Calif.'s Zero-Emissions Mandate Expected to Change in 2010; Two Options So Far
By Scott Doggett December 11, 2009
California's air-quality regulators, who are intent on reworking the state's electric-car mandate next year, heard testimony this week from a variety of interest groups on whether to stick with a mandated approach or go with a proposed alternative that would give automakers more flexibility.
At the heart of the testimony heard Thursday at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) meeting in Sacramento was the agency's on-again, off-again zero-emissions vehicle policy, the so-called "ZEV rule" CARB adopted in 1990 and has amended six times since.
Now, the board wants to revise the rule by the end of 2010 to help attain an 80 percent cut in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 from cars and trucks sold in California.
To get there, the officials want to increase the number of electric cars on the Golden State's roads, whether plug-in, hybrid or fuel cell.
What the regulators decide could have national and international implications, because the rules they have come up with have tended to be adopted by other states, the nation and other countries.
A white paper from CARB staff released late last month proposes two options. The first would adhere closely to the current framework, which forces automakers to sell a certain percentage of their fleets as electrics by a given date.
In the 2015-2017 time frame, for instance, total sales for a given manufacturer would have to include a 6 percent share for zero-emissions vehicles, a class that includes plug-in hybrid, battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
"Keeping a similar regulatory structure will continue to assure commercialization includes full function ZEVs that have the potential for a growing and sustainable market share," says the white paper, which discusses pros and cons of the mandate and an alternative approach.
If all goes as planned under the current mandate, projected sales statewide would equal about 50,000 ZEV cars and light trucks on the road by 2017, said Elise Keddie, the manager of the CARB's zero-emission vehicle implementation section.
Beyond 2017, mandated sales would continue at roughly 6 percent, a strategy that assumes the market would drive activity after 2020 to 10 percent or more of an automaker's fleet.
A second option discussed in the white paper would give automakers a choice between the current framework or a separate route that would let a manufacturer produce a lower volume of electric vehicles while improving the performance of internal-combustion models to meet certain emissions requirements.
This alternative was created in reaction to automakers that have said a mandated approach gets in the way of technology development.
The white paper describes the alternative approach as "attractive to manufacturers that believe additional battery or fuel cell development for their vehicles is needed, or by vehicle manufacturers with exceptionally low emitting conventional vehicles that want to avoid the cost of introducing larger volumes of a new technology."
"In either case, ZEV technology would continue to develop and mature, whereas a straight performance standard would provide no assurance that ZEV technology would continue towards commercialization," the paper states.
Keddie emphasized that the staff is in an information-gathering stage and does not favor either option. Her office has been authorized to proceed with developing more detailed models for both options and to conduct public sessions to gather feedback, with a final board vote expected by the end of next year.
During Thursday's board meeting, Honda was the only manufacturer that expressed a firm desire for the second option. Other car companies were content to sit on their hands, for now, to see how the regulations would proceed at the staff level before signaling their position.
Environmental groups, on the other hand, were ready to express their displeasure with the second option. Even at this early stage, some environmentalists see the alternative as a threat to real development of an electric-car market, as it would give car companies more wiggle room.
Among the groups to come out in opposition to the second option were Sierra Club California, the American Lung Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies.
LEAVE A COMMENT