![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (5)
The California Air Resources Board unanimously approved the new rules that require that one in seven of the new cars sold in the state in 2025 be an electric or other zero-emission vehicle.
The plan also mandates a 75 percent reduction in smog-forming pollutants by 2025, and a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from today's standards.
Automakers worked with the board and federal regulators on the greenhouse gas mandates in an effort to create one national standard for those pollutants.
"Today's vote ... represents a new chapter for clean cars in California and in the nation as a whole," said Mary Nichols, the board's chairman. "Californians have always loved their cars. We buy a lot of them and drive them. Now we will have cleaner and more efficient cars to love."
California's auto emissions standards are influential and often more strict than federal rules. The state began passing regulations for cleaner cars in the 1960s to help ease some of the world's worst smog, and has since helped spur the auto industry's innovations in emissions-control technology.
Currently 14 other states -- including New York, Washington and Massachusetts -- have adopted California's smog emissions rules as their own.
California has also previously set zero-emissions vehicle mandates, which 10 other states have also currently adopted.
Companies including Ford Motor Corp., Chrysler Group LLC, General Motors Co., Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and others submitted testimony Thursday supportive of the new standards.
Some of the companies protested the inclusion of a system that will give some automakers credit toward their zero-emission vehicle mandate for exceeding federal greenhouse gas emissions standards in other cars. These credits, which can be used to reduce the number of clean vehicles made, can be used from 2018 to 2021.
Some called it a loophole that will take hundreds of thousands of clean cars off the road, hurting the emerging market for these vehicles.
"This is a temporary way station," Nichols said about the credits. "But by 2021 all companies will be producing the full complement of zero-emission vehicles."
Trade groups representing auto dealers worried that the new regulations would increase the costs of vehicles for consumers and stifle the industry's growth.
The California New Car Dealers Association and other industry groups representing those who sell cars said the board is overestimating consumer demand for electric vehicles and other so-called "zero-emission vehicles."
Dealers are concerned that the regulations will lead to higher costs in all cars, and say consumers have been slow to warm to electric and other zero-emission vehicles.
Board member Sandra Berg, who said she drives the all-electric Nissan Leaf, said before the vote that regulators need to take consumer behavior and choice seriously in this equation.
She said a lot of work must be done to educate dealers to sell the new generation of cars.
"Early adopters [of electric cars] are willing to go without heat to save the miles they need to get to their destination, but that is not going to help grow the consumer base," Berg said, referring to the range issues with some current electric vehicles.
The board's research staff disputes the argument from dealers that the mandates for new technology will increase costs for cars. They point to steady increases in hybrid and other sales and argue that fuel cost savings will make up for any vehicle price increase.
"Our research shows a $1,400 to $1,900 car price increase. But over the life of the vehicles, the owners save $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance costs," board spokesman David Clegern said.
One of the nation's foremost consumer groups, the Consumers' Union, the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, supported the changes.
The rules will "protect consumers by encouraging the development of cleaner, more efficient cars that save families money, help reduce the American economy's vulnerability to oil price shocks and reduce harmful air pollution," according to a letter from the group.
Comments
Zero-Emission? Almost half of the electrisity used in electric vehicles is generated in coal-burning power plants. What comes to CO2 emissions, coal is much worse fuel than gasoline.
MKangas, Nationwide, only 45% of our electricity comes from coal. The rest is natural gas, hydro, geothermal, wind and solar, and of course, nukes.
Here in CA, less than 10% is from coal and we have a lot of solar and wind. Our grid mix is very clean compared to most of the country, and as a state, we're very efficient with our use of it on a per capita basis.
There are no studies to back up your assertion that coal is worse than gasoline in terms of CO2. Quite the contrary. A compendium of studies found here: http://images.pluginamerica.org/Emission..., all conclude that on a "well-to-wheel" basis, EVs are always cleaner even if the grid mix is as much as 95% coal. Most states use much less coal energy than that, and some barely use coal at all.
Through efficiency, we're saving enough energy each year to drive an EV between 375 billion - 625 billion miles. Most Americans waste much more electricity than they would use in an EV.
Not to be Johnny Raincloud, but -
"In 2009, California produced 69% of the electricity it uses..." from http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/.... Hmmm, wonder what the fuel sources are for the other 31%?
"we're very efficient with our use of it (electricity) on a per capita basis." Suggest CA has more 'encouragement', given an average per-KWH rate almost one-third higher than the national average, and two-thirds higher than Missouri's. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/
Green may be clean, but low-price is nice.
Not to say this isn't the way to go, eventually - just that the current economics aren't there, yet.
Fxpwt, no need to wonder about the other 31%, it was in the same sentence as the first part of your comment, "In 2009, California produced 69% of the electricity it uses; the rest is imported from the Pacific Northwest (7%) and the U.S. Southwest (24%). Natural gas is the main source for electricity generation at 56.7% of the total in-state system power."
Our encouragement for being more efficient is definitely from higher prices for our electricity. Instead of using a lot of dirty coal energy and polluting other's air, we prefer to use cleaner energy and we are willing to pay more for it. Being more efficient, our monthly cost for electricity is actually lower than the U.S. average. See how that works?
People who live in states where coal is used get low rates because coal is cheap, but it's cheap because they dump millions of tons of deadly pollution into the atmosphere that contributes to the death of thousands of your fellow citizens. That's the down side of the low price you pay. It's not fair to those who get sick from the pollution, or those who live in Appalachia and see their land destroyed and their water polluted by the mountain top removal mining for coal, but that's the way it is because of the people who like energy so cheap they are willing to waste it.
Sad, huh?
"Being more efficient, our monthly cost for electricity is actually lower than the U.S. average."
I'll give ya partial credit on that one as backed up by this - from http://asset.sce.com/Documents/Customer%.... Of course, the other factor given is the relatively mild climate.
Even with a high-efficiency heat pump, 64% of my electric consumption in December was for climate control, using a programmable thermostat with about half the weekly time set at 70degF and the other half at 61degF. Given the degree-day data from Los Angeles International Airport, this same house in LA would have used 60% less electricity than here in Missouri for climate control, or approximately 1/3 less total household electricity consumption. Same data from the San Francisco International Airport results in this 'mobile' home using 40% less for climate control, or approximately 1/4 less total. See how that works?
Suggest California is blessed with resources not available in all places. From http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/..., 12.5% of consumption is derived from hydro sources, likely closer to 17-18% given the assumption that the majority of 'unspecified' power from the Northwest imports is likely hydro. Conversely, would suspect that a fair portion of the Southwest 'unspecified' imports are coal-based. Wind comes in just shy of 5%. Admirable, but both hydro and wind energy sources are rather scarce for commercial utility-scale application in Missouri.
At any rate, back to the article - suggest the Sandra Berg person has the right idea - gots to get people to buy-in to the demonstrable benefits, direct or otherwise. The driving force might be for the environment, but demonstrate it can be cheaper and just as reliable and long-lived - now that should sell some cars!
A couple of past examples are catalytic converters which called for unleaded fuel, which had the benefit of reduced spark plug changes, and fuel injection pushed mainly to meet emission standards but with added benefits of better starts and higher fuel economy.