WSJ: California Spurs Electric Cars (re: compliance cars)

Source: California Drives Auto Makers to Sell Electric Cars - WSJ.com

I am remembering a similar CARB mandate that led to the EV1 fiasco. But having experienced the bad days of California air pollution in 1972, I am sympathetic to their goal.

Bob Wilson

 

One obvious solution to reducing pollution is reducing the number of offending vehicles. Limiting sales without limiting demand will cause the price to rise which will reduce losses or increase profits. It should also stimulate demand for efficient mass transit.

The only downside seems to be the existing manufacturers want to continue making & selling the usual stuff. Yes, even Toyota has to be dragged kicking & screaming into the 21st century and needs another coat of green paint on its image.

Time to dust off the old EV-1 stories replacing "GM" with "Toyota"?

 

What this really is doing is forcing the auto makers to spend a bunch of money on research and development that they otherwise would not have. If they are forced to sell these EVs then they will invest in the R&D to reduce the costs. Sales will drive economy of scale and the price will come down. I remember when Hybrids were just to expensive and a time when gas was cheaper.

 

I have been reading the replys to a 500e thread on the fiat500 forums and there is close to no support for an EV. I test drove a 500 Pup auto trans and I liked it. I drive a Prius which is far and away a better car, so I was not really in the market to buy a 500. I will be looking for a smaller car when I am ready to buy and an EV would be cool, just what attracted me to the Prius when I bought it, cool and different thank God!

 

I always say, "If you are going to be in business then you need to be able to cry". Crying is an attention getter and Fiat is crying, Abarth style tears.
The original 500 was an ICE and a manual trans, the new 500 is an ICE and a manual or auto trans.. there is way too much nesting going on here people!

 

Or they just sub-contract to an EV maker and don't spend a dime on R&D.

 

Cali is so full of it, their balls fell of years ago. All because the big oil, big car makers, and some scum bag lawyers (don't forget about the federal Government) had to sue CARB.... Makes me sick to think about how screwed up the whole scene is..

If we put 1/100th of the money we invest in refining gas into making cars greener, we would be way ahead. But we don't, what was the profits of Mobil/Exxon? Poor people, they're going bankrupt!!!! I don't how they'll make it until next year, makes me sick. IMHO, 50% of the cars on the streets in Cali in the next 10 years should be 0 emissions.... Right, like that'll happen, I'd have a better chance of having a heart attack.

 

...interesting WSJ article. With reference to the interview with Mike Jackson (AutoNation) on the other thread, he deferred talking about 100% EV cars. I would like to hear his take on this. I would ask two questions: (1) Does CA really need EV vs. PZEV hybrids to clean up the smog? or is that just a CARB policy preference? Given CA with its unique smog problems and ability to import out-of-state electricity *might* have a valid argument for EV for cleaning up the regional smog issue, question (2) is there any enviro-merit for rolling out this CARB policy out beyond CA (eg; to NJ, NY the CARB followers)?

 

Yes, the biggest factor making air hazardous to breath in Minneapolis is car exhaust (according to the American Lung association).
Even if you ignore the CO2 issue, air pollution from cars and trucks is a big issue in more places than you would think.

 

I am not ignoring CO2, just saying hybrid Prii is just as good as EV there on average. I am just saying outisde of CA I see no enviro-justification for forcing EV over say PZEV hybrid. There is still the policy argument that gasoline use should be reduced and shifted to elec for national security or energy diversification reasons.

 

I think the press and media have turned a blind eye or even attacked Hybrid technology. The EV car is the future and if the press got behind It we all may benefit.
The local news did a story that the Prius is the number #1 selling car in California than stacked the argument against hybrid technology most of it hearsay and groundless. The gist of he story was paying extra for a Hybrid may not recoup the costs in gas savings so why bother. Unbelievable how people think. Rather than exploit the benefits of supporting technology that saves the environment, reduces oil dependence, puts more money in consumers hands, and invests in the future. Hybrid needs a better PR machine.

 

My appologies, I did not mean to imply YOU were ignoring CO2. Just that even if you removed that aspect from the discussion, local tailpipe emmissions are an issue for many other reasons. And those reasons are not limited to California.
Although there is a lot more to gain with EV over dirty diesel or low mpg vehicles, there is still some gain over hybrids.

 

...it will be interesting to watch developments and see how it all shakes out. I guess if CA restricted free-HOV access to BEV-only that would sell a bunch right there.

 

If they have the range to return at night.

Bob Wilson

 

carb GOT sued for being dishonest and trying to regulate cafe standards. It had nothing to do with ZEV or plug in cars in reality. Carb on its own decided to make rules against PHEVs like requiring a 10 year battery warranty slowing development, and favoring fuel cells. Mary Nichols has huge balls, she even keeps people on staff that lie about their education and do fraudulent reports. They just don't really help clean the California air.

California gas taxes are much much higher than XOM profits in the state, and they could raise them more. The money doesn't really make it into greener cars though. That is a fallacious argument.

Federal cafe requirements and plug-in subsidies are getting more effieicent cars our there that use less gasoline.

Regulatory relief from CARB could help - actually removing battery waranty restrictions on phevs, and redoing emissions to measure how much phevs are likely to produce out of the tailpipe, instead of mainly comparing start up emissions. These have been proposed. Regulatory changes in electricity would also help. Free switching to time of use plans, allowing ccgt plants to be built in state to lower costs, etc. CARB wants everyone to drive fuel cell vehicles, if they changed to being technology neutral, a large amount of phevs would be sold.

Isn't that up to the consumer and not the state? The state of California would have to violate many federal laws to force people to get there. How many people would CARB try to bankrupt to force them to get rid of their working trucks and buy a ZEV? Would you support them?

 

lol
I don't think the regulators in california care if they force impracticle cars on the population.

They will rule for the purest versus cars that actually reduce pollution or gasoline usage.

 

What's wrong with a 10 year 150000 mile warranty? Manufacturers are asking the public to drop a good amount of money for the cars. I don't think it is too much to ask them to stand behind them that long.

Would you be happier if every manufacturer scaled back to 3 year 36000 miles bumper to bumper? Or followed the computer industry to 90 days or 1 year?

 

The warranty is just a financial obligation. There is not a difference between the battery installed in a CARB state and one installed in a non-CARB state. The longer required warranty period translates into more warranty reserves (insurance) for the manufacturer. I have not seen the calculations but it wouldn't surprise me that the reserves for 10 years vs 8 years would be close to double.

 

The problem is it makes the phev and hv look much more expensive than the ice. The state is mandating Expensive cars, then wonders why the they don't sell as well. Its just plain wrong. Why not ask for 20 years 500,000 miles?

I didn't get the benifit of a carb waranty, but toyota priced waranty losses in carb states into my car. Seems like OPEC is winning with the way you are thinking. I would rather have gotten my car for $100 less, and allowed toyota to provide the waranty they felt comfortable with in carb states. We would have had much more lithium by now if CARB was not against inovation with their much too long for progress waranties. The batteries in the prius have changed little since 2003.

Why does california's government work against phevs with one hand, then try to help with the other? Its the worst of regulation. Let carb say something like they need to allow for a reasonably price extended waranty? Its government over reach but much less harmful to progress than their current laws.

The point is, why not let a volt with an 8 year warranty join the car pool lane with one with a 10 year warranty. Is that what the car pool lane is for? Kind of stupid if you study even high school economics. I guess the car pool is for the guy that paid more for his car? Or maybe make the car pool lane for the biggest polluters, so they won't have to drive in stop and go traffic. Wait that would reduce pollution. OR maybe for one like the phv that goes fewer electric miles, because it may provide lower cost warranty repairs. Oh yes, and we get to the honda solution of just changing the state of charge to not pay the cost and screwing over people that bought the cars.

No the consumer loses with stupid imposed rules like 10 year waranty on hybrids even the plug in ones battery's it stiffles inovation and adds to cost, slowing adoption.

It really is so that the fuel cell lobby can win Yay. You know rules are needed to raise the price of hybrids, so that Ford and GM will be forced into compliance Fuel Cell vehicles.