FAQ for 3/27/2008 CARB Meeting

• I don’t live in California. Why should I take action?
• What is a ZEV?
• How do BEVs and FCVs compare?
• What was the original ZEV program?
• What was happened to the original ZEV program?
• Who was right in the lawsuit?
• How many ZEVs were put on the roads before California and CARB backed down?
• How did CARB settle the lawsuit?
• What is CARB proposing now?
• Are there any good ideas in the CARB staff proposal?
• Don’t ZEVs just move the pollution problem from the tailpipe to the smokestack?
• So Who Killed the Electric Car?

I don’t live in California. Why should I take action?

Under the Federal 1970 Clean Air Act, there can only be two sets of clean air regulations: the EPA’s and California’s. Any state can choose to adopt California’s regulations, and more than a dozen routinely do. In some cases more U.S. citizens are covered by California regulations than the EPA’s. Therefore it is very appropriate for you to comment on Cailfornia’s regulatory process, since it may affect you.

What is a ZEV?

ZEVs are Zero-Emission Vehicles. They emit no direct pollutants that create smog or worsen global warming. There are two types of ZEVs: Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs). BEVs have a long history in the U.S. Research on producing FCVs is underway, but so far there are cost and lifetime issues with the fuel cell, and there is no infrastructur for refueling.

How do BEVs and FCVs compare?

BEVs and FCVs are very similar at the vehicle level. An FCV is essentially a BEV where some (but not all) of the batteries/capacitors are replaced by a hydrogen tank and fuel cell, and the plug is optional (but desirable).

Fuel cells are not as efficient as batteries, so FCVs require a lot more energy to do the same work as BEVs. If the goals for electrolysis and fuel cell efficiency are met someday, it will take twice as much renewable electricty to drive on hydrogen as it takes to drive directly using electricity in a BEV. For example, it may take twice as much land devoted to wind or solar farms to power a fleet of FCVs compared to a fleet of BEVs.

Currently mobile fuel cells have lifetime and cost issues. Battery technology for BEVs solved the lifetime issues a decade ago, but cost remains an issue. Volume production of BEVs would help reduce battery pack cost.

FCVs currently have an advantage in refueling time; the tank can usually be filled in 10 minutes or less. Only one battery technology has so far demonstrated a 10 minute recharge time. BEV charge time is less of an issue because the vehicle leaves your garage full every morning, whereas a FCV requires periodic trips to a hydrogen station, and currently almost no refueling infrastructure exists for FCVs.

What was the original ZEV program?

In 1990, CARB set targets for future California new vehicles to include 2% ZEVs in 1998, 3% in 2001, and 10% in 2003. In 1996, the 1998 and 2001 targets were eliminated to give the automakers more time, but the 2003 target remained. CARB also allowed low emission vehicles (misleadingly called Partial ZEVs or PZEVs) to substitute for some ZEVs. In 2001, CARB modified the targets again, allowing hybrids to make up part of the ZEV targets.

What was happened to the original ZEV program?

In January 2002, the automakers filed suit against the state of California claiming that by including hybrid targets in its regulations, California was trying to regulate fuel economy, a right the automakers said was reserved to the Federal government. In June 2002 the judge issued an injunction preventing California from enforcing its regulations until the case went to trial. In 2003, CARB negotiated a settlement with the automakers and effectively put off its ZEV program for a decade.

Who was right in the lawsuit?

In 2007 a very similar issue went to Federal court again, and the automakers lost twice: once in Vermont, and once in California. There was no reason for California to back down in 2003. The courts ruled that Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a broader right to regulate under the Clean Air Act than it gave the Department of Transportation (DOT) under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Thus the EPA can set higher standards than the DOT. Since California’s regulations require an EPA waiver, they fall under its broader right to regulate.

How many ZEVs were put on the roads before California and CARB backed down?

Plug In America estimates 5,600 vehicles nationwide, with 4,400 of those in California. All of the vehicles produced were snapped up by consumers, and there were waiting lists of consumers who wanted to buy or lease BEVs, but couldn't. CARB’s own ZEV fact sheet explains, “consumers quickly bought these highly functional vehicles and called for more.”

How did CARB settle the lawsuit?

CARB signed a memorandum of understanding with the automakers to settle the lawsuit and created a new ZEV program that gave the automakers what they wanted: a Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV) research program. They were required to produce only prototype FCV volumes in 2009-2011, and in 2012-2014 only 25,000 vehicles (8,333 per year, or 0.4%). In effect the original 1998 2% target had been pushed forward fourteen years and reduced by a factor of five.

What is CARB proposing now?

With the deadline for 0.4% FCVs four years away, the automakers are now saying that FCVs are not ready. They wanted CARB to push 2012 out to 2020. CARB staff has responded by proposing that for 2012-2014 a 90% reduction in the targets that would allow the automakers to produce only 840 ZEVs a year, or 0.04%. The CARB board plans to vote on the staff proposal at its 3/27/2008 meeting.

Are there any good ideas in the CARB staff proposal?

Yes. CARB staff now recognize that plug-in hybrids (PHEVs, or in CARB lingo Enhanced AT PZEVs) have an important role to play in cleaning our air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, CARB staff propose that PHEVs can substitute for the 90% reduction in ZEVs. We believe that promoting PHEVs should be done by using them to replace the dirtiest vehicles, not the cleanest.

Don’t ZEVs just move the pollution problem from the tailpipe to the smokestack?

This one has many answers. First, the tailpipe is not the only source of emissions for gasoline vehicles. Refinery emissions must be counted too. In wells-to-wheels emissions, ZEVs (both BEVs and FCVs) come out ahead of gasoline vehicles (even hybrids like the Toyota Prius).

Second, it is much easier to control emissions at the smokestack than the tailpipe. For example, carbon capture and sequestration is possible for smokestacks, but not tailpipes. Some air pollutants are already capped by law in the U.S., and cannot increase even if ZEVs get their energy from the electric grid.

FCVs are fueled with hydrogen, which for the forseeable future will be made primarily by steam reformation of natural gas. This process does produce greenhouse gas emissions. It is quite low in smog and acid rain emissions.

BEVs get their energy from the plug in your garage, and so from your utility’s power plants. Many power plant emissions are already capped, as mentioned above, or could be (as in carbon capture and sequestration). Renewable electricity has zero pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and is an excellent alternative to capture and sequestration. Solving the global warming challenge requires that we clean up our electric power anyway. BEVs leverage our future investment in clean power.

So Who Killed the Electric Car?

For 2003, see the movie and form your own opinion. For 2008, CARB is about to kill it again, if we don’t do something.

Last modified: Mon Mar 10 15:58:31 PDT 2008