backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Dec 17 at 2:29 PM

CARB is taking public comment on proposed standards now

California has been working with the federal government on the CAFE fuel economy standards while at the same time working inside the state government to improve the air quality. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has now confirmed more plans to help improve the air quality in the state and that plan involves mandates to get more electric vehicles onto the market. The plan calls for 1.4 million more electric and plug-in vehicles as well as hydrogen powered cars to hit the roads. 
 
The new standards are expected to cover 2017 to 2025 model year vehicles. The plan wants to reduce greenhouse gas emission from vehicles by 34% compared with the levels set for 2016 and to drive more purchases of EVs. CARB says that the new rules will add $1,900 to the price of a new vehicle by 2025, but the efficiency will save $6,000 in fuel costs over the vehicles life.
 

Tesla Model S [Source: Tesla Motors]
 
If the 1.4 million zero emission or plug-in hybrid vehicle number is reached that would mean one in seven or 15% of all new vehicles sold would be that type of vehicle. Automakers selling cars in California would need to make 15.4% of their entire fleets ZEVs to meet the proposed standards. The rules would also force all passenger cars and light trucks sold in California to reach the state super-ultra-low emission vehicle standards by 2025. If approved by the California Office of Administrative Law, the regulations would become law in 2012.
 
The proposed rules by the State of California aren't good enough for the Union of Concerned Scientists reports the NYT. This union wants to increase the proposed standard by 30% and put 1.8 million zero emission vehicles on the roads by 2025. A public comment period on CARBs proposal is going until December 12.
 
The full CARB proposal is here in PDF form.

Sources: NYT, Energy Efficiency News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Right....
By tng on 12/15/2011 3:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Automakers selling cars in California would need to make 15.4% of their entire fleets ZEVs to meet the proposed standards.
Any bets this will work as well as the last time CARB tried to tell automakers that by Y2K, 10% of the cars they sold in California had to be EV's or they would not be allowed to sell any cars in the state?

That worked out really well for them. None of them understand technology and the time frames it would take to make a really feasible EV possible. They also did not understand the public demand for such vehicles or more probably didn't care. Seems they still don't understand anything.

They want Zero Emissions Vehicles only? In other words pure EV's, not the Volt, not a Prius or Insight. By the deadline pure EV's will still not have the range to make them practical for even 15% of the CA population.




RE: Right....
By kattanna on 12/15/2011 3:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
if you look over the linked PDF they have a chart in which they think by 2050 over 50% of all vehicles will be hydrogen fuel cell powered, with pure EV's being about 30%

while 38 years is a long time, im still not buying it


RE: Right....
By tng on 12/15/2011 3:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Hydrogen I think has more promise than pure electric, but also has issues, although I think that in the next decade we will see at least 1 or 2 Hydrogen fuel cell cars show up for limited sale in SoCal maybe.

Hydrogen has different problems such as where do you fill up, and mass produced Hydrogen is really not energy efficient. However I love the concept.


RE: Right....
By kattanna on 12/16/2011 9:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hydrogen has different problems such as where do you fill up, and mass produced Hydrogen is really not energy efficient. However I love the concept.


yep, its a sexy idea, expect for the fact that hydrogen has a really crappy energy density.

when they can build a hybrid battery/capacitor that can store a charge to take a vehicle 300+ miles and then quickly recharge like filling up your tank, then that will be game over for most other passenger vehicle types, except for collectors LOL


RE: Right....
By Natch on 12/15/2011 4:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'm quite certain that when that point during the year, their state government declares that all further auto sales for the year MUST BE zero emission vehicles, the people of California will happily queue up to buy something other than what they really wanted to buy.

The lawmakers are well intentioned.....but primarily, STUPID.


RE: Right....
By JediJeb on 12/15/2011 6:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
If is says 15% "Sold in California" and not "Registered in California" what would stop people from going to Nevada to buy their cars?


RE: Right....
By Spuke on 12/15/2011 8:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If is says 15% "Sold in California" and not "Registered in California" what would stop people from going to Nevada to buy their cars?
Nothing as far as I know.


RE: Right....
By Natch on 12/16/2011 10:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure about these days, but back in the 80's and early 90's, when I was stationed there (Navy), if you brought a car into the state, from another state, and could not prove to the state of California that your vehicle had California emissions, you paid a smog "fee" (fine) to the state. They felt that this would discourage people from doing the whole "buy in Oregon, Nevada or Arizona" thing.


RE: Right....
By Spuke on 12/16/2011 6:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and could not prove to the state of California that your vehicle had California emissions, you paid a smog "fee" (fine) to the state
That was declared unconstitutional and some of those fees were paid back to individuals.


RE: Right....
By tng on 12/16/2011 12:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I know a few people here in the North end of the state that have vacation homes in Tahoe on the Nevada side and register their vehicles at that address, even though they only use them in CA. This is really popular with high end cars where registration fees in CA are based on a percentage of the cars value and states like NV and OR are just a $40 fee for 2 years.


RE: Right....
By vincestone on 12/16/2011 2:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
The registration fee her in Nevada is around 40 dollars, but they add other fees that are directly based on how much your car is worth. It costs me about 60 dollars to register my 89 ford truck but my wifes 2005 Toyota costs about 200 dollars.


RE: Right....
By jimbojimbo on 12/16/2011 3:26:42 PM , Rating: 1
So basically middle to lower income families with one home in California have to register it in California but the rich who may have a second home in another state can register it there. Excellent!! The rich continue to get richer and the poor and middle class get bent over like usual.


RE: Right....
By tng on 12/16/2011 3:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I can't call it a Rich-vs-Poor thing really. However as more and more successful businesses leave CA for other states with lower taxes/fees and less regulation, everybody left behind just pays more and more, cause you know the politicians will not stop increasing their spending.

I personally know of four people who have moved their small businesses out of CA for other more friendly states because of the costs of having any business in CA. One in particular was able to move to Florida where he got a 10K square foot facility with a house on property (5 acres) for the same price as 1500sf was costing him in CA. He moved all the employees that wanted to go there on his dime.


RE: Right....
By Solandri on 12/15/2011 5:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any bets this will work as well as the last time CARB tried to tell automakers that by Y2K, 10% of the cars they sold in California had to be EV's or they would not be allowed to sell any cars in the state?

This leaves CARB with a huge credibility problem with auto manufacturers too. The first time it happened, GM was the only company which actually built an electric vehicle (the EV1). Just as they were on the cusp of cornering the California automobile market, CARB pulled the rug out from under them and rescinded the requirement. GM destroyed all the EV1s in response (and ended up being blamed for killing the electric car by people who were unwilling to blame government).

With that kind of track record, my bet is on all the automakers doing absolutely nothing to comply with CARB's requirements. And when the deadline approaches, they'll all say the technology just isn't ready, and please extend the deadline or rescind the requirement.


RE: Right....
By JediJeb on 12/15/2011 6:18:14 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing would be if CARB holds them to it and they just stop selling cars in California. That would pretty much stagnate the percentage of efficient vehicles in the state and foil CARB's plans as well as make most Californians rather upset.


RE: Right....
By aspade on 12/16/2011 10:38:35 AM , Rating: 2
On the verge of cornering the market? Please. GM built 1100 cars in 4 years and lost in the order of a million dollars on each of them.

Nobody killed the electric car because it was never alive as a remotely viable product.


RE: Right....
By tng on 12/16/2011 12:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the verge of cornering the market? Please. GM built 1100 cars in 4 years and lost in the order of a million dollars on each of them.
Nobody said it was a large market.

I think that Honda had a EV out at that time as well, basically did the same thing as GM did when CARB retracted it's edict...


RE: Right....
By Concillian on 12/15/2011 9:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's time to lay off some people in CARB.

I have seen the LA basin on smoggy days in the 80s. It was bad. CARB made it better. Much better. I fully understand that CARB has dramatically improved my quality of life and that of my children.

But it's time to say enough is enough. The regs are starting to get overwhelming. CARB needs to go into "sustain the current regs" mode and stop trying to justify it's existence by forcing (or attempting for force) rather ridiculous regulations.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki