From fkramer@... Mon Apr 07 14:19:29 2008
Return-Path: <fkramer@...>
Received: (qmail 21923 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2008 20:59:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.67.95)
by m53.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Apr 2008 20:59:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n44d.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com) (66.163.169.158)
by mta16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2008 20:59:13 -0000
Received: from [216.252.122.216] by n44.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2008 20:59:13 -0000
Received: from [66.218.69.5] by t1.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2008 20:59:13 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.77] by t5.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2008 20:59:13 -0000
X-Sender: fkramer@...
X-Apparently-To: calcars-news@yahoogroups.com
X-Received: (qmail 64198 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2008 20:28:46 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.94)
by m57.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Apr 2008 20:28:46 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO nlpi015.prodigy.net) (207.115.36.44)
by mta15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2008 20:28:45 -0000
X-ORBL: [209.233.16.121]
X-Received: from Felix04Laptop.calcars.org (adsl-209-233-16-121.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [209.233.16.121])
by nlpi015.prodigy.net (8.13.8 out.dk.spool/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m37KSaM5008065
for <calcars-news@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:28:37 -0500
Message-Id: <200804072028.m37KSaM5008065@...>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:28:27 -0700
To: "calcars-news-yahoogroups.com" <calcars-news@yahoogroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: 207.115.36.44
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0
From: Felix Kramer <fkramer@...>
Subject: What Happened at CA Air Resources Board on ZEV? You Decide!
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=163771593; y=Ge6v9fyhCIKxi2MM5pTkm0gPN5MEFoND0_NLTRtid-QcZymaMf1r
X-Yahoo-Profile: felixkramery
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-system
X-eGroups-Approved-By: felixkramery <fkramer@...> via web; 07 Apr 2008 20:59:13 -0000
CARB held its long-awaited meeting on the Zero=20
Emissions Vehicle Program on March 27. Hundreds=20
of advocates were there; many spoke and many more=20
submitted testimony. Having not been able to=20
attend personally, I've been piecing together the=20
reports and trying to understand what happened=20
there. Each person we talk to draws a different=20
conclusion: some plug-in advocates felt the=20
conclusion was pre-ordained, others see a gradual=20
recognition by the Board that we're heading for a=20
world of plug-in cars no matter what CARB rules.=20
To shortcut the process of going to the main=20
sources, below we're including a series of=20
reports and analyses, some colloquial, some=20
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=20
revision downward for ZEVs from 25,000 to 2,500=20
during the 2012-2014 timeframe. It appeared from=20
media reports that most journalists did not=20
accept the "spin" of saying that the new 7,500=20
goal tripled the number of ZEVs required.=20
Instead, they recognized it as a 60% decrease in=20
the goal. In light of the volume of vehicles we=20
can expect well before then, from Tesla, Think=20
Global, Nissan, Mitsubishi and others, this was an inexcusable step backwar=
d.
PHEV advocates looked at the new "Silver Plus"=20
category for PHEV credits and saw this as helping=20
to give the message to carmakers that government=20
agencies would be incentivizing PHEvs.
On CalCars' behalf, Senior Adviser Randy=20
Reisinger delivered a short statement,=20
specifically saying that we support the positions=20
of Plug In America, urging a level playing field=20
rather than the continued unbalanced incentives;=20
retaining the 25,000 goal and accelerating the=20
schedule from 2012-2014, creating a separate=20
category for PHEVs, with credits taken from the=20
highest-emission vehicles in CARB's regulations,=20
rather than the cleanest ZEVs, and providing=20
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=20
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=20
manufacturers produce at least 25,000 ZEVs during=20
2012-14, and 50,000 ZEVs from 2015-17.
- Increase flexibility by providing a new option=20
to the above requirements. The new option allows=20
manufacturers in 2012-14 to produce a greater=20
number of plug hybrid electric vehicles (58,000)=20
or similar vehicles if 7,500 pure ZEVs are also=20
produced. In 2015-17 25,000 pure ZEVs would be=20
required if this option is taken.
- Depending on which option is taken, the range=20
of vehicles expected to be produced in 2012-14=20
will be 25,000 to 66,000. The previous requirement was 25,000.
- Increase the credit for long range FCVs from 5=20
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=20
it will affect the 2015+ model years. The=20
redesign should place the bronze requirement=20
(super-clean conventional vehicles) in the LEV=20
program to further reduce smog emissions, the=20
silver requirement (regular hybrids such as the=20
Prius, and natural gas vehicles) in the Pavley=20
program to reduce GHG emissions in the near term,=20
and greatly strengthen the gold requirement to=20
meet the need of moving advanced, low GHG=20
technology vehicles from the laboratory and=20
demonstration phase to commercialization, where=20
they are critical to achieving the Governor's GHG emission reduction goals.
- Make the credit banks of manufacturers fully=20
transparent, including trades, beginning in model year 2010.
- Do not revise the Intermediate Volume=20
Manufacturer transition, which provides six years=20
lead time before becoming subject to the ZEV=20
requirements for a large volume manufacturer.
In the 15 day comment period,
o Consider additional credit for plug HEVs that=20
can drive the US06 cycle on electricity. One to=20
three tenths of a credit is the possible change.
o Review the comments of the Union and Concerned=20
Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense=20
Council (March 26, 2008) regarding potential=20
changes to the regulations, and propose revisions=20
in the 15 day process if appropriate.
o Consider applying a multiplier to battery=20
electric vehicle credits earned in 2009-11 that=20
are used to meet non-gold obligations for=20
Intermediate Volume Manufacturers, in order to=20
assure there is not a disincentive to produce gold vehicles.
Other actions:
o Develop a program which would assure the=20
availability of alternative fuels needed by=20
ZEVs. Return to the Board with regulations, as appropriate.
o Consider in the redesign of the program the=20
metric for determining performance of plug HEVs=20
(electric range vs usable battery energy).
3. PLUG IN AMERICA
PIA http://www.pluginamerica.com/ led the=20
campaign to strengthen the ZEV Mandate, You can=20
read its response to the staff recommendations=20
(which CalCars endorsed) at=20
http://www.pluginamerica.com/PIA_ISOR_Response.pdf=20
. Below are its press statement and its policy=20
memo (both available at=20
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=20
Resources Board (CARB) revised its Zero Emission=20
Vehicle (ZEV) Program, eliminating 70% of=20
previous requirements to produce zero-emission vehicles in 2012-2014.
Plug In America calls on California legislators=20
to take over the charge of a pollution-free=20
future in the wake of air regulators' shameful=20
weakening of the ZEV Program. CARB voted to=20
require automakers to produce only 5,357=20
zero-emission vehicles in 2012-2014 while it=20
considers a major overhaul of all clean-car=20
regulations in the state. The new regulations=20
require less than an average of 297 zero-emission=20
vehicles per year per automaker, which is a 70%=20
drop from the previous regulations, and results=20
in a loss of at least 18,000 plug-in hybrids in the same period.
Plug In America's efforts over the past several=20
years to educate CARB staff and its members=20
produced several minor improvements in CARB's=20
revision of the ZEV Program. Plug In America=20
supporters added their influence in recent weeks,=20
during which citizens from all 50 U.S. states and=20
20 other countries contacted CARB and California=20
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=20
the number of ZEVs required of automakers in=20
2012-2014 from 25,000 down to 2,500 vehicles, and=20
instead set the target at 5,357 vehicles -- an=20
improvement from the low numbers staff proposed,=20
yet only 70% of current regulations.
* CARB continued its favoritism toward=20
million-dollar hydrogen vehicles over more=20
realistic battery electric vehicles. Under the=20
new regulations, automakers would have to make at=20
least two battery electric vehicles to get the=20
same credits as one hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle --=20
which dissuades automakers from producing the=20
battery-electric vehicles that consumers would=20
like to drive. CARB gives more credit for the=20
least viable technology -- hydrogen -- at the=20
expense of more affordable, technologically ready battery electric vehicles=
.
* CARB heard our demand for full transparency in=20
reporting how automakers meet the regulations, so=20
that the public can verify compliance.
Plug In America's campaign brought national=20
attention to the demand for vehicles that run on=20
cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity. At the=20
group's request, former CIA Director R. James=20
Woolsey testified at the CARB meeting on the=20
wastefulness of diverting resources to hydrogen=20
fuel-cell programs and the need to get plug-in=20
cars on the road soon in order to reduce U.S.=20
dependence on oil and to increase national=20
security. Former Secretary of State George Shultz=20
and former Deputy Under Secretary of Education=20
Peter R. Greer, both of whom served under=20
President Ronald Reagan, wrote to Gov.=20
Schwarzenegger imploring him to help get more electric vehicles on the mark=
et.
"As the only organization truly focused on=20
battery electric vehicles, we brought electric=20
cars back into the debate by bringing our=20
concerns to the CARB staff and board, and to the=20
press and the public," said Plug In America Executive Director Chelsea Sext=
on.
"We've got more to do," she added. Plug In=20
America will seek legislative assistance to close=20
the gaps in CARB's plan. "Judicious use of the=20
$120 million per year to be allocated under AB118=20
for the commercialization of alternative fuels=20
and efficient vehicle technologies could help=20
jump-start the drive toward plug-in vehicles that=20
stalled with CARB at the wheel today."
Plug In America, a non-profit, advocates the use=20
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)=20
revised its Zero Emission Vehicle Program and=20
weakened the state's drive toward affordable, gasoline-free cars.
March 27, 2008: Plug In America today calls on=20
California legislators to take over the charge of=20
a pollution-free future in the wake of air=20
regulators' shameful weakening of the ZEV=20
Program. CARB voted to require automakers to=20
produce only 5,357 zero-emission vehicles in=20
2012-2014 (fewer than an average of 397=20
zero-emission vehicles per year per automaker,=20
and a 70% drop from the previous regulations)=20
while CARB considers a major overhaul of all=20
clean-car regulations in the state.
California State Legislators can help fill the=20
gap while CARB deliberates. Plug In America calls=20
on lawmakers to take the following actions:
* Fund creation of a Battery Electric Vehicle=20
Partnership, similar to the Hydrogen Fuel Cell=20
Partnership, to promote electric cars and plug-in hybrids.
"Electrification of the vehicle fleet is the only=20
way the state will meet its 2020 and 2050 goals=20
for greenhouse gas reduction," said Plug In=20
America Executive Director Chelsea Sexton. This=20
transition could be accelerated by providing=20
incentives for consumers and vehicle=20
manufacturers and by setting standards for=20
vehicle fleets. Both of these strategies can be=20
accomplished through judicious use of AB118=20
funds, which include $120 million/year to be=20
allocated toward commercialization of alternative=20
fuels and efficient vehicle technologies.
* Pass legislation to require both public and=20
private fleets to buy efficient vehicles that=20
save money in the long run. Like compact=20
fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), the up-front cost=20
is higher, but greater efficiency guarantees cost=20
savings in the long run. Push fleets to follow=20
the cost-efficient path, and offer financial=20
assistance in the early years, if needed, as=20
fleet owners adjust to the new regulation.
* Provide state assistance (perhaps some of the=20
AB118 funds) to partner with either consumers or=20
automakers and remove some of the risk associated=20
with state-of-the-art car batteries. State=20
regulations require a 15-year or 150,000-mile=20
warranty on hybrid batteries. Plug-in hybrid=20
electric vehicles can get 100+ miles per gallon=20
using newer lithium-ion batteries, but these=20
batteries have not been on the market long enough=20
to meet the current 15-year warranty, which is=20
delaying introduction of plug-in hybrids. The=20
state could offer an "insurance" program for=20
batteries beyond the first 7 years of use at very=20
little financial risk to the state, giving=20
automakers and consumers the confidence to move=20
forward. The program could sunset in a few years=20
once the longevity of lithium batteries is established.
* Shift funding from programs to establish=20
hydrogen fueling stations to programs=20
incentivizing battery electric vehicles and=20
plug-in hybrids. Hydrogen fuel-cell cars will not=20
be commercialized for decades, if ever, and so=20
won't be ready in time to deal with global=20
warming, while plug-in vehicles could be=20
commercialized today. Funds currently being spent=20
on hydrogen are a waste in this regard,=20
especially in a period of state budget=20
limitations, because they weaken the state's=20
ability to move toward more-viable plug-in vehicles.
"Plug In America looks forward to working with=20
California legislators to support the development=20
of electric-drive vehicles" in order to help the=20
state meet its goals of reducing greenhouse=20
gases, reducing air pollution, and reducing petroleum use," Sexton said.
Plug In America, a non-profit, advocates the use=20
of plug-in vehicles powered by cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity.
4. CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION COALITION ANALYSIS
CalETC develops and analyzes policies for many of=20
the state's major utilities. It's been a=20
long-time supporter of PHEVs. This is a report by=20
its Executive Director, Dave Modisette, one of a=20
handful of people outside the Air Resources Board=20
who fully understands the "ZEV credits maze,"=20
gets very specifc and numerical quickly.
CALETC HIGHLIGHTS:
A. Compliance flexibility so that major=20
automakers make small but significant numbers of=20
PHEVs by 2012 with incentives for them to make=20
them earlier. There are also incentives for=20
"stronger" PHEVs that have more all-electric range.
B. A re-design of the ZEV program next year,=20
with conventional hybrids and gasoline vehicles=20
moving out of the program, leaving only "Gold"=20
vehicles, which will be defined as BEV, FCV, and=20
PHEVs (note PHEVs into gold). Direction from the=20
Board is that the re-designed program has to be=20
at least as stringent as proposed in the staff=20
report, which in the 2015-2017 timeframe was is=20
25,000 FCVs or BEVs (minimum) and 83,000 PHEVs.
C. Getting automakers to work on BEVs again and=20
produce small numbers. Some companies have=20
already announced BEV product plans.
CALETC DETAIL:
What happened at the ARB hearing today on=20
ZEVs? As with everything ZEV, it's complex. So let me try to translate it=
:
The newspaper reports tomorrow will say that the=20
Board cut the pure-ZEVs by 70% in the 2012-2014=20
timeframe, from 25,000 FCVs down to 7,500 (or=20
lower for some FCVs). This is technically=20
correct but there is much more too this. And the=20
7,500 figure is about 3 times higher than the=20
staff proposal of 2,500 FCVs during this time period.
1. The ARB Board agreed to a "complete overhaul"=20
of the ZEV program, going forward. This probably=20
means beginning with the 2015 year. They=20
directed staff to develop this proposal by the=20
end of next year. This would incorporate the 3=20
goals of: GHG reduction; criterial pollutant=20
reduction; and petroleum reduction. So this is=20
good for us because electricity gets large=20
reductions in all three of these categories.=20
Sperling proposed, and the Board adopted, the=20
general framework of: (1) Bronze (PZEV) vehicles=20
get spun out of ZEV and into the LEV III=20
proceeding dealing with general criterial=20
pollutant reduction standards for all=20
automobiles; (2) Silver (ATPZEV) vehicles get=20
spun out of ZEV and into the AB 1493 (Pavley)=20
regs for GHG reduction; and (3) what is left in=20
Gold (pure-ZEV) would be BEVs, FCVs, and=20
PHEVs. Note that they have relented and are=20
agreeing to put PHEVs into Gold. So the new ZEV=20
category would be just these 3 technologies. The=20
goal of the new ZEV program, according to the=20
Board, would be to be as aggressive as in the=20
staff proposal, which in the 2015-2017 timeframe=20
was 25,000 FCVs or BEVs (minimum) and 83,000 PHEVs.
2. As mentioned above, the ARB Board increased=20
the number of pure-ZEVs (gold) vehicles during=20
the 2012-2014 timeframe from the staff-proposed=20
number of 2,500 (FCVs) to 7,500, but the actual=20
number of vehicles varies by type (as explained=20
below). The Board also agreed to increase=20
credits for FCVs that get 300+ miles range, up=20
from 4 credits for a FCV that gets less than 200=20
miles range (and probably now changed to less=20
than 300 miles range), to 7 credits (wow!) for an=20
FCV that gets 300 miles range or more. So if=20
OEMs made all of their pure gold requirements=20
(7,500 vehicles) in FCVs with 300 miles range=20
they would only have to make 5,357 FCVs (still a=20
lot). And if you want to know about the other=20
eligible vehicles in this category, if OEMs made=20
all Full Full Function BEVs (over 100 mile range;=20
Type 2) to meet this pure gold requirement it=20
would be about 12,500 BEVs. If all BEVs with=20
75-99 range (Type 1.5) it would be 14,800=20
vehicles. If all BEVs with 50-74 miles range=20
(type 1) it would be 18,750 vehicles. And if=20
all FCVs will less than 300 miles range, the=20
number would probably be around 9,375.
So what does this all mean? I think it probably=20
means that OEMs will try to figure out how many=20
FCVs they would have to make if they could make=20
ones that got over 300 miles range (and get the=20
large 7 credits per vehicle). If these are too=20
expensive, then I think they might go to some or=20
all BEVs for compliance. We have already heard=20
that Nissan will probably go all BEVs for=20
compliance. So the upshot here may be that we=20
get some pure BEVs that we may not have been expecting.
3. One consequence of the way the ARB staff has=20
proposed to treat the "Enhanced ATPZEV" vehicles=20
(which is assumed to be PHEV) is that they are=20
"backfill" to the pure ZEV numbers; so if pure=20
ZEV is increased as the Board directed, than=20
Enhanced ATPZEV is automatically decreased. And=20
this is what appears to be happening with the ARB=20
adopted proposal: Enhanced ATPZEV in 2012-2014=20
went from 75,000 PHEVs (approx blended 20 mile=20
EAER; 1.5 credits per vehicle) to 58,333. So=20
this is a decrease of about 16,667 PHEVs over this 3 year period.
4. The ARB Board also voted to increase=20
credits for PHEVs that can meet the federal US 06=20
driving cycle test using all electric range alone=20
(like the Chevy Volt). The Board also voted to=20
leave the requirements intact for automakers that=20
are "Intermediate Volume Manufacturers", and not=20
give them any additional breaks. And the Board=20
voted to include credit trading information in=20
the ZEV credit information to be made public in 2010.
5. Where do things go from here? ARB staff will=20
re-write the proposed regulations based upon the=20
Board's decision today, and issue the new draft=20
regulations for "15-day comment". Just like it=20
sounds, parties will have 15 days to comment (in=20
writing) on the new draft regs. Based upon these=20
comments, ARB will either modify the draft (and=20
then submit the modified regulations for another=20
15-day comment period), or finalize the regs and=20
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-heari=
ng.html
Posted by Adam Borelli, Adam Smith, Alec=20
Proudfoot, and Rolf Schreiber, RechargeIT Team
On March 27th the California Air Resources Board=20
(CARB) met to discuss the Zero Emission Vehicle=20
(ZEV) Program. Prior to last Thursday's meeting,=20
members of our RechargeIT Team met with each=20
Board Member, submitted a public comment, and=20
posted a blog post to inform the public and key=20
stakeholders that we feel the ZEV Program is key=20
policy to the deployment of less polluting=20
vehicles and has a few areas where we recommend=20
some improvements. Adam Smith, our Steward for=20
Good Energy, also gave a presentation at the meeting on our position.
This post is just a first response to last week's=20
hearing - please look for more information as we=20
continue to sort out the details. Google.org is=20
largely supportive of CARB's decision. CARB was=20
right in increasing the floor of pure ZEVs --=20
battery electric and fuel cell vehicles --=20
compared to the Staff recommendations, by adding=20
plug-in hybrids to to mix, and by revamping the=20
entire ZEV Program. Next year CARB plans to vote=20
on simplifying the ZEV program to focus it on=20
pure ZEVs and plug-in hybrids for the 2015 model=20
year and beyond, while moving the maturing=20
technologies of regular hybrids and PZEVs to the=20
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=20
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=20
history and changes for the period under=20
discussion -- 2012 to 2014 -- at the CARB=20
hearing. We want to preface this table by saying=20
that we are not 100% clear on the precise=20
decision that CARB made on Thursday, but we will=20
clarify and comment on the exact decision once=20
the meeting transcript is available. Until then,=20
we wanted to be sure to share the outcome, as we=20
understood it, with you. It is challenging to=20
display all the information we want in this=20
table, especially with the "ZEV Program Prior to=20
March 27, 2008". In this column, the "Pure Zero=20
Emission Vehicles" only addresses what is called=20
the Alternative or Alt Path. This is a pathway=20
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=20
ZEV Program be broken into the three different=20
programs after 2014: LEV III for the current=20
bronze or PZEV vehicles, Pavley II for the PHEVs,=20
and the ZEV Program for FCVs and BEVs. This=20
structure will be proposed by Staff by the end of 2009.
[also see=20
http://rechargeit.blogspot.com/2008/03/californias-zev-program.html=20
for recommendations before the hearing]
6. WALL STREET JOURNAL
This report by one of the leading automotive=20
journalists, which we expect will appear in the=20
Tuesday print edition of the newspaper, calls the=20
PHEV campaign "a victory for the technological=20
insurgents who pushed the plug-in concept over=20
Detroit and Nagoya's objections." Who could ask=20
for more recognition of the impact of the PHEV campaign on the auto industr=
y.
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 Reall=
y Is
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120733236876290335.html?mod=3Dgooglenews_ws=
j
Plug-in hybrid cars, once the domain of tech=20
enthusiasts and tinkerers, just got a big boost=20
toward the mainstream from the State of California.
But the latest move by the state's regulators to=20
push plug-in hybrids into the market also=20
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=20
modified to run in all electric mode for a=20
significant portion of a daily commute, have made=20
the journey from the auto industry's fringes in=20
near record time. Just a couple of years ago,=20
Toyota Motor Corp. was discouraging people from=20
modifying its Prius hybrids so that the batteries=20
could be recharged from a wall outlet. Other car=20
makers dismissed plug-ins as the answer to the=20
question: "How could anyone make a gas-electric=20
hybrid more impractical and costly?"
Then, gas prices shot up, consumers began=20
clamoring for better fuel efficiency, and minds=20
began to open. General Motors Corp. got such an=20
enthusiastic response to a plug-in hybrid show=20
car called the Chevy Volt, that it decided to put=20
the car into production =AD and feature it heavily=20
in advertising. Toyota's engineers remain wary of=20
the potential technical problems of the=20
lithium-ion batteries needed to make a plug-in=20
hybrid go. But Toyota decided to go with the=20
flow, announcing it plans to field a test fleet=20
of plug-in hybrids by 2010 for tightly controlled use in fleets.
Readers, over to you: Has California made the=20
right decision in pushing for plug-in hybrids=20
instead of true zero-emission cars? Discuss.
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=3D2029&autoredirect=3Dtrue&sid=3D=
71e58def09bd88ee4974b9b4e7a3702e
In addition to discussion, here's how the poll=20
looked from responses Sunday night-Monday morning:
POLL: Total Votes : 235
Has California made the right decision in pushing=20
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,=20
which sets clean air and auto emissions rules for=20
the state, declared that by 2012-2014, they want=20
the "Big Six" car makers to produce at least=20
58,333 plug-in hybrid vehicles, along with up to=20
7,500 "pure zero-emission vehicles" --=20
essentially fuel-cell vehicles or hydrogen fueled=20
combustion cars such as the BMW Hydrogen 7 -- or=20
12,500 battery-electric vehicles with a range of=20
at least 100 miles. (Read summary PDF)
This decision to anoint plug-in hybrids as an=20
acceptable alternative to pure zero-emission=20
vehicles dismayed some environmental groups. But=20
it satisfied some car makers -- mainly GM and=20
Toyota -- because now they can concentrate on the=20
plug-in models they already have in development.=20
(Car makers such as Ford Motor Co., Honda Motor=20
Co. and Nissan Motor Corp. which haven't put much=20
focus on plug ins could face a challenge, or=20
could comply with fuel cell and all-electric vehicles.)
So mark down a victory for the technological=20
insurgents who pushed the plug-in concept over=20
Detroit and Nagoya's objections. But it's a long way from the end of the wa=
r.
Even if car makers produce nearly 66,000 advanced=20
technology vehicles by the 2012-14 deadline (and=20
they have blown all the previous deadlines) the=20
number of clean-technology cars on the road will=20
be a rounding error against California's total=20
population of vehicles, which is nearly 20 million cars and trucks.
There are more unanswered questions. Where will=20
car makers get hydrogen for fuel cell or hydrogen=20
internal-combustion vehicles? How will the state=20
manage the surge in electricity demand if plug-in=20
hybrid owners recharge their cars during the peak=20
daytime and evening hours? Will someone develop a=20
payment system that would allow someone to=20
plug-in a car at a friend's house without=20
sticking the friend with the tab? What if it=20
turns out that plug-in hybrids really aren't a=20
great idea -- because the battery technology=20
required doesn't get perfected, for instance?
California regulators acknowledged their own=20
uncertainty about how best to proceed in their=20
quest for clean cars by directing their staff to=20
consider a potentially wide-ranging revamp of=20
their zero-emission vehicle program by the end of next year.
California's drive for clean air has had an=20
enormous effect on the auto industry during the=20
past 30 to 40 years. Appalled by the thick smog=20
that enveloped the Los Angeles basin during the=20
1960s and 1970s, California effectively became a=20
sovereign nation when it comes to automotive=20
regulation. California demanded that auto makers=20
act to dramatically reduce the soot, oxides of=20
nitrogen and other pollutants that contributed to=20
the state's foul air. When auto makers complained=20
that they didn't have the technology to meet the=20
state's demands, California told them to quit whining and invent it.
Which the auto makers did, and they have=20
continued to do. The average new vehicle is now=20
98% cleaner, in terms of smog-forming emissions,=20
than it was in 1963, because of the broad=20
application of catalytic converters and more=20
efficient fuel and combustion management=20
technology. The transformation of cars into=20
four-wheeled computers is an evolution for which=20
you can largely thank (or blame) California's=20
refusal to take Detroit's no for an answer.
General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz introduces=20
the Chevrolet Volt electric concept at the North=20
American International Auto Show in January 2007.
The number of dangerous smog alerts in Southern=20
California has dropped to just one or two year,=20
compared to roughly 180 days a year in the=20
mid-1970s, says Gennet Paauwe, a spokeswoman for=20
the California Air Resources Board, the state's=20
main clean air regulator. California's=20
achievement has made it a model for environmental=20
policy around the world. Representatives of=20
China's big, smog-choked metropolises are=20
reaching out to California regulators for advice.
But now, California is wrestling with a far more=20
difficult challenge, somewhat akin to getting=20
that last 1% or 2% of caffeine out of a cup of coffee.
Last week's embrace of plug-in hybrids was, in=20
effect, part of a long retreat from the state's=20
original, 1990 goal that 10% of the cars sold in=20
California by 2003 would be zero emissions vehicles.
Scrubbing 98% of the noxious by-products out of a=20
car's stream of exhaust gases was tough.=20
Eliminating entirely the contribution cars make=20
to the load of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere=20
requires far more than forcing the installation=20
of traps and filters and fuel injectors. It=20
requires a ground up transformation of the=20
concept of personal mobility, as well as=20
substantial investments in fueling infrastructure=20
and, perhaps, power generation that go well beyond America's big auto maker=
s.
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=3Dinsider&title=3DINSIDER%20COMMENT=
ARIES
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=3D20601101&sid=3DaHghe3yr_lpU&refer=
=3Djapan
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
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
|
Felix Kramer <fkramer@...>
felixkramery
 Offline
 Send Email
|
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
