More

HuffPost Social Reading

California 'Clean Car' Regulations: State Poised To Vote On Historic New Standards (VIDEO)

California Clean Car

First Posted: 01/26/2012 6:32 pm Updated: 01/26/2012 6:42 pm

SAN FRANCISCO — The head of California's air quality board on Thursday called proposed rules that would require automakers to build less-polluting cars and trucks by 2025 a historic move for a cleaner environment.

California Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols said she hopes the rules to require that vehicles emit about 75 percent less smog-producing pollutants will "lead the nation and the world."

(SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO)

The new standards, which also include big cuts in greenhouse gas pollutants, would begin with new cars sold in 2015, and get increasingly more stringent until 2025. The rules also mandate that one of every seven new cars sold in 2025 in the state be a zero-emission or plug-in hybrid vehicle.

"We can't afford to wait. We have to act on these issues now," she said at the panel's meeting. "Our projections show continued growth in population and vehicle miles traveled, which will affect air quality for years to come."

The state's smog emissions standards are often more strict than federal ones, which means other states often adopt them as their own.

Fourteen other states, including Washington, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts, have adopted California's current emissions goals, which is why the new regulations could have a wide-ranging effect. Of those states, 10 also adopted the zero-emission vehicle standards as well.

The regulations, which could be voted on as early as Thursday, will continue the state's first-in-the-nation greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks, which went into effect in 2009. This time, the greenhouse gas reduction element was designed with federal regulators so that it will match national standards expected to be passed later this year.

"When we did the first greenhouse gas standards, it was war," said Tom Cackette, deputy director of the board, referring to legal challenges from auto dealers and business groups after the state passed the initial greenhouse gas emissions limits.

"They sued us in two federal courts. Fortunately, from our viewpoint, they lost. Over that time, with the increase in gas prices, the shake-up in the auto industry brought new management which looked at the future. Where's our future? It's not profits next quarter but how do we make a sustainable business."

In addition to new smog and greenhouse gas emissions limits, the regulations being voted on also includes a new zero-emissions vehicle mandate. The goal is to have 1.4 million zero-emission and plug-in hybrids on California roads by 2025. But the program also looks ahead to 2050, laying groundwork for a goal of having 87 percent of the state's fleet of new vehicles fueled by electricity, hydrogen fuel cells or other clean technologies.

"This regulation is planned over a 40-year horizon, and that is extremely unusual," said board spokesman David Clegern. "But it gives us time to put the pieces in place with no surprises. The individual companies can plan for changes and develop the technology, and over the long haul, it will shift us away from reliance on petroleum."

The board's meeting comes just three days after federal regulators met in San Francisco to hear public comment on the Obama administration's national fuel economy standards, the most far-reaching in history. If passed later this year, they would require the average passenger car to reach a 54.5-mph standard by 2025.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 13 automakers, CARB and others worked together so that when the federal government passes its greenhouse gas emissions limits later this year, they will match California's and create one national standard.

Some automakers said the market for clean car technology is already spurring the technology and innovation the regulations seek to influence.

"Yes, the cars will be lighter, compact, far more fuel efficient. That's what the mandate will be. It's not enforced by the government but really by the economics of the future," said Michael Dobrin, a spokesman for Toyota.

Yet some auto dealers have argued that the government's emphasis on strict pollution controls will result in much higher prices for consumers.

Forrest McConnell, director of the National Automobile Dealers Association, testified during the federal hearing Tuesday that tightening fuel efficiency standards will result in unaffordable cars.

"We all want better fuel economy, but it is not free. By adding $3,200, if not more, to the average cost of a car, over seven million Americans will be priced out of the market, fleet turnover will be reduced, and public policy benefits will be delayed," McConnell said.

Other dealers say consumer demand for electric and hybrid vehicles is not what the board hopes it is.

The California New Car Dealers Association says hybrid vehicles, which have been marketed and sold for 13 years, only make up 2.1 percent of the national market, and 4.1 percent of California's market. They say the goal of making one of every seven new cars sold in California a zero-emission vehicle in roughly the same amount of time is unrealistic.

"Rather than setting vehicle manufacturers, new car dealers, and alternative vehicles themselves up for another predictable failure, (the board) should adjust the mandate to reflect a goal that is realistic and attainable," said Jonathan Morrison, the state dealers' association's director of legal and regulatory affairs.

The air board's research and environmental advocates dispute those cost increase estimates, and say increases in hybrid and other sales continue to rise as more cars hit the market. They argue that fuel cost savings will make up for any vehicle price increase.

"Our research shows a $1,400 to $1,900 car price increase, but over the life of the vehicles, the owners save $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance costs," said Clegern.

One of the nation's foremost consumer groups, the Consumers' Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, voiced support for the regulations, saying in a letter that they will "protect consumers by encouraging the development of cleaner, more efficient cars that save families money, help reduce the American economy's vulnerability to oil price shocks and reduce harmful air pollution."


FOLLOW HUFFPOST SAN FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO — The head of California's air quality board on Thursday called proposed rules that would require automakers to build less-polluting cars and trucks by 2025 a historic move for a clean...
SAN FRANCISCO — The head of California's air quality board on Thursday called proposed rules that would require automakers to build less-polluting cars and trucks by 2025 a historic move for a clean...
Filed by Carly Schwartz  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 71
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Y3rMawm
veni, vidi, bibi.
02:59 AM on 01/31/2012
We Californians will force car makers to make cars that nobody wants because they function well below the lower limits of consumer expectations, thus increasing the price of cars in the remaining 49 states due to our own self centered NIMBY-ism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LibertarianCentrist
Dems/GOP..... Exactly the same....
10:31 AM on 01/30/2012
Of course not!!! In Europe RIGHT NOW, BMW produces a 316d diesel, which has the same emissions as a 2nd generation prius, and gets 70mpg highway. Why isn't this car in the US??? Why are cars like this not in the US??? The government has some explaining to do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Y3rMawm
veni, vidi, bibi.
02:59 AM on 01/31/2012
Bing-effing-go!!!

RP2012!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:16 PM on 01/29/2012
Jan 26, 2011: Vice President Biden visited Ener1, Inc., a manufacturer of advanced batteries for electric vehicles, in Greenfield, Indiana to announce our plan to reach this one million vehicle goal by 2015,” wrote Levine. “The facility that the Vice President visited would not exist if not for a $118.5 million grant from the Department of Energy, which was part of a $2.4 billion Recovery Act investment in electric vehicles.

Jan 26, 2012: Failed. Ener1--a company that manufactures batteries for electric cars, and that received $118.5 million in federal stimulus money, and that Vice President Joe Biden visited last year the day after President Obama’s State of the Union Address—announced today that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

More bad technological choices by the govt. To expect CA to choose better is foolhardy.
11:54 AM on 01/29/2012
Bring on the electric, flex-fuel, hybrid, CNG, LNG and hydrogen fueled vehicles. We will need them all. It is time to end the oil monopoly on transportation fuels.

The price of oil keeps going up. We need a choice at the pump.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jared Jentzsch
Pizza: A circular Italian food object.
12:48 AM on 01/29/2012
How do you get ZERO emmissions? Do they drive on butterfly wings and fairy dust? A plug in still needs electricity, which comes from burning fossil fuels, or did I miss something? Oh, and though you may reduce carbon from the DRIVING, what of the Rare earth metals needed to be mined and smelted to create the hybrid. Rare Earth metals are the new blood diamonds. So the humanity cost is terrible. Maybe mass transit is a better goal.
photo
Aquest
No one here is exactly what they appear.
10:27 AM on 01/29/2012
How are rare earth metals the new blood diamonds?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jared Jentzsch
Pizza: A circular Italian food object.
11:32 AM on 01/29/2012
Here is just one reference to the effects of rare earth metals. Though I first learned about it while studying the raw materials used in lithium batteries and touch screen devices.

http://tnahistoryoftechnology.wikispaces.com/Rare+Earth+Metals+and+Congo
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:32 PM on 01/28/2012
Plug in commuter hybrids like the oils, and all electric commuter vehicles like the Leaf with 100 mile range can replace 90% of our oil use.

Install rooftop solar, offshore wind, and waste bio fuels, plus efficiency, and you have a plan, that will work 24/7, forever, clean and safe, and cheaper than nukes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Y3rMawm
veni, vidi, bibi.
03:02 AM on 01/31/2012
Where are you going to get the electricity? Do you like being able to afford to drive a reliable car? Where are you going to put all the batteries to store all that wind/solar generated power?

If such things were economically viable, government would not have to subsidize them.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
12:53 AM on 02/01/2012
rooftop solar peaks at just the right times to charge cars parked to commuter work day.

Electric cars are far more reliable than gas cars. Didn't you know? not even sloe. 10 times better.

Go test drive the Leaf and get over your old ideas.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spriddler
03:08 PM on 01/27/2012
An average fuel economy of 54.5 mpg means no more internal combustion engines in the not so distant future and not by anyone's choice but by government mandate. Can't say I am a huge fan of that.
07:07 AM on 01/28/2012
Many new European and Japanese internal combustion cars already achieve this, including a pretty big Mercedes I'm looking at which does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. This legislation is in fact, pretty weak.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Y3rMawm
veni, vidi, bibi.
03:05 AM on 01/31/2012
There is not need for the legislation, for the outcomes always fall short of intentions.

Then again, is your car available in the US? Which exact model would that be?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spriddler
01:40 PM on 01/31/2012
What vehicle models would those be exactly? Hybrids generally get a combined mpg somewhere in the high 30's or low 40's.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:29 PM on 01/28/2012
Nissan leaf: 85MPG,

Volts, 120MPG.

I guess you are wrong?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jared Jentzsch
Pizza: A circular Italian food object.
12:59 AM on 01/29/2012
Try again. This is from the Chevrolet web site fine print section:

4 EPA-estimated 94 MPGe (electric); MPG 35 city/40 hwy (gas).
5 Based on national average of 12 cents per kWh and 12.9 kWh for a full charge ($1.55). Electricity cost vary. Check with your provider for your rates.

I don't understand the 94 MPGe rating. MPG means gallons of gas. Adding the 'e' is meaningless. But if you gas it up, drive away, you get 35-40 Miles Per Gallon. My next door neighbor has a 1992 Honda CRX which gets 52 MPG and it has a carburetor.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spriddler
09:33 AM on 01/30/2012
Those have electric motors not inetrnal combustion engines.
02:55 PM on 01/27/2012
Bring on the electric, flex-fuel, hybrid, CNG, LNG and hydrogen fueled vehicles. The price of oil keeps going up. It is time to end the oil monopoly on transportation fuels.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Neechie
This is my micro-bio
01:07 PM on 01/27/2012
I bought a Prius recently and half of the cost of my car payment is money I save on gas now. It's great! Some people were excited when I got my car and others really gave me a hard time. Why not a sports car or something? People just need some education. If you don't care about the earth, at least care about your wallet. On top of that, it's the nicest ride of any car I have been in and really spacious. Other Prius' let me in during traffic and I see them pulled over helping people on the freeway. It feels nice to be in the club!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NWBrunette
Blessed Girl
01:00 PM on 01/27/2012
Yeah California!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bio-man
An advocate for the middle class
12:12 PM on 01/27/2012
Electric cars will be part of the smart grid conversion in the utilization V to G technology (Vehicle to Grid), in that Electric cars will help utilities balance between load and generation (ACE- area control error). Also with many wind farms, they tend to produce more in the off peak hours, thus with more electric cars plugged in will provide utilities an energy sink and during periods of peak demand, the EV's will provide power to the grid. There will obviously be a great deal of resistance to this change as seen by some of the comments on this thread, yet change will come. While some who favor the fossil fuel status quo may complain about costs, they completely overlook the enviromnetal and health benefits as well as decreased military expendatures of not needing to preserve the fossil fuel supply chain network. One more point, when a Volt is operating on the battery, it gets 93 MPG equivalent, but on 37 MPG on gasoline because electricity is much more efficient as 80% of the energy in the batterys goes to the wheels while an ICE only has a 15% - 20% efficiency at best. California has always been a trend setter and this issue is no exception
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NWBrunette
Blessed Girl
01:07 PM on 01/27/2012
F/F.
photo
Aquest
No one here is exactly what they appear.
10:46 AM on 01/29/2012
I understand the concept of using cars as storage devices but it makes little practical sense to me. If you are driving an EV, you plug it in at night to recharge at a lower per KWH charge. In this scenario, you have also helped out the grid by storing excess power. So, you drive to work (hopefully close by so you don't use all of the charge). At work you plug back in so the grid can take advantage of your stored energy. If that energy is needed by the grid during the peak hours of the day, won't you face the possibility of coming back to a discharged car and if so, you then need to wait to recharge or use a fossil fuel to get home. This doesn't even get into the new software and hardware systems utilities and grids will need to develop and implement to use EVs as grid storage.

I think the chances are higher that utilities will start using new battery tech to store electricity during non-peak hours and releasing it during peak hours. I also think that stop/start technology will gain ground faster then EVs and gasoline cars will eventually be natural gas cars with start/stop technology.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bio-man
An advocate for the middle class
07:26 PM on 01/29/2012
EV's won't be the only system helping out the grid and you are correct that utilities will also take advantage of battery storage for on peak demand. As far as software, you should go to PNNL and NREL sites as lots of very smart folks are working on these issues as we speak. As far as coming back to a discharged car, thats where smart grid technology comes in. Back in the early 20th centrury, energy was cheap and information was expensive, in the early 21st centruy the opposite is true and we should take full advantage of information technology. I dissagree with you on Natural Gas cars as the 15 to 20% efficiency for Gasoline ICE's I mentioned above falls to less the 5%. Natural Gas would be much better utilized in a Combined Cycle Plant that can also charge EV's and is better able to handle variablilty of the grid.
09:36 AM on 01/27/2012
More good news in Obama picking winners -
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/electric-car-firm-received-biden-visit-and-118m-stimulus-funds-files-bankruptcy

Perhaps this is Bush's fault as well.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
08:16 AM on 01/27/2012
I am proud to be a Californian when I see sane rules like this put in place. This is government at it's best. The cost of the cars will be far outweighed by the reduction in greenhouse gases. Now let's going on first rate rapid transit and high speed rail.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NWBrunette
Blessed Girl
01:02 PM on 01/27/2012
Yes!
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
05:36 AM on 01/27/2012
The price of gasoline is not going to stay in the $3 range, it is going up. Production of conventional oil peaked in 2006 and has been flat since. You can expect gasoline to be over $4 this summer, and a decline in oil production will send it over $5 in the next few years.

When filling up an SUV costs over $125 we won't need government regulations to convince people to move to more efficient vehicles.

But we do need the regulations in the transition to make sure those new vehicles are available when the time comes. It takes 4 years to develop a new car,, so if we wait until gas goes up and then start to develop more efficient cars then we are going to be in a world of hurt.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Just say no to gasoline
11:45 AM on 01/27/2012
It is the customer that decides what vehicles are made. Back in the 1970s, when we had to wait in lines for hours to get 7 gallons of gasoline at double the price that it was the year before, we were determined to change to more efficient vehicles. Back then, we had electric cars. We had alternative fuel vehicles. We had hybrids. We had Gasohol. We had pedal-powered two-passenger vehicles. Those companies went bankrupt.
Today, customers are looking for microprocessors, GPSs with speed trap alerts, satellite TVs, satellite radio, speaker cell phones, brighter headlights, more safety devices so that they can take greater risks (with other people's lives), speed, size/bulk (to intimidate others), and many other features not related to fuel mileage. Most have no idea what fuel mileage they get. They only know that someone is cheating them and stealing their money and that their political saviors will come to their rescue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Just say no to gasoline
11:58 AM on 01/27/2012
PS: It takes $125 to fill up my one ton diesel truck. But I only fill up every 3 months or so. I get 25 mpg and only use it when necessary. Before I retired, I gave away my Toyota Corolla because my truck got better fuel mileage when car pooling with three other people.
I realized 75 mpg with my truck. Over 28 years, I saved $100,000 just by car pooling. I invested that money and the value tripled. Now I can afford an energy efficient retirement home on 22 cares with an electric car and a wind generator. All of the lights (LED) in my home operate on a single 12V batter and a solar charger from Harbor Freight.
Empower yourselves. Don't wait for politicians to save you from your follies.
Switching from fossil fuel to "renewable" fuel is like an alcohol switching from cheap vodka to expensive gin. Think "energy efficiency." "Green" is just an advertising word like "Lite" is for the food industry. Think "What can I do to Save money?"
I do pay more to get biodiesel than I would for petroleum diesel, but that is a personal choice. Am I polluting less? Probably not, except when I don't drive. Choose when you need to drive and consolidate trips. You will save money and pollute just a little less.
02:22 PM on 01/27/2012
I think you are missing the point of the article which is about emissions, not fuel economy. The fact is that we have the technology to make a much cleaner-running vehicle, yet most manuafacturers choose to make their vehicles as dirty as the law will allow because it's a couple of hundred bucks cheaper to manufacture. Sure, the additional cost will be passed on to the consumer but it is not difficult to argue that the environmental cost of staying the course far exceeds the relatively miniscule additional cost of improving the vehicles. CA also led the way in requiring emissions info. on the window sticker which becomes national standard in 2013. For the rest of us and used cars, visit fueleconomy.gov for emissions info. on all new and prior-year vehicles.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Steaphens
It's all about liberty.
01:46 AM on 01/27/2012
I'll pass on these cars myself,with their environmentally unfriendly batteries and high cost.
02:11 PM on 01/27/2012
Have you been drinking Kool Aid? The notion that hybrid batteries are 'environmentally unfriendly' is a myth perpetuated by the fossil fuel and oil industries. The batteries, which have been known to last 200k+ miles, are highly recyclable and unlike other recyclable products, they are virtually always recycled at end of life because it it profitable to do so. The methods of battery production and formulas have been steadily improving, further reducing their eco impact while increasing their power and lifespan. As for high cost of hybrids, when you factor in higher resale value and lower cost of maintenance (the brake pads on mine lasted 60k due to regenerative braking), in addition to the fuel savings, it's pretty much a wash on most models, and you've improved the environment and national security in the process.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Steaphens
It's all about liberty.
02:15 PM on 01/27/2012
I drink no Obama Foolaid.And while batteries can be recycled,the materials are still toxic.Hybrids still need to continue to advance,mainly to get their high costs down to the levels of normal automobiles.I know many people like them,but probably more don't because of the higher cost of the car.No thanks,I'll stick with what I have.
photo
Aquest
No one here is exactly what they appear.
10:57 AM on 01/29/2012
I'd be interested in seeing some reference to recycling of lithium batteries. From my research it is something that is not being done much, if at all currently. Lead/acid batteries are recycled worldwide at about a 95% rate. Lithium batteries are difficult to recycle because of the lithium. The one US company that recycled batteries had a bad fire and ended up moving their entire operation out of the US to Canada.

I would also like to see any information validating the claim that Li based batteries used in cars last very long at all (let alone 200k+ miles). One of the two big problems with Li batteries is that the degrade rapidly. That is, they hold less of a charge and take more time to recharge. No one has produced a Li battery that can compete with lead/acid batteries in terms of cycles.
photo
CTDFalconer
Think twice, post once.
02:26 PM on 01/27/2012
They're no worse than burning through several tons of petroleum. Comparatively, batteries are quite clean, but the real benefit to moving to an electric transportation fleet is that it opens the door to the next energy economy. We have known all along that petroleum is a one-way road and the bad things about it are only going to get worse. Sub-three-dollar gas is a thing of the past. It is a certainty that we can't stay on a fossil-fuel-based economy. Driving on electricity lets us get our transportation fuel from any and every source, sun, wind, biomass, nuke -- whatever. We also know that the next energy economy will necessarily include numerous sources. Electricity doesn't care where it comes from. The average commuter could easily meet 99.7% of his transportation needs electrically, and range is steadily improving. For the rest, there's rental cars.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Steaphens
It's all about liberty.
02:56 AM on 01/28/2012
I posted to another user about looking into diesel technologies,like what I've seen in Germany.