Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : IMPCO Technologies (IMCO), formerly AirSensors (ARSN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Oravetz who wrote (220)	9/28/2000 12:36:44 PM
From: Jim Oravetz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 298

California reaffirms zero-emission vehicle plan By Charles J. Murray, EE Times Sep 12, 2000 (10:23 AM) URL: eetimes.com PARK RIDGE, Ill. — California held fast in its battle with the world's biggest auto makers, announcing Friday (Sept. 8) that it will require them to market electric vehicles in the 2003 model year. The announcement came after two days of hearings and deliberations by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which originally set the mandate in motion a decade ago. Auto makers had been anxiously awaiting last week's review of the requirements. Most have complained that consumers aren't interested in battery-powered vehicles, and had hoped that CARB would back away from or soften its original mandate, which requires 4 percent of all vehicles sold in California to meet zero-emission vehicle status by 2003. General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have all produced electric vehicles (EVs) as part of a demonstration plan in California, but have collectively sold or leased only 2,300 of them in that state, well below the roughly 22,000 that will need to be sold annually to meet the CARB mandate. CARB said that it kept the mandate intact because zero-emission vehicles are the best way to deal with that state's air pollution problems. "We have to think not just of 2003, but also of protecting the state's air quality far into the future," said Alan Lloyd, chairman of CARB. Currently, only battery-powered vehicles, or so-called "pure electrics," qualify for zero-emission status. In the wake of the decision, auto makers are scrambling for a plan. None have as yet built battery-powered vehicles in high volume. As a result, they don't have the kind of automated production facilities in place that would enable them to build the cars at low cost. Most say that the current cost of the EVs is so high that the battery packs alone exceed the entire selling price of the vehicles. To deal with the latest decision, automotive manufacturers say they are considering three possibilities: they can comply; refuse to comply; or petition for reconsideration. If petitioning for reconsideration fails, they could also initiate a court action. Most auto companies are expected to comply with the ruling. Ford Motor Co. has already started building its "Think" line of electric vehicles. This line includes the City, a small "around town" EV with a top speed of 55 mph, and the Neighbor, a smaller EV with a top speed of 30 mph and a range of 30 miles. Cost of non-compliance No other auto maker has announced plans as yet. All are expected to comply because non-compliance would result in a penalty of $5,000 for each EV not built. For some of the biggest auto makers, that could mean fines ranging from $20 million to $40 million a year. Automotive manufacturers say that such fines would actually be a bargain compared to the money they expect to lose in their EV programs. But they still don't consider non-compliance a viable option, because non-compliance could cause public relations problems, and possibly difficulties with stockholders. Even as the 2003 model year draws closer, however, most auto companies are still undecided as to their course of action. Several are holding out hope that CARB will make adjustments to its plan as a means of enabling the auto companies to shoulder the financial burden. If such adjustments are made, they would be revealed by CARB in a meeting in January. A CARB spokesman said that adjustments are expected, but described them as "tweaks." Several automakers said they will announce their plans when they know about the adjustments. "Until we know how they will adjust, it's hard for us to develop a product plan," said David Hermance, executive engineer for environmental engineering at Toyota Technical Center U.S.A. (Gardena, Calif.). A General Motors spokesman said that company is hanging on to a glimmer of hope that there still might be no mandate. "The official resolution makes no mention of a mandate," a GM spokesman said. "The board voted on an electrical vehicle 'program,' not a mandate." CARB, however, is adamant about its position. "Any automaker that believes the mandate no longer exists is in for a world of hurt come 2003," said a spokesman for CARB. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Advanced Technology vehicles are expected to compose approximately 17% of the automotive market by 2020. Here's how the advanced technology market is expected to breakdown. Diesel Hybrids 1% Gas Hybrids 39% Pure Electrics 4% Fuel Cells 1% Turbo Direct Injection 26% Natural Gas 10% Alcohol 19% The *.gif file for this table was taken from EETimes. I could not read the source of this data. This was not in the above referenced URL Jim