs on gov't property. They are Federalists!
These 2 groups ONLY disagree on where to spend other people's money as the BOTH hate the limitations placed on them by the 9th & 10th Constitutional Amendments, BOTH are Statists and BOTH believe that OUR rights come from Gov't.
The ONLY answer for REAL CHANGE is to return to the Constitutional Limitations on Gov’t!
This is the ONLY way that we can rid ourselves of today’s Crony Capitalism and return to TRUE Free Market Capitalism while we abolish the private “Federal” Reserve bank and return to sound (not fiat) money. If we don’t, we’re doomed to follow the Soviet Union into bankruptcy oblivion. Then what “rights” will the Federalist/Statist Masters allow our children?
Call you your representative and DEMAND that they co-sponsor and Support HR1207 in the house and S604 in the Senate without amendments so that we can finally audit the Fed and find out where the $Trillions of OUR debt created in the last few months is going.
Yanquetino 9:17PM (7/01/2009)
I have posted repeatedly that CARB is little more than a smokescreen tool for some very rich and powerful lobbyists. It the Governator really wanted to board to fulfill its mandate, instead of merely catering to those special interests, he would appoint someone like Chelsea Sexton, Wally Rippel, Tom Gage, or Alec Brooks to counter-balance the hydrogen bias of Dan Sperling. Unless and until he does... don't hold your breath that CARB will ever change.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 9:52PM (7/01/2009)
I think that crush-fest of the 90's actually happened in 2003, but anyway yeah, don't let BMW game the system.
It seems like a very simple rule change for CARB to make sure these vehicles don't disappear after a year.
Reply
Yanquetino 10:18PM (7/01/2009)
Methinks the reason CARB didn't plug that loophole a year ago can be summed up in one word: Clarity.
Reply
lazybones 10:18PM (7/01/2009)
Hmmmm, I can smell a rat with BMW's antics here. Almost sounds a bit like Old GM and the EV1. They just seem to be trying to discredit their own EV product while on the other hand they can't say anything bad about the Hydrogen H7.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 12:25AM (7/02/2009)
Six months delay cause people to drop out of the program of getting an electric car at a substantially discounted lease?
Sounds more like lack of demand to me. Why is lack of customer uptake blamed on logistics here but on GM trying to spike the project with the EV1? It seems a lot more like in both cases it's easier to consider that that perhaps people just don't seem to want it enough.
I would love to see the lease hole in CARB's program closed. We don't need companies gaming the system. And if after closing the loophole companies say they can't afford to make as many electric cars as CARB requires, then CARB must reset their requirements, something they have done often and surely would do again if necessary.
Reply
Ben 1:06AM (7/02/2009)
CARB and BMW are doing moral wrong and both deserve as much respect as the old GM does. If CARB waits to fix a hideous cancer on their face they will look much worse than they do now, regardless of the make-up they use.
Reply
Throwback 9:06AM (7/02/2009)
BMW is morally wrong for following the rules as laid down by CARB? I can't fault BMW for using the rules to their advantage, they did not write the rules.
Throwback 9:07AM (7/02/2009)
BMW is morally wrong for following the rules as laid down by CARB? I can't fault BMW for using the rules to their advantage, they did not write the rules.
jake 1:05AM (7/02/2009)
I wasn't aware these counted for the CARB quota. If this is true, even the Clarity would count. It would make sense to close this loophole.
Reply
Alan 3:54AM (7/02/2009)
They should only get credits for selling EVs that should be obvious. As for 'progressives' being stupid, absolutely, maintaining the status quo is the intelligent stance, down with progress I say! *sarcasm mode off*
Reply
Nick P. 6:08AM (7/02/2009)
It's exactly like IBM when they invented the PC.They did not take it seriously, used parts from third parties (Microsoft) and totally got beaten at their own game by more opportunistic startups from Sillicon Valley (Dell, Compac, HP). By the time they finally turned around, it was too late and they were the laughing stock of the industry.
Their excuse in those days was a fear that sales of that new product would cannibalize their other bigger higher-margin offerings. Also, their salesmen preferred the high-margin products because they made more money, specially on support contracts. The same way dealership car mechanics are afraid of a world where EV cars have less parts to repair.
This is why I think that Tesla is right to operate their own stores: it keeps everybody working toward the same goal.
BMW, we won't get fooled again.
Reply