Tesla Leads Sellers of CARB ZEV Credits, Chrysler Biggest Buyer

by TTAC Staff

Published: October 18th, 2013

tesla leads sellers of carb zev credits chrysler biggest buyer

According to data released by the California Air Resources Board, CARB, Tesla Motors was the top seller of the zero-emission vehicle credits that regulatory board requires car makers to have if they want to sell cars in that state. Toyota was the top seller of hybrid-car credits.

Tesla sold 1,311.52 ZEV credits from Oct. 1, 2012, through Sept. 30 this year. Suzuki Motor Corp., the next biggest seller, transferred about 41 credits. Though Suzuki no longer sells cars in the United States, they still have credits accumulated from prior sales. Toyota transferred 507.5 plug in zero emission vehicle credits generated by its Prius hybrid. General Motors Co. acquired the same number as Toyota sold, so presumably GM bought them from its Japanese rival.

Buyers of CARB ZEV credits.

Automakers, if they want to sell cars and light trucks in California, must sell EVs or other zero emissions vehicles in proportion to their market share in the state. The goal is to have a million and a half ZEVs on California roads by the year 2025. If companies generate more credits than their sales require, CARB allows those credits to be sold. Each Tesla Model S earns the company as many as 7 ZEV credits, the maximum issued by California.

Companies listed by CARB as buying ZEV credits over the past 12 months were Chrysler Group LLC, GM; Honda Motor Co.; Jaguar Land Rover; Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.’s Subaru; and Volkswagen AG. CARB does not keep track of specific trades or prices, saying the goal is for all automakers covered under California law are compliant.

Some indication of the pricing can be found in company financial reports. Tesla reported that 12% of it’s revenue in the first six months of 2013 came from ZEV credit sales amounting to $119 million. Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that the company’s ZEV credit sales will decline in the second half of the year.

#CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard #CARB #EVs #Hybrids #Tesla #Toyota #ZEVCredits

TTAC Staff

More by TTAC Staff

Comments

Join the conversation

9 of 23 comments

28-Cars-Later on Oct 18, 2013

I still say the whole idea of selling these "credits" is total fraud. If they put a quota on automaker sales unless they sold X amount of low pollution vehicles I may disagree with but it would force everyone to develop of license PZEV or ZEV tech. Using this method I could flood Cali with 12mpg high smog wonders and if my margin was high enough transfer a percentage of profit to someone with a golf cart division (i.e. GEM).

Like Reply
- See 5 previous
- Scoutdude on Oct 18, 2013
  
  No the current idea does not allow someone to flood the market with 12mpg high smog wonders. All cars must meet meet minimum emissions standards. You could only sell as many as the credits you could purchase would allow. You would have to have that high profit margin to be able to purchase those credits and still make a profit. If they said you had to sell them yourself instead of buying credits companies would just buy ZEVs from someone who makes them, slap your badge on them and sell them at a loss. It would in no way force everyone to develop or even license the technology. The thought of everyone having to sell a ZEV was one of the driving factors behind yet another of the ill conceived business ventures of Malcom Bricklin that went bankrupt the EV Warrior. If the goal is to get a certain percentage of ZEV cars on the road, the use of credits is just as an effective method as making a mfg produce or sell them.
  
  Like
- 28-Cars-Later on Oct 18, 2013
  
  @Scoutdude I'm going to assume you're correct because I don't know how its supposed to work, but I still think the whole thing sounds dodgy.
  
  Like
- Jpolicke on Oct 19, 2013
  
  @Scoutdude But one Tesla sold is one EV actually on the road, not seven. The ability to generate surplus credits by selling a single car suggests a completely artificial scheme.
  
  Like
- Scoutdude on Oct 19, 2013
  
  @jpolicke They are looking to meet a percentage of ZEVs on the road, so my guess is that for one EV you generate credits to sell 7 vehicles that are not ZEVs, atPZEV or PZEV.
  
  Like
- Luke42 on Oct 19, 2013
  
  @28-Cars-Later It is dodgy. It's an attempt to create a synthetic "market based solution" in a situation where nobody can put environmental/climate damage onto their ledger. As a way to put environmental/climate damage onto everyone's books, a carbon tax would be more fair and more market-based. And, if you offset it by reducing payroll taxes, it can be 0 revenue and would stop discouraging employment while discouraging CO2 emissions. But I said "tax" and "climate", and those words are even more "Democrat" than the moderate healthcare market reforms that the Republicans shut the government down over. So, while I think a carbon tax (coupled with the repeal of odd policies like the carbon-emission-permit market AND a reduction in payroll taxes) would be good public policy, I'd be surprised if it ever went through.
  
  Like
- Pch101 on Oct 19, 2013
  
  @Luke42 "a carbon tax would be more fair and more market-based." This is quite similar to a carbon tax. A company that doesn't build enough EVs has to pay someone else who produces more than what is necessary. The idea of a carbon tax is that the regulators will establish a tolerable level of pollution and then allow the market to sort out how that target is met. California's approach to EVs is virtually the same. (Personally, I think that the state's approach to EVs is misguided. But the trading mechanism itself isn't the problem.)
  
  Like
Zip89123 on Oct 19, 2013

Carb credits, from the same morons that poisoned our water with MTBE, that would rather see a forest burn than log it (like that wouldn't pollute the air!@&*(),won't build any new freeways, environmentally sends manufacturing jobs elsewhere due to inane laws, and while I could go on and on, it was just easier to move out of state to freedom.

Like Reply
- Thelaine on Oct 19, 2013
  
  +1 canddmeyer. Congrats on your escape. Now you can laugh at the latest brilliant scheme from the Sacramento Utopians. It's always easier to build your Neverland using other people's money. They won't stop trying to perfect that state until they have destroyed it. Enjoy your windfall, Elon.
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Wjtinfwb My comment about "missing the mark" was directed at, of the mentioned cars, none created huge demand or excitement once they were introduced. All three had some cool aspects; Thunderbird was pretty good exterior, let down by the Lincoln LS dash and the fairly weak 3.9L V8 at launch. The Prowler was super cool and unique, only the little nerf bumpers spoiled the exterior and of course the V6 was a huge letdown. SSR had the beans, but in my opinion was spoiled by the tonneau cover over the bed. Remove the cover, finish the bed with some teak or walnut and I think it could have been more appealing. All three were targeting a very small market (expensive 2-seaters without a prestige badge) which probably contributed. The PT Cruiser succeeded in this space by being both more practical and cheap. Of the three, I'd still like to have a Thunderbird in my garage in a classic color like the silver/green metallic offered in the later years.
D Screw Tesla. There are millions of affordable EVs already in use and widely available. Commonly seen in Peachtree City, GA, and The Villages, FL, they are cheap, convenient, and fun. We just need more municipalities to accept them. If they'll allow AVs on the road, why not golf cars?
ChristianWimmer Best-looking current BMW in my opinion.
Analoggrotto Looks like a cheap Hyundai.
Honda1 It really does not matter. The way bidenomics is going nobody will be able to afford shyt.