The Los Angeles Times is calling it "a significant blow for environmentalists and transportation activists." On Thursday, California's Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to "slash" the number of emission-free vehicles automakers must sell in the state by 70 percent. The panel adopted new rules that would require the largest companies selling cars in the state to produce 7.5k electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles from 2012 to 2014. (Down from the 25k under rules set in ‘03.) In addition, carmakers will be called upon to make about 58k plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the same period. CARB also decided overhaul its entire Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program, to align it with tougher greenhouse-gas emission standards. CARB board member Daniel Sperling says "it's my view that both plug-in hybrids and [emission-free vehicles] are tremendous stretches for the industry." But Chelsea Sexton, the executive director of Plug In America says "It's a huge blow, they sent the message to the carmakers that they can always get what they want from the board." And here's the kicker: GM asked for "special consideration" for the Chevy Volt. GM's executive director for environment, energy and safety argued that the Volt will have a longer range than rival plug-in hybrids so, you know, cut us some slack. The board granted that request, valuing extended-range plug-in hybrids more highly than shorter-range models. GM has yet to sell a single Volt, but hey, why let the facts get in the way?
But GM’s right, the Volt will be different. It’s virtually an electric car. The plug-in VUE and Prius are only projected to go about 8 miles on pure electric, 5 times less than the Volt. There should be seperate consideration for that sort of difference.
Actually, they did not give the Volt any extra credit. They gave long range vehicles extra credit. Since Chevy is less likely than their competitors to actually produce a working example of a long range vehicle, there is no favoritism here at all.
I gotta give the west coasters credit on this one, sounds like they made a reasonable decision with the extra credit thing. They made the exception for results, and did not choose winners.
Buick61: But GM’s right, the Volt will be different. It’s virtually an electric car. The plug-in VUE and Prius are only projected to go about 8 miles on pure electric, 5 times less than the Volt. There should be seperate consideration for that sort of difference.
Projected difference? Estimated? Virtual?
Real-world testing of an actual production car?
Or some sort of a wild-assed guess?
Just sayin’.
Landcrusher: Actually, they did not give the Volt any extra credit.
Really?
Al Weverstad, executive director for environment, energy and safety at GM, asked the board for special consideration for the Chevy Volt, which is in development. GM says the car will have a longer range than rival plug-in hybrids.
“We’d ask that you give us some additional credits,” he said.
Sorry for being off topic, bur here’s an excellent long interview with Sadad Al Husseini, Saudi Aramco former head of exploration, on CNBC. This guy really knows it all and answers a lot of questions about what drives the price and availability of oil.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=697807590&play=1
No problem Donal, you can hijack the thread. :-)
It’s interesting that Sadad Al Husseini feels “speculation” is adding about $20-plus to the current price of a barrel of oil.
I’m glad CARB cut back the requirement. Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles are available, but @ ~$1 million a vehicle, it hardly counts. Add to that the fact that affordable hydrogen involves just as much CO2 release as gasoline and it seems an utterly pointless exercise to insist on having many 000s of these verhicles on the road.
The environmentalists need to step up to the plate here: There is a big opportunity for them to explain what metric should be used to evaluate how clean a given vehicle is. As the ethanol thing showed, it’s not as straight-forward as it appears at first.
Unfortunately many environmetalists seem happy to act like toddlers: Insists on some arbritrary toy, and make a lot of noise when the adults don’t deliver it.
Man that thing is ugly! Give it good marks for low emmissions and take em’ off again for being an eyesore.
Wow. Tough crowd.
Maybe by lowering the requirements they might spur some development?
And times are a bit clearer with regard to actual achievable engineering goals than they were in ’03.
I mean, if the rules are going to pre-empt you from making a profit, why try at all?
It’s interesting that Sadad Al Husseini feels “speculation” is adding about $20-plus to the current price of a barrel of oil.
Political turmoil certainly drives the price higher. What I question is whether speculators themselves have the influence to *significantly* drive prices up and down. A few dollars, maybe, but not twenty.
Glenn,
Please let me explain my extra credit remark. What I was thinking was that a) The Volt will likely never qualify because it either will not ever be built or meet the requirements, and b) that they were not giving the Volt SPECIFICALLY extra credit.
The last part is key because our legislatures have been making the mistake of writing laws that are down right unethical because they keep narrowly picking the winners (even to the point of actually naming the technology). IOW, it is wrong for government to subsidize or require corn based ethanol. If they want a pollution restriction, or a renewable requirement, or some other attribute they should write a framework that let’s the market find the best methods and products to meet those requirements.
In the case of the long range plug ins, then it actually makes sense to give extra credit to cars that can run more miles because they will likely displace more pollution.
@ Landcrusher
Ah, okay– now I see your point. :-)