California is Thinking of Changing Its Zero-Emission Vehicle Rules, and Automakers Aren't Happy About It

by Steph Willems

July 7th, 2016 3:46 PM

california is thinking of changing its zero emission vehicle rules and automakers

Halfway through its mandate to have 15.4 percent of the state’s vehicles generate zero emissions by 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is now considering changing its requirements.

The problem is too many credits handed out to green car manufacturers, who then sell them to dirtier automakers to bolster their standing with CARB, Bloomberg reports.

Since California created the mandate, makers of electric vehicles, Tesla especially, have skewed the equation. Under CARB requirements, automakers must build a certain amount of non-polluting vehicles in proportion to their market share. If they can’t, they can buy credits from another manufacturer that produces more non-polluting than required.

An all-electric automaker like Tesla has a big cache of credits ready for the taking. As a result, conventional automakers can get by with just six percent of their fleet carrying a “green” label.

Automakers are already annoyed with the U.S. government’s 2025 fuel economy target s, which are about to undergo a midterm review, but they’re really annoyed with California, especially if the state’s emissions regulator changes course in mid-stream.

CARB chairman Mary Nichols said she hasn’t figured out what to do about the overabundance of credits. Still, a chorus of voices is growing, calling on the regulator to make the mandate stricter — either by putting a cap on the number of credits available or boosting the required percentage of green vehicles.

Robert Bienenfeld, Honda’s assistant vice president for U.S. environmental strategy, told Bloomberg, “It’s bizarre to say we need to make the regulation more stringent because it’s working.”

Tesla’s vice-president for business development, Diarmuid O’Connell, called the possibility of capping credits “an extremely stupid idea.”

“You’d be punishing people who are doing the most to put EVs on the road,” he stated.

[Image: JT/ Flickr]

#California #CARB #Emissions #Environment #Government #GreenCars #Regulators

Comments

Join the conversation

12 of 55 comments

Ydnas7 on Jul 07, 2016

the core problem is that CARB supports H2, and the Chevy Bolt, Nissan LEAF 2, and Tesla 3 all destroy the economics of H2. CARB view was of 100 city mile EVs and 300 mile H2 fuel cells. but thats out of date versus Chevy Bolt, Nissan LEAF 2, and Tesla 3 which will all get 300 CITY miles. because 3 manufactures will sell credits, the price will plummet, and become so cheap, that only the bold and rich will try to sell H2 vehicles vs 200mile EVS at $150/kWh. so less H2 vehicles means death for H2 stations, which means death for H2 vehicles

Like Reply
- See 4 previous
- Dr. Doctor on Jul 07, 2016
  
  The major problem with hydrogen as a fuel source is that the bulk of it is produced by the electrolysis of natural gas. Splitting hydrogen from water is a pretty energy-intensive process that doesn't yield as much hydrogen as the natural gas process. Yes, water is the only byproduct but the energy, infrastructure, and R&D costs vs. lithium ion batteries and cleaner power generation make it the lesser of the two options.
  
  Like
- RHD on Jul 07, 2016
  
  @Dr. Doctor Someone needs to create a solar-powered water splitting machine for home fuel generation. Put in ten gallons of water at sunrise, fill up with pure hydrogen at sunset.
  
  Like
- Shaker on Jul 08, 2016
  
  @RHD "Put in ten gallons of water at sunrise, fill up with pure hydrogen at sunset." "As Seen on TV!" :-)
  
  Like
- Felix Hoenikker on Jul 08, 2016
  
  @Dr. Doctor Correction, Most hydrogen is produced by reforming a mixture of steam and methane (natural gas). Electrolysis of water is not a significant H2 supply in the US. One of the main goals of a "hydrogen economy" is to break the carbon cycle. Reforming natural gas produces CO2 as a by product so it is not a viable long term source of H2 for transportation fuels. The idea is to generate H2 from solar or nuclear power via electrolysis of water or another technology that does not generate CO2 as a by product. The biggest problem with H2 vehicles is storing H2 in high pressure tanks. Once a low pressure, on board storage system is developed, fuel cell vehicles will be a thing.
  
  Like
- Vulpine on Jul 08, 2016
  
  @Felix Hoenikker That's the point he was making, Felix, though he might have worded it differently. The problem is that even cracking hydrogen from natural gas creates emissions that we're trying to eliminate while the process at an on-site station seems to be slower and problematical, considering how few of those H2 stations are functional when an HFCV rolls in to refuel at any given time.
  
  Like
JustPassinThru on Jul 08, 2016

What this does is illustrate the FOLLY of expensive re-engineering, re-tooling of an entire industry to meet, not a changing economic circumstance but POLITICAL mandates - based on nothing but the whim of the hour, and as easily retracted or even reversed.

Like Reply
- See 4 previous
- Vulpine on Jul 08, 2016
  
  "What this does is illustrate the FOLLY of expensive re-engineering, re-tooling of an entire industry to meet, not a changing economic circumstance but POLITICAL mandates – based on nothing but the whim of the hour, and as easily retracted or even reversed." This isn't a political or economic situation, JPT, it's an environmental one. Because politics and economics simply ignored the environmental issue for so long, we're now having to force the issue rather than letting the market adapt at its own rate.
  
  Like
- JustPassinThru on Jul 08, 2016
  
  @Vulpine Yeah, I know. Some people are just in love with government - they feel lost without masters to tell them what to do, how, when, how much. And when all this market-diktat-by-imperial-fiat leads to situations like this, they tie themselves into pretzels defending it. Duly noted. I have to wonder, though: Why do people who love government and hate corporations and the cars corporations make, come to sites like this one? And where were these people when the government-built Zastiva Yugo so-badly needed buyers? You'd think they'd put their money where their mouths are.
  
  Like
- FreedMike on Jul 08, 2016
  
  "What this does is illustrate the FOLLY of expensive re-engineering, re-tooling of an entire industry to meet, not a changing economic circumstance but POLITICAL mandates – based on nothing but the whim of the hour, and as easily retracted or even reversed." -Direct quote from whoever was sticking with mainframe computers in 1981, when IBM introduced the PC and the government gave out tax incentives to businesses that bought them. That whole PC thing was just a passing fancy, after all. No one ever got rich off that.
  
  Like
- JimZ on Jul 08, 2016
  
  @JustPassinThru people who are so vehemently opposed to government regulations should be forced to swim in the Cuyahoga River.
  
  Like
- JustPassinThru on Jul 08, 2016
  
  @FreedMike The PC caught on, obviously, because a small, transportable desktop computer was more practical than something that took a whole office suite of space to work. The PC would have succeeded over mainframe computers without any government aid - in fact it did. And all the government subsidies to preserve mainframes wouldn't have helped. The electric car is not practical now; may never be practical in our lifetimes; and all the tax benefits or punishment on manufacturers who do not offer this folly, won't change that. It will just screw up the marketplace and cause wild reversals as it comes out that dull-normal lawmakers really are not Nostradaumses. Remember the Synthetic Fuels Corporation? SIX BILLION 1980 dollars of taxpayer money poured into that sinkhole, and NOTHING to show for it. EVER.
  
  Like