I just read the article again, carefully this time. There is more crazy stuff in here than I caught the first time. This needs to be saved, just in case the link becomes obsolete.
California mandates electric-vehicle sales by 2003
By Charles J. Murray, EE Times
Feb 2, 2001 (9:15 AM)
URL: eetimes.com
PARK RIDGE, Ill. — California cemented its commitment to electric cars late last month, laying out a multiyear plan that is expected to be followed by New York, Massachusetts and Vermont as well. The plan, which calls for automakers to sell a limited number of so-called "zero-emission vehicles" by 2003, sent an unmistakable signal to car manufacturers that there will be no eleventh-hour reprieve from the task of designing, building and selling electric cars.
California's refusal to back away from its decade-old mandate has also begun to draw retaliatory fire from automakers.
General Motors filed a petition this past week for administrative review, a move interpreted by some observers as the first step toward a lawsuit. A GM spokesman would not comment on the company's legal plans but said that the automaker "is looking at all of our options."
The decision handed down by the California Air Resources Board (Carb) on Jan. 25 is considered a necessity for California's pollution-laden regions, as well as a huge setback for automakers. It is seen as especially critical now, not only because it affects 10 percent of the million cars and light-duty trucks sold in California every year, but because it also sets the stage for similar plans in the Northeast. It could affect an additional percentage of the 750,000 vehicles sold every year in New York, Massachusetts and Vermont.
Ironically, the decision to hold fast to the decade-old zero-emission vehicle mandate comes at a time when California is plagued by electrical-power shortages and rolling blackouts. The board's members insisted, however, that the current shortages would have no effect on the viability of their plan.
Many automotive engineers had hoped the most recent hearings would result in modifications of the proposed regulations, and were bitterly disappointed by the results.
"The board's action doesn't repeal the laws of economics or physics," said David Hermance, executive engineer of environmental engineering at the Toyota Technical Center (Gardena, Calif.). "The fact is, pure electric vehicles are hideously expensive and consumers don't want them unless someone else subsidizes them."
At the same time, environmentalists and electric-car proponents were also discouraged by the decision. "It's a bittersweet victory," said Greg Hanssen, co-chairman of the Production Electric Vehicle Drivers Coalition (Irvine, Calif.). "Many of us in the zero-emission vehicle community felt we could have achieved a quicker ramp-up to sustainable volume for battery-electric vehicles."
Slow down
For design engineers, California's decision could have a surprisingly wide-ranging impact. Because carmakers must now resurrect costly electric vehicle development programs, they may now face a cash crunch in other areas. "It can't fail to impact funding for other technical programs," Hermance said. "It's going to slow everything down."
Only one automaker at Carb's recent hearings voiced acceptance of the zero-emission vehicle mandate. Ford Motor Co., using a strategy that is likely to be adopted by other automakers during the next two years, said that it supports the plan as long as it gives credit for the sale of tiny battery-powered EVs. To meet the mandate, Ford plans to sell at least two types of electric cars: the Think City, a 9.8-foot-long two-seater with a top speed of 56 mph; and the Think Neighbor, an undisguised golf cart with a top speed of about 25 mph. The two vehicles are the offshoot of Ford's 1999 purchase of Think Nordic (Aurskog, Norway), a company that specializes in the design and production of small, battery-powered cars.
"We've always suspected that this was coming, so all of our planning has been geared for this kind of outcome," a Ford spokesman said.
Other automakers refused to divulge their plans for meeting the mandate. DaimlerChrysler, however, is also believed to be preparing to comply by producing golf cart-type vehicles. It purchased Global Electric MotorCars LLC (Fargo, N.D.) last year, reportedly because the company would serve as a source of speciality vehicles for use in gated communities, military bases, industrial parks and universities. GEM's product line includes two- and four-passenger cars powered by 72-volt electric motors and six 12-V batteries.
Carts count
A few years ago, the automotive community would have scoffed at the thought that such vehicles could be counted as cars. Now, however, they're anxious to view them that way. The reason: Golf cart-like vehicles qualify as such under the new Carb regulations, at least for now.
Carb's decision calls for three categories of battery-powered electric vehicles: full-function multipassenger vehicles; "city-type" vehicles with a 60-mph top speed and a 60-mile range; and "neighborhood" electric vehicles with a top speed of 25 mph. The neighborhood electric cars could be legally driven on 35-mph streets in 38 states.
Industry observers said that California had little choice in accepting the golf cart-type vehicles, especially in light of the short lead time before the 2003 model year. The board's representatives said, however, that they plan to phase out the acceptance of small vehicles by offering diminishing credits for them over time. By 2004, sale of so-called neighborhood vehicles will count for only half a credit, and by 2006, only 15 hundredths of a credit.
In the near term, automakers can meet the regulations by selling 4,450 full-function multipassenger electric vehicles or 15,450 neighborhood vehicles. Those figures represent a decrease from the 22,000 vehicles that Carb had previously demanded, but the agency's representatives said the figures will climb over the years.
The biggest concern among automakers, however, is to find a way to minimize the losses they'll inevitably bear as they ratchet up production of EVs. Up to now, such vehicles have been a dismal failure in the marketplace. Only 3,500 have been sold or leased nationwide since demonstration programs began in California during the mid-1990s. Approximately 2,000 of those were purchased or leased in the Golden State.
Experts say that limited driving range (about 70 miles, on average) and long recharge times (about five hours) caused the EV's failure.
Because those factors haven't changed, automakers say they aren't sure how they will meet the mandate, especially its requirement for full-function multipassenger cars. The most prominent model, General Motor's EV1, was discontinued two years ago, and the tooling from its Lansing, Mich.-based plant was placed in storage. GM refused to say whether it will resurrect the EV1. Similarly, GM won't say if it will revive its S-10 Electric Pickup. Nor has DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Nissan, Ford or Toyota announced plans for resurrecting their full-size electric vehicles, most of which have been discontinued.
Weak batteries
Engineers say that the crux of the EV's problem is its battery. Over the years, automakers have tried a parade of battery technologies, including lead acid, advanced lead acid, nickel iron, sodium sulfur, zinc air, zinc nickel oxide, lithium ion and nickel-metal hydride, among others. None, however, have produced the necessary combination of high energy density, fast recharge time and longevity.
To make full-size EVs successful, the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium has said that battery costs must be lowered to about $150 per kilowatt-hour. But today's best battery technology, nickel-metal hydride, doesn't come close to that. Engineers say that the NiMH battery packs used in vehicles such as the EV1 and the Toyota RAV4 cost about $1,000 per kWh, which translates to about $30,000 per battery pack.
For automakers, costs like those make it impossible to break even, let alone reach profitability. General Motors' EV1, for example, was priced at $33,995 but cost about $78,000 per vehicle to produce. Similarly, Toyota's RAV4-EV cost more than $100,000 to make, but sold for just $42,000, the company has said.
For automakers, however, the biggest concern now may be that their EV losses might be about to grow. Several states, most notably New York, Massachusetts and Vermont, already have zero-emission vehicle laws on the books and must therefore follow California's lead. (Federal legislators have declared that all states must follow laws set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or California's regulations. They cannot create new mandates.)
"Now that the ZEV rules are more or less locked down, other states can and will follow," said Hanssen of the Production Electric Vehicle Drivers Coalition. "The automakers were very concerned about this at the hearing."
Indeed, automakers say they are worried because those states, unlike California, have not had a decade to understand the issues and develop the regulations. "The northern states are more problematic," the Ford spokesman said. "At least in California, they've been willing to work with the automakers. But the other states are just going to adopt the California standard and they don't yet have the infrastructure in place and don't have any consumer interest."
Such issues, however, aren't the concern of California's regulators. The 11-member board, based in Sacramento, has said that more than half of that state's smog-forming pollutants come from motor vehicles, and that its long-term goal is to control them.
That's why California has also put more bite into the new measure by mandating automakers not only build the vehicles, but sell them too. Carmakers that don't comply could be charged $5,000 per unsold vehicle.
Within weeks, both sides should know whether the battle will escalate. Some observers believe that if California dismisses GM's petition for review, the giant automaker will fight back with legal action. The question then, observers say, is whether other automakers will join the fray. |
