Ironic legislation: CARB ruling to kill aftermarket plug-in hybrids?
by Jonathon Ramsey on Jan 20th 2009 at 7:58PM 
The uncertain future of the alternative-powered and alternative-fueled vehicle is being decided by a confluence of old and new technology, big business and start-ups, marketing, vested interests, and public perception. It is no surprise, then, that when it comes to government regulation, we are bound to end up with some conflicting decisions. A company in California that converts regular hybrids to plug-in hybrids has found itself smack in the middle of one of those conflicts.Last year, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) cut its mandated amount of electric vehicle sales in California by 70%. Some thought that might leave an exploitable opening for plug-in hybrids to gain serious market share. A number of start-ups have been established that install additional batteries into cars like the Toyota Prius, rendering them all electric below 34 mph, and allowing them to be recharged in 4 hours from a standard 3-prong outlet. The retrofit turns the 40+ mpg Prius into a 100+ mpg dromedary.
A new CARB proposal would require those start-ups to put their cars through smog tests that run about $25,000 per car, and to warranty their conversions for 10 years or 150,000 miles. The smog test issue has to do with a pollutant buildup issue in the catalytic converter and the gas vapor canister on cars that do a lot of cold starts and that might not use their internal combustion engines for more than three days. The warranty terms are the same as those mandated for any company that sells hybrids in California.
The start-ups say the pollutant issue has already been tested and solved by battery provider A123 systems, and it was approved in Massachusetts, a state that follows the same emissions standards as California. As for the warranty, the start-ups say they aren't altering the Prius, they are adding aftermarket batteries, so it doesn't make sense to force them to match the Prius' warranty. Besides that, the batteries they install are not expected to last ten years, so the warranty would be pointless anyway. The new regulations are expected to come into force next week anyway. Hat tip to reader Daniel
[Source: East Bay Express]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Level 8:11PM (1/20/2009)
The little man gets screwed once again by big brother....
Reply
Jared 8:24PM (1/20/2009)
Dont you love politicians!
It's amazing they are making people Warentee parts for longer then most car companies warentee a BRAND NEW CAR!
Cali helped the little guy legalizing medicinal marijuana and allowing many small business' to open shop... why can't they do the same thing with plug ins? They are more "Politicaly correct"
Concerned Citizen 8:49PM (1/20/2009)
Any politician with this much power should be voted in by the people, not appointed. I'd love to see any of these idiots have to run for office and have to report to the public for their actions
montoym 11:22PM (1/20/2009)
quote from Jared: -
"It's amazing they are making people Warentee parts for longer then most car companies warentee a BRAND NEW CAR!" -
For one, it's warranty. Secondly, the warranty on emissions equipment is Federally mandated for all cars sold in the US, regardless of the warranty on the rest of the car. However, I thought the emissions warranty was 8yr/80K miles not 10yr/150K. http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/warr95fs.txt
Considering that these changes may cause issues with the existing emissions equipment(catalytic converters and gas vapor canisters as the story mentioned), I think CARB has a valid argument.
CARB regulates what aftermarket parts people can put on their cars(engine-wise) when it comes to performance. I don't really see why this situation should eb treated much differently.
Clay Garland 8:20AM (1/21/2009)
It's california. They've been letting their hand spite their face for decades. Here is a prime example of why government is terrible at getting anything done and shouldn't be relied on for anything. A committee whose purpose is to reduce pollution, has single-handedly made it infinitely more difficult to make an extremely fuel efficient car.
s13hybrid 8:14PM (1/20/2009)
Way to put down small businesses just trying to do a helpful thing and better people's lives.
I am glad I do not live in CA.
Reply
Dan 8:16PM (1/20/2009)
Smothering the next generation of inventors and entrepreneurs, one well intentioned piece of paper at a time.
Reply
Kaptain75329 9:37PM (1/20/2009)
This is what happens when intrusive government is continually left unchecked by the people. Among the biggest problems with the nature of Government is that it judges policies and programs by their intentions, not their results.
Bend over. CARB is foreplay.. The Fed's just getting started.
Andrew Gillett 8:16PM (1/20/2009)
This is the problem with trying to get into automotive, you just have spend so much freakin money. Start ups don't have 25k per car model to spend on a freakin test. Same reason ariel atoms are only sold as kit cars, they won't meet crash "standards", but I would argue the atom is just as safe as any other car on the road.
Sorry little guy, I'm sorry that california has yet again, screwed the people trying to save it.
Reply
zamafir 8:36PM (1/20/2009)
I guess I might not get it as I work in a business and am accountable to numbers and keeping my business going - but if a startup has the capital to research these sort of systems, and establish contracts with all the request parts suppliers, and began selling the kits, why wouldn't they have 25k lying around. This isn't someone's pocket, this is a business.
I just don’t get it. I stay abreast of legislation which affects the business I helped create, of cash flow, reserves, etc. Why should other businesses be exempt. Sure the warranty bit is BS, I don’t expect APR to warranty my chip, or exhaust, or intake for the life of my car, but the CARB testing shouldn’t come as some sort of crazy surprise. Maybe someone can explain how one goes about securing startup capital, et-al, creates a business plan, and expects to make money without any significant reserves available.
spacegravity4me 9:03PM (1/20/2009)
I hate California. (and they are lucky I even capitalized it.)
Reply
TurboPanzer 10:01PM (1/20/2009)
I don't hate Cali, but I understand what you mean.
btw, GITS is awesome (referring to your avatar in case you don't know what I meant). Any news on new series or movies (maybe a 3rd gig)?
Gearhead3_ca 9:22PM (1/20/2009)
They should kill hybrids, and electric cars....
TREE HUGGERS SHOULD GET THESE BALLS!
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 9:31PM (1/20/2009)
As I pointed out on ABG, this rule is not at all new.
And to those who say this will kill small companies. small companies who make exhausts and turbo kits have been dealing with it for a decade already.
The sky is not falling.
Reply
TurboPanzer 9:49PM (1/20/2009)
California as a whole should proceed with a low-CARB diet.
Reply
Aki 10:11PM (1/20/2009)
I hate living in California.
And to the person saying these guys didn't get voted in, oh believe me, Californians would vote nutjobs like this with open arms.
Reply
Jeff Johnson 10:42PM (1/20/2009)
Ive never cared for California... CARB, gun laws, etc etc.
My thought on this and everything else that they do.... is that it seems like all their crazy ass laws and regulations can be akin to religion. I fully support someone (or a state being able to make its own laws/regulations) but don't try to push it on everyone else in the country.
Let them pass all kinds of CARB stuff in CA - they will love it in a few years when no car manufacturer is willing to sell a car to California that meets their crazy laws. When their citizens start vacating the state for some place more friendly maybe they'd realize how controlling and idiotic they are? Probably not.
For a state that SAYS it cares so much about the environment they sure do a great job of making it hard for the little guy with something worthwhile to create and bring something that's "green" (i hate that term btw) to the people.
Reply
montoym 1:36AM (1/21/2009)
quote from Jeff Johnson: -
"For a state that SAYS it cares so much about the environment they sure do a great job of making it hard for the little guy with something worthwhile to create and bring something that's "green" (i hate that term btw) to the people." -
So, making sure that the changes made by these aftermarket companies don't affect the ability of the existing emissions equipment to do their job and decrease emissions is somehow not caring for the environment?
I think you need to research the emissions warranty and understand why CARB would have an issue with aftermarket companies making changes that could modify the effectiveness of existing emissions equipment and/or cause it to fail prematurely.
By your logic, so long as the changes make the MPG's go up, emissions don't matter? I assume that's not what you meant, but that's exactly how it comes across.
Merritt Johnson 11:40AM (1/21/2009)
@montoym
On paper the idea of CARB appears to be a helpful organization. What is wrong with making sure the aftermarket industry does not compromize EPA approved emissions equipment? That sounds like a good plan. However, the execution falls short of the ideals. The way the rules are written there are not many available options a company can take to meet the standards asked of them by CARB.
I have been involved in a company submitting products for CARB approval. In CARB's eyes laboratory data showing that one OEM material being replaced by a better performing material in the aftermarket system is not valid. They want validation from the OEM that the aftermarket system's material is equal in performance or better and validation will not usually be given by the OEM manufacturer. The other options are to scrap the project or pay for expensive full vehicle emissions (shed) testing. The OEMs get to spread the cost of such a test over all their vehicle sales, an aftermarket company has much lower volume so such expensive tests cannot easily be covered by sales volume.
Hugh 10:44PM (1/20/2009)
Atlas Shrugged!
Reply