CARB To Bump ZEV Mandate, Automakers Fight Back

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

The WSJ [sub] reports

California regulators want zero-emission vehicles—those that don’t run on petroleum—to comprise up to 5.5% of new-car sales in the state, or roughly 81,300, in 2018. The target would rise annually to 14%, or more than 227,600, by 2025…

Tom Cackette, chief deputy executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, says his agency’s goal is to test whether electric cars can become mainstream vehicles, or wind up serving a “niche” market. Mr. Cackette said the state is investing in charging stations and other infrastructure, and he pointed to the sales of new plug-ins on the market to show that there’s a demand for the vehicles. He said he believes the California targets are feasible.

“That is a question we’ll only find out by trying,” he said. “I think [car companies] are making a pretty big investment in these vehicles, and they wouldn’t be doing that if they didn’t think there was a market there.”

Industry lobby groups are pushing California to roll the ZEV mandate into the forthcoming national CAFE standard. Small automakers like Mazda complain that placing a California ZEV mandate on top of national emissions standards would create a “costly burden…in light of the uncertain marketplace and infrastructure for electric vehicles.” And since CARB is leading the federal government by the ear towards a national standard anyway, it could simply push for a higher CAFE rate, which would at least allow firms the flexibility to comply on their own terms. Adding a major ZEV mandate won’t fundamentally change the national standard, but it absolutely will force automakers to spend huge amounts of money to develop a kind of vehicle that has major shortcomings, is only as green as local electricity generation, and has yet to prove itself with consumers. Whatever you think of emissions standards increases, it should be clear that consumers should determine what mix of technologies can best serve their needs while lowering fuel consumption and pollution.


Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 16 comments
  • Doctor olds Doctor olds on Jun 12, 2011

    California Air Resources Board released the original ZEV mandate around 1990. At the time, manufacturers were required to sell ZEV's representing 2% of their California sales. They had the same goal then as today, to push EV's. GM spent hundreds of $millions in good faith effort to develop the EV1 to comply with the law, despite the reality that battery technology was so poor. It is better, but still poor. Think of the Volt's current technology battery as a $10,000 fuel tank that holds the equivalent of about 1 gallon of gas and weighs 50 times as much! All car makers, notably Toyota and Honda, successfully lobbyied California to defer the implementation of the original ZEV requirement, screwing GM. Having had the opportunity to meet with the CARB regulators back then, I found their arrogance and demand that carmakers will "just have to figure out how to do it" to be astounding. Unelected bureaucrats are the bane of American society!

  • GS650G GS650G on Jun 12, 2011

    Ah yes, more mandating what people want and buy. Yeah, that's proven to be successful. Don't these eggheads have this backwards, I mean a manufacturer can't really force a certain percentage of people to buy something. "Hi, I want a 2011 Gas Guzzler SUV with a V12 engine and 35 inch tires" "Well, I need to sell you this electric car with a 31 HP 3 cylinder engine and 13 inch wheels. It's quite lovely" "I think I'll pass. How about a 700Hp corvette?" "Hmmm, we had 2 but they are gone. We've got lots of plug in cars, this one if fully charged" "Listen, if I wanted something charged up and ready to run, I'd ask your wife. I what a turbocharged direct injected 4X4" "Well sir, I have to direct you to the CA Department of Motor Vehicle Sales" "I'm outta here"

  • Alan Years ago Jack Baruth held a "competition" for a piece from the B&B on the oddest pickup story (or something like that). I think 5 people were awarded the prizes.I never received mine, something about being in Australia. If TTAC is global how do you offer prizes to those overseas or are we omitted on the sly from competing?In the end I lost significant respect for Baruth.
  • Alan My view is there are good vehicles from most manufacturers that are worth looking at second hand.I can tell you I don't recommend anything from the Chrysler/Jeep/Fiat/etc gene pool. Toyotas are overly expensive second hand for what they offer, but they seem to be reliable enough.I have a friend who swears by secondhand Subarus and so far he seems to not have had too many issue.As Lou stated many utes, pickups and real SUVs (4x4) seem quite good.
  • 28-Cars-Later So is there some kind of undiagnosed disease where every rando thinks their POS is actually valuable?83K miles Ok.new valve cover gasket.Eh, it happens with age. spark plugsOkay, we probably had to be kewl and put in aftermarket iridium plugs, because EVO.new catalytic converterUh, yeah that's bad at 80Kish. Auto tranny failing. From the ad: the SST fails in one of the following ways:Clutch slip has turned into; multiple codes being thrown, shifting a gear or 2 in manual mode (2-3 or 2-4), and limp mode.Codes include: P2733 P2809 P183D P1871Ok that's really bad. So between this and the cat it suggests to me someone jacked up the car real good hooning it, because EVO, and since its not a Toyota it doesn't respond well to hard abuse over time.$20,000, what? Pesos? Zimbabwe Dollars?Try $2,000 USD pal. You're fracked dude, park it in da hood and leave the keys in it.BONUS: Comment in the ad: GLWS but I highly doubt you get any action on this car what so ever at that price with the SST on its way out. That trans can be $10k + to repair.
  • 28-Cars-Later Actually Honda seems to have a brilliant mid to long term strategy which I can sum up in one word: tariffs.-BEV sales wane in the US, however they will sell in Europe (and sales will probably increase in Canada depending on how their government proceeds). -The EU Politburo and Canada concluded a trade treaty in 2017, and as of 2024 99% of all tariffs have been eliminated.-Trump in 2018 threatened a 25% tariff on European imported cars in the US and such rhetoric would likely come again should there be an actual election. -By building in Canada, product can still be sold in the US tariff free though USMCA/NAFTA II but it should allow Honda tariff free access to European markets.-However if the product were built in Marysville it could end up subject to tit-for-tat tariff depending on which junta is running the US in 2025. -Profitability on BEV has already been a variable to put it mildly, but to take on a 25% tariff to all of your product effectively shuts you out of that market.
  • Lou_BC Actuality a very reasonable question.
Next