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"

  • Rochester I'd rather have a slow-as-mud Plymouth Prowler than this thing. At least the Prowler looked cool.
  • Kcflyer Don't understand the appeal of this engine combo at all.
  • Dave M. This and the HHR were GM's "retro" failures. Not sure what they were smoking....
  • Kcflyer Sorry to see it go. The interior design and color options in particular are rare in the industry
  • Wolfwagen Here is my stable. not great not bad I try to do as much as possible. I work for an Aftermarket automotive parts company so I can get most parts at a discount.i try to do as much of my own work as possible. My wife hates that I spend time and money fixing the vehicles but she doesn't want car payments either so...2019 VW Atlas 50K (wife's) Only issues so far were Brakes and normal maintenance.A Bad Cat Converter which was covered and a replacement of the rear bank head gasket which was a manufacturing defect due to improper torquing at the factory. All under warranty2003 Saab 9-5 Arc Wagon (my DD) 116 K picked up used last year. Replaced Struts, brakes, hatch struts, motor mounts, D/S swaybar link, Timing belt, water pump and thermostat Power steering pump Fuel pump, Both Front window regular rollers, Heater core and cabin air filter. Oil and transmission changes. Love the car but Saab/GM packaging is a nightmare.2005 Cadillac Deville (former DD now Son # 1 DD) picked up used 5 years ago with only 47K now 83K Plugs, coils, P/s pump, Water pump, hoses, P/S lines (mechanic job) evap valve, brakes, Front brake calipers and rear brake calipers. Currently has oil pan gasket leak - looking to have a mechanic do that2009 Mini Cooper (Daughters dd)picked up 2 years ago 67K Brakes and thermostat house to clear check engine light2001 Mazda Tribue (Son#2 dd) 106K picked last summer after he severely damaged a 2004 Hyundai accent. Oil changes
Next