CARB held its long-awaited meeting on the Zero
Emissions Vehicle Program on March 27. Hundreds
of advocates were there; many spoke and many more
submitted testimony. Having not been able to
attend personally, I've been piecing together the
reports and trying to understand what happened
there. Each person we talk to draws a different
conclusion: some plug-in advocates felt the
conclusion was pre-ordained, others see a gradual
recognition by the Board that we're heading for a
world of plug-in cars no matter what CARB rules.
To shortcut the process of going to the main
sources, below we're including a series of
reports and analyses, some colloquial, some
technical, to help you understand it.


BELOW:
1. CalCars Quick Take
2. CARB Board Summary (not including graphic)
3. Plug In America Statement and Legislative Proposals
4. California Electric Transportation Coalition analysis
5. Google RechargeIt Statement (not including graphic)
6. Wall Street Journal Analysis: implications for the industry
7. Links to other media reports and blogs


1. CALCARS' QUICK TAKE:
Before the event, the staff had proposed a sharp
revision downward for ZEVs from 25,000 to 2,500
during the 2012-2014 timeframe. It appeared from
media reports that most journalists did not
accept the "spin" of saying that the new 7,500
goal tripled the number of ZEVs required.
Instead, they recognized it as a 60% decrease in
the goal. In light of the volume of vehicles we
can expect well before then, from Tesla, Think
Global, Nissan, Mitsubishi and others, this was an inexcusable step backward.

PHEV advocates looked at the new "Silver Plus"
category for PHEV credits and saw this as helping
to give the message to carmakers that government
agencies would be incentivizing PHEvs.

On CalCars' behalf, Senior Adviser Randy
Reisinger delivered a short statement,
specifically saying that we support the positions
of Plug In America, urging a level playing field
rather than the continued unbalanced incentives;
retaining the 25,000 goal and accelerating the
schedule from 2012-2014, creating a separate
category for PHEVs, with credits taken from the
highest-emission vehicles in CARB's regulations,
rather than the cleanest ZEVs, and providing
higher incentives for vehicles that deliver more electric miles.


2. OFFICIAL SUMMARY BY AIR RESOURCES BOARD
The Board's summary and updated fact sheet are at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevprog.htm

Preliminary Summary of Air Resources Board Action (3/27/08)
Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program

- Keep unchanged the requirement that vehicle
manufacturers produce at least 25,000 ZEVs during
2012-14, and 50,000 ZEVs from 2015-17.
- Increase flexibility by providing a new option
to the above requirements. The new option allows
manufacturers in 2012-14 to produce a greater
number of plug hybrid electric vehicles (58,000)
or similar vehicles if 7,500 pure ZEVs are also
produced. In 2015-17 25,000 pure ZEVs would be
required if this option is taken.
- Depending on which option is taken, the range
of vehicles expected to be produced in 2012-14
will be 25,000 to 66,000. The previous requirement was 25,000.
- Increase the credit for long range FCVs from 5
to 7 credits and redefine long range to 300 miles.

[see PDF for numerical table and footnotes]

- Redesign the ZEV program by the end of 2009 so
it will affect the 2015+ model years. The
redesign should place the bronze requirement
(super-clean conventional vehicles) in the LEV
program to further reduce smog emissions, the
silver requirement (regular hybrids such as the
Prius, and natural gas vehicles) in the Pavley
program to reduce GHG emissions in the near term,
and greatly strengthen the gold requirement to
meet the need of moving advanced, low GHG
technology vehicles from the laboratory and
demonstration phase to commercialization, where
they are critical to achieving the Governor's GHG emission reduction goals.
- Make the credit banks of manufacturers fully
transparent, including trades, beginning in model year 2010.
- Do not revise the Intermediate Volume
Manufacturer transition, which provides six years
lead time before becoming subject to the ZEV
requirements for a large volume manufacturer.

In the 15 day comment period,
o Consider additional credit for plug HEVs that
can drive the US06 cycle on electricity. One to
three tenths of a credit is the possible change.
o Review the comments of the Union and Concerned
Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (March 26, 2008) regarding potential
changes to the regulations, and propose revisions
in the 15 day process if appropriate.
o Consider applying a multiplier to battery
electric vehicle credits earned in 2009-11 that
are used to meet non-gold obligations for
Intermediate Volume Manufacturers, in order to
assure there is not a disincentive to produce gold vehicles.

Other actions:
o Develop a program which would assure the
availability of alternative fuels needed by
ZEVs. Return to the Board with regulations, as appropriate.
o Consider in the redesign of the program the
metric for determining performance of plug HEVs
(electric range vs usable battery energy).



3. PLUG IN AMERICA
PIA http://www.pluginamerica.com/ led the
campaign to strengthen the ZEV Mandate, You can
read its response to the staff recommendations
(which CalCars endorsed) at
http://www.pluginamerica.com/PIA_ISOR_Response.pdf
. Below are its press statement and its policy
memo (both available at
http://www.pluginamerica.com/press.shtm in html and PDF):

PLUG IN AMERICA PRESS STATEMENT
California Regulators Eviscerate Clean-Car Mandate Again -- a 70% Drop

March 27, 2008: Today the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) revised its Zero Emission
Vehicle (ZEV) Program, eliminating 70% of
previous requirements to produce zero-emission vehicles in 2012-2014.

Plug In America calls on California legislators
to take over the charge of a pollution-free
future in the wake of air regulators' shameful
weakening of the ZEV Program. CARB voted to
require automakers to produce only 5,357
zero-emission vehicles in 2012-2014 while it
considers a major overhaul of all clean-car
regulations in the state. The new regulations
require less than an average of 297 zero-emission
vehicles per year per automaker, which is a 70%
drop from the previous regulations, and results
in a loss of at least 18,000 plug-in hybrids in the same period.

Plug In America's efforts over the past several
years to educate CARB staff and its members
produced several minor improvements in CARB's
revision of the ZEV Program. Plug In America
supporters added their influence in recent weeks,
during which citizens from all 50 U.S. states and
20 other countries contacted CARB and California
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, clamoring for cars that can run on electricity.

Highlights of today's revisions to the ZEV Program include:

* CARB rejected the staff's proposal to shrink
the number of ZEVs required of automakers in
2012-2014 from 25,000 down to 2,500 vehicles, and
instead set the target at 5,357 vehicles -- an
improvement from the low numbers staff proposed,
yet only 70% of current regulations.

* CARB continued its favoritism toward
million-dollar hydrogen vehicles over more
realistic battery electric vehicles. Under the
new regulations, automakers would have to make at
least two battery electric vehicles to get the
same credits as one hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle --
which dissuades automakers from producing the
battery-electric vehicles that consumers would
like to drive. CARB gives more credit for the
least viable technology -- hydrogen -- at the
expense of more affordable, technologically ready battery electric vehicles.

* CARB heard our demand for full transparency in
reporting how automakers meet the regulations, so
that the public can verify compliance.

Plug In America's campaign brought national
attention to the demand for vehicles that run on
cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity. At the
group's request, former CIA Director R. James
Woolsey testified at the CARB meeting on the
wastefulness of diverting resources to hydrogen
fuel-cell programs and the need to get plug-in
cars on the road soon in order to reduce U.S.
dependence on oil and to increase national
security. Former Secretary of State George Shultz
and former Deputy Under Secretary of Education
Peter R. Greer, both of whom served under
President Ronald Reagan, wrote to Gov.
Schwarzenegger imploring him to help get more electric vehicles on the market.

"As the only organization truly focused on
battery electric vehicles, we brought electric
cars back into the debate by bringing our
concerns to the CARB staff and board, and to the
press and the public," said Plug In America Executive Director Chelsea Sexton.

"We've got more to do," she added. Plug In
America will seek legislative assistance to close
the gaps in CARB's plan. "Judicious use of the
$120 million per year to be allocated under AB118
for the commercialization of alternative fuels
and efficient vehicle technologies could help
jump-start the drive toward plug-in vehicles that
stalled with CARB at the wheel today."

Plug In America, a non-profit, advocates the use
of plug-in vehicles powered by cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity.

PLUG IN AMERICA POLICY MEMO
Legislative Steps Needed Toward Zero-Emission Vehicles
Today the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
revised its Zero Emission Vehicle Program and
weakened the state's drive toward affordable, gasoline-free cars.

March 27, 2008: Plug In America today calls on
California legislators to take over the charge of
a pollution-free future in the wake of air
regulators' shameful weakening of the ZEV
Program. CARB voted to require automakers to
produce only 5,357 zero-emission vehicles in
2012-2014 (fewer than an average of 397
zero-emission vehicles per year per automaker,
and a 70% drop from the previous regulations)
while CARB considers a major overhaul of all
clean-car regulations in the state.

California State Legislators can help fill the
gap while CARB deliberates. Plug In America calls
on lawmakers to take the following actions:

* Fund creation of a Battery Electric Vehicle
Partnership, similar to the Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Partnership, to promote electric cars and plug-in hybrids.

"Electrification of the vehicle fleet is the only
way the state will meet its 2020 and 2050 goals
for greenhouse gas reduction," said Plug In
America Executive Director Chelsea Sexton. This
transition could be accelerated by providing
incentives for consumers and vehicle
manufacturers and by setting standards for
vehicle fleets. Both of these strategies can be
accomplished through judicious use of AB118
funds, which include $120 million/year to be
allocated toward commercialization of alternative
fuels and efficient vehicle technologies.

* Pass legislation to require both public and
private fleets to buy efficient vehicles that
save money in the long run. Like compact
fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), the up-front cost
is higher, but greater efficiency guarantees cost
savings in the long run. Push fleets to follow
the cost-efficient path, and offer financial
assistance in the early years, if needed, as
fleet owners adjust to the new regulation.

* Provide state assistance (perhaps some of the
AB118 funds) to partner with either consumers or
automakers and remove some of the risk associated
with state-of-the-art car batteries. State
regulations require a 15-year or 150,000-mile
warranty on hybrid batteries. Plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles can get 100+ miles per gallon
using newer lithium-ion batteries, but these
batteries have not been on the market long enough
to meet the current 15-year warranty, which is
delaying introduction of plug-in hybrids. The
state could offer an "insurance" program for
batteries beyond the first 7 years of use at very
little financial risk to the state, giving
automakers and consumers the confidence to move
forward. The program could sunset in a few years
once the longevity of lithium batteries is established.

* Shift funding from programs to establish
hydrogen fueling stations to programs
incentivizing battery electric vehicles and
plug-in hybrids. Hydrogen fuel-cell cars will not
be commercialized for decades, if ever, and so
won't be ready in time to deal with global
warming, while plug-in vehicles could be
commercialized today. Funds currently being spent
on hydrogen are a waste in this regard,
especially in a period of state budget
limitations, because they weaken the state's
ability to move toward more-viable plug-in vehicles.

"Plug In America looks forward to working with
California legislators to support the development
of electric-drive vehicles" in order to help the
state meet its goals of reducing greenhouse
gases, reducing air pollution, and reducing petroleum use," Sexton said.

Plug In America, a non-profit, advocates the use
of plug-in vehicles powered by cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity.


4. CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION COALITION ANALYSIS
CalETC develops and analyzes policies for many of
the state's major utilities. It's been a
long-time supporter of PHEVs. This is a report by
its Executive Director, Dave Modisette, one of a
handful of people outside the Air Resources Board
who fully understands the "ZEV credits maze,"
gets very specifc and numerical quickly.

CALETC HIGHLIGHTS:
A. Compliance flexibility so that major
automakers make small but significant numbers of
PHEVs by 2012 with incentives for them to make
them earlier. There are also incentives for
"stronger" PHEVs that have more all-electric range.

B. A re-design of the ZEV program next year,
with conventional hybrids and gasoline vehicles
moving out of the program, leaving only "Gold"
vehicles, which will be defined as BEV, FCV, and
PHEVs (note PHEVs into gold). Direction from the
Board is that the re-designed program has to be
at least as stringent as proposed in the staff
report, which in the 2015-2017 timeframe was is
25,000 FCVs or BEVs (minimum) and 83,000 PHEVs.

C. Getting automakers to work on BEVs again and
produce small numbers. Some companies have
already announced BEV product plans.

CALETC DETAIL:

What happened at the ARB hearing today on
ZEVs? As with everything ZEV, it's complex. So let me try to translate it:

The newspaper reports tomorrow will say that the
Board cut the pure-ZEVs by 70% in the 2012-2014
timeframe, from 25,000 FCVs down to 7,500 (or
lower for some FCVs). This is technically
correct but there is much more too this. And the
7,500 figure is about 3 times higher than the
staff proposal of 2,500 FCVs during this time period.

1. The ARB Board agreed to a "complete overhaul"
of the ZEV program, going forward. This probably
means beginning with the 2015 year. They
directed staff to develop this proposal by the
end of next year. This would incorporate the 3
goals of: GHG reduction; criterial pollutant
reduction; and petroleum reduction. So this is
good for us because electricity gets large
reductions in all three of these categories.
Sperling proposed, and the Board adopted, the
general framework of: (1) Bronze (PZEV) vehicles
get spun out of ZEV and into the LEV III
proceeding dealing with general criterial
pollutant reduction standards for all
automobiles; (2) Silver (ATPZEV) vehicles get
spun out of ZEV and into the AB 1493 (Pavley)
regs for GHG reduction; and (3) what is left in
Gold (pure-ZEV) would be BEVs, FCVs, and
PHEVs. Note that they have relented and are
agreeing to put PHEVs into Gold. So the new ZEV
category would be just these 3 technologies. The
goal of the new ZEV program, according to the
Board, would be to be as aggressive as in the
staff proposal, which in the 2015-2017 timeframe
was 25,000 FCVs or BEVs (minimum) and 83,000 PHEVs.

2. As mentioned above, the ARB Board increased
the number of pure-ZEVs (gold) vehicles during
the 2012-2014 timeframe from the staff-proposed
number of 2,500 (FCVs) to 7,500, but the actual
number of vehicles varies by type (as explained
below). The Board also agreed to increase
credits for FCVs that get 300+ miles range, up
from 4 credits for a FCV that gets less than 200
miles range (and probably now changed to less
than 300 miles range), to 7 credits (wow!) for an
FCV that gets 300 miles range or more. So if
OEMs made all of their pure gold requirements
(7,500 vehicles) in FCVs with 300 miles range
they would only have to make 5,357 FCVs (still a
lot). And if you want to know about the other
eligible vehicles in this category, if OEMs made
all Full Full Function BEVs (over 100 mile range;
Type 2) to meet this pure gold requirement it
would be about 12,500 BEVs. If all BEVs with
75-99 range (Type 1.5) it would be 14,800
vehicles. If all BEVs with 50-74 miles range
(type 1) it would be 18,750 vehicles. And if
all FCVs will less than 300 miles range, the
number would probably be around 9,375.

So what does this all mean? I think it probably
means that OEMs will try to figure out how many
FCVs they would have to make if they could make
ones that got over 300 miles range (and get the
large 7 credits per vehicle). If these are too
expensive, then I think they might go to some or
all BEVs for compliance. We have already heard
that Nissan will probably go all BEVs for
compliance. So the upshot here may be that we
get some pure BEVs that we may not have been expecting.

3. One consequence of the way the ARB staff has
proposed to treat the "Enhanced ATPZEV" vehicles
(which is assumed to be PHEV) is that they are
"backfill" to the pure ZEV numbers; so if pure
ZEV is increased as the Board directed, than
Enhanced ATPZEV is automatically decreased. And
this is what appears to be happening with the ARB
adopted proposal: Enhanced ATPZEV in 2012-2014
went from 75,000 PHEVs (approx blended 20 mile
EAER; 1.5 credits per vehicle) to 58,333. So
this is a decrease of about 16,667 PHEVs over this 3 year period.

4. The ARB Board also voted to increase
credits for PHEVs that can meet the federal US 06
driving cycle test using all electric range alone
(like the Chevy Volt). The Board also voted to
leave the requirements intact for automakers that
are "Intermediate Volume Manufacturers", and not
give them any additional breaks. And the Board
voted to include credit trading information in
the ZEV credit information to be made public in 2010.

5. Where do things go from here? ARB staff will
re-write the proposed regulations based upon the
Board's decision today, and issue the new draft
regulations for "15-day comment". Just like it
sounds, parties will have 15 days to comment (in
writing) on the new draft regs. Based upon these
comments, ARB will either modify the draft (and
then submit the modified regulations for another
15-day comment period), or finalize the regs and
submit them to the Office of Administrative Law for review.


5. GOOGLE.ORG'S RECHARGEIT ANALYSIS

California Air Resources Board Hearing on the ZEV Program
Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 2:33 PM
http://rechargeit.blogspot.com/2008/04/california-air-resources-board-hearing.ht\
ml
Posted by Adam Borelli, Adam Smith, Alec
Proudfoot, and Rolf Schreiber, RechargeIT Team

On March 27th the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) met to discuss the Zero Emission Vehicle
(ZEV) Program. Prior to last Thursday's meeting,
members of our RechargeIT Team met with each
Board Member, submitted a public comment, and
posted a blog post to inform the public and key
stakeholders that we feel the ZEV Program is key
policy to the deployment of less polluting
vehicles and has a few areas where we recommend
some improvements. Adam Smith, our Steward for
Good Energy, also gave a presentation at the meeting on our position.

This post is just a first response to last week's
hearing - please look for more information as we
continue to sort out the details. Google.org is
largely supportive of CARB's decision. CARB was
right in increasing the floor of pure ZEVs --
battery electric and fuel cell vehicles --
compared to the Staff recommendations, by adding
plug-in hybrids to to mix, and by revamping the
entire ZEV Program. Next year CARB plans to vote
on simplifying the ZEV program to focus it on
pure ZEVs and plug-in hybrids for the 2015 model
year and beyond, while moving the maturing
technologies of regular hybrids and PZEVs to the
Pavley II and LEV III programs.

The Outcome (in brief)
1. Decrease number of ZEVs by 70% to 7,500
2. Create a new category for PHEVs with 10 mile
all electric range and require automakers sell 58,333
3. Create automaker credit transparency
4. Travel provision modifications made; we are not sure what they are yet
5. Overhaul ZEV Program after 2014

The following is an overview of the program, its
history and changes for the period under
discussion -- 2012 to 2014 -- at the CARB
hearing. We want to preface this table by saying
that we are not 100% clear on the precise
decision that CARB made on Thursday, but we will
clarify and comment on the exact decision once
the meeting transcript is available. Until then,
we wanted to be sure to share the outcome, as we
understood it, with you. It is challenging to
display all the information we want in this
table, especially with the "ZEV Program Prior to
March 27, 2008". In this column, the "Pure Zero
Emission Vehicles" only addresses what is called
the Alternative or Alt Path. This is a pathway
for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles, but not BEVs or PHEVs.

[See original URL for graphic table]

Dan Sperling, a Board Member, proposed that the
ZEV Program be broken into the three different
programs after 2014: LEV III for the current
bronze or PZEV vehicles, Pavley II for the PHEVs,
and the ZEV Program for FCVs and BEVs. This
structure will be proposed by Staff by the end of 2009.

[also see
http://rechargeit.blogspot.com/2008/03/californias-zev-program.html
for recommendations before the hearing]



6. WALL STREET JOURNAL
This report by one of the leading automotive
journalists, which we expect will appear in the
Tuesday print edition of the newspaper, calls the
PHEV campaign "a victory for the technological
insurgents who pushed the plug-in concept over
Detroit and Nagoya's objections." Who could ask
for more recognition of the impact of the PHEV campaign on the auto industry.

EYES ON THE ROAD
By JOSEPH B. WHITE -- Senior Editor, Wall Street Journal April 7, 2008
Getting All the Carbon Out of Cars
California's Embrace of Plug-in Hybrids Shows How Hard Zero Emissions Really Is
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120733236876290335.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Plug-in hybrid cars, once the domain of tech
enthusiasts and tinkerers, just got a big boost
toward the mainstream from the State of California.

But the latest move by the state's regulators to
push plug-in hybrids into the market also
highlights the difficulty of taking all of the carbon out of cars.

CAPTION: A Toyota Prius modified to be a plug-in hybrid [by Hymotion]

Plug-in hybrids, essentially gas-electric cars
modified to run in all electric mode for a
significant portion of a daily commute, have made
the journey from the auto industry's fringes in
near record time. Just a couple of years ago,
Toyota Motor Corp. was discouraging people from
modifying its Prius hybrids so that the batteries
could be recharged from a wall outlet. Other car
makers dismissed plug-ins as the answer to the
question: "How could anyone make a gas-electric
hybrid more impractical and costly?"

Then, gas prices shot up, consumers began
clamoring for better fuel efficiency, and minds
began to open. General Motors Corp. got such an
enthusiastic response to a plug-in hybrid show
car called the Chevy Volt, that it decided to put
the car into production ­ and feature it heavily
in advertising. Toyota's engineers remain wary of
the potential technical problems of the
lithium-ion batteries needed to make a plug-in
hybrid go. But Toyota decided to go with the
flow, announcing it plans to field a test fleet
of plug-in hybrids by 2010 for tightly controlled use in fleets.

Readers, over to you: Has California made the
right decision in pushing for plug-in hybrids
instead of true zero-emission cars? Discuss.
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=2029&autoredirect=true&sid=71e58def09b\
d88ee4974b9b4e7a3702e
In addition to discussion, here's how the poll
looked from responses Sunday night-Monday morning:
POLL: Total Votes : 235
Has California made the right decision in pushing
for plug-in hybrids instead of true zero-emission cars?
110 (46%) Yes, plug-ins are good enough.
79 (34%) No, they took a shortcut.
46 (20%) Who cares? I'm not giving up on gasoline.


Last week, California's Air Resources Board,
which sets clean air and auto emissions rules for
the state, declared that by 2012-2014, they want
the "Big Six" car makers to produce at least
58,333 plug-in hybrid vehicles, along with up to
7,500 "pure zero-emission vehicles" --
essentially fuel-cell vehicles or hydrogen fueled
combustion cars such as the BMW Hydrogen 7 -- or
12,500 battery-electric vehicles with a range of
at least 100 miles. (Read summary PDF)

This decision to anoint plug-in hybrids as an
acceptable alternative to pure zero-emission
vehicles dismayed some environmental groups. But
it satisfied some car makers -- mainly GM and
Toyota -- because now they can concentrate on the
plug-in models they already have in development.
(Car makers such as Ford Motor Co., Honda Motor
Co. and Nissan Motor Corp. which haven't put much
focus on plug ins could face a challenge, or
could comply with fuel cell and all-electric vehicles.)

So mark down a victory for the technological
insurgents who pushed the plug-in concept over
Detroit and Nagoya's objections. But it's a long way from the end of the war.

Even if car makers produce nearly 66,000 advanced
technology vehicles by the 2012-14 deadline (and
they have blown all the previous deadlines) the
number of clean-technology cars on the road will
be a rounding error against California's total
population of vehicles, which is nearly 20 million cars and trucks.

There are more unanswered questions. Where will
car makers get hydrogen for fuel cell or hydrogen
internal-combustion vehicles? How will the state
manage the surge in electricity demand if plug-in
hybrid owners recharge their cars during the peak
daytime and evening hours? Will someone develop a
payment system that would allow someone to
plug-in a car at a friend's house without
sticking the friend with the tab? What if it
turns out that plug-in hybrids really aren't a
great idea -- because the battery technology
required doesn't get perfected, for instance?

California regulators acknowledged their own
uncertainty about how best to proceed in their
quest for clean cars by directing their staff to
consider a potentially wide-ranging revamp of
their zero-emission vehicle program by the end of next year.

California's drive for clean air has had an
enormous effect on the auto industry during the
past 30 to 40 years. Appalled by the thick smog
that enveloped the Los Angeles basin during the
1960s and 1970s, California effectively became a
sovereign nation when it comes to automotive
regulation. California demanded that auto makers
act to dramatically reduce the soot, oxides of
nitrogen and other pollutants that contributed to
the state's foul air. When auto makers complained
that they didn't have the technology to meet the
state's demands, California told them to quit whining and invent it.

Which the auto makers did, and they have
continued to do. The average new vehicle is now
98% cleaner, in terms of smog-forming emissions,
than it was in 1963, because of the broad
application of catalytic converters and more
efficient fuel and combustion management
technology. The transformation of cars into
four-wheeled computers is an evolution for which
you can largely thank (or blame) California's
refusal to take Detroit's no for an answer.

General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz introduces
the Chevrolet Volt electric concept at the North
American International Auto Show in January 2007.

The number of dangerous smog alerts in Southern
California has dropped to just one or two year,
compared to roughly 180 days a year in the
mid-1970s, says Gennet Paauwe, a spokeswoman for
the California Air Resources Board, the state's
main clean air regulator. California's
achievement has made it a model for environmental
policy around the world. Representatives of
China's big, smog-choked metropolises are
reaching out to California regulators for advice.

But now, California is wrestling with a far more
difficult challenge, somewhat akin to getting
that last 1% or 2% of caffeine out of a cup of coffee.

Last week's embrace of plug-in hybrids was, in
effect, part of a long retreat from the state's
original, 1990 goal that 10% of the cars sold in
California by 2003 would be zero emissions vehicles.

Scrubbing 98% of the noxious by-products out of a
car's stream of exhaust gases was tough.
Eliminating entirely the contribution cars make
to the load of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
requires far more than forcing the installation
of traps and filters and fuel injectors. It
requires a ground up transformation of the
concept of personal mobility, as well as
substantial investments in fueling infrastructure
and, perhaps, power generation that go well beyond America's big auto makers.



7. OTHER MEDIA REPORTS (WE MISSED MANY OTHERS)
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/california-air.html
Green Car Congress provides an excellent overview

http://www.evworld.com/general.cfm?page=insider&title=INSIDER%20COMMENTARIES
EVWorld Insider Commentary by Bill Moore (subscription required)

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/the-california.html
California Cuts ZEV Mandate In Favor of Plug-In Hybrids
Wired Blog By Chuck Squatriglia

http://blogs.edmunds.com/GreenCarAdvisor/344?@151.2gVkcjVfxtu@
California ZEV Rule Revised, To Satisfaction of Few
Edmunds Green Car Advisor By John O'Dell, Senior Editor

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aHghe3yr_lpU&refer=japan
California Auto-Emissions Plan Favors Plug-In Hybrids (Update1)
Bloomberg News By Alan Ohnsman

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/03/on_reducing_zer.html
On Reducing Zero Emission Vehicles in California, What's Up With This?
Callifornia Progress Report By Alan Kandel

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Felix Kramer fkramer@...
Founder California Cars Initiative
http://www.calcars.org
http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --