The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is holding meetings that could put the hammer down on getting more zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) on the road – or so it seems at first glance.

CARB, which always looks far down the road, is discussing how it will change the ZEV program that concerns model year 2018 vehicles and beyond. The proposal (PDF, but watch out: it's 670 pages that are not searchable!) could force automakers to add half a million pure electric or fuel cell vehicles and another 900,000 plug-in hybrids by 2025, writes The New York Times. Overall, CARB's proposal would increase the market segment of advanced clean cars from four percent in 2025 to 15 percent in the future. CARB is also asking for more hydrogen stations to be built.

That may all sound good, but there's another side to the story, one that's a big loophole. Plug In America is calling on its members to oppose a portion of the proposal that could actually reduce the number of ZEVs on the roads in the future. Comparatively, anyway. In a letter to the DOE and EPA, CARB Chair Mary Nichols wrote:

California commits to propose that its revised ZEV program for the 2018-2021 MYs include a provision providing that over-compliance with the federal GHG standards in the prior model year may be used to reduce in part a manufacturer's ZEV obligation in the next model year.

The details are that, for every two grams per mile of GHG overcompliance, an automaker could "cut the number of pure electric-drive vehicles [it has to offer] by as much as 50% over 2018 to 2021," writes Plug In America, which also calls it a "sweetheart deal" and "a bad deal for California and for the United States." PIA writes that Honda, Hyundai and Toyota lobbied for this overcompliance language. We'll keep following this one.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 34 Comments
      rallymanfj
      • 2 Years Ago
      Please die C.A.R.B.
      Scr
      • 2 Years Ago
      Auomakers should pull together and just refuse to sell in CA for a time. It would piss off the dealers who will lose money and jobs, it will kill a huge source of income from sales taxes and registrations, and it will create a huge uproar among consumers. One can go too far, and CA is gone off the deep end, as usual. Want to know why CA is the Greece of North America? THIS and legoslation like it is why.
        Rotation
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Scr
        Why not refuse to sell in California forever instead? Oh wait, because the automakers like money. So there goes that.
      a.gothe
      • 2 Years Ago
      Isn't it time for Kalifornia to become its own country?
      Randy
      • 2 Years Ago
      Hey, look at that. Saturn's roofline was saved on the red car! I thought it was gone for sure!
      Rotation
      • 2 Years Ago
      Mandating 15% ZEV doesn't seem reasonable to me.
      ALafya
      • 2 Years Ago
      It's all BS. Researchers and car companies did not settle yet on the winning technology for cars of the future. Requiring hydrogen stations now is silly, because future cars might be electric or perhaps use bio-diesel. In much the same way, if cars will be all bio-diesel, where it will be massed-produced, hybrid cars may only be found in a museum.
      caddy-v
      • 2 Years Ago
      Lex Luther and his nuke in the San Andrea fault does'nt seem like a bad idea now.
      GreaseMonkeySRT
      • 2 Years Ago
      I miss the days of consumer driven industry and not this political lobbying BS getting shoved down our throats.
        CarGuy1234
        • 2 Years Ago
        @GreaseMonkeySRT
        When the smog in some places was so thick, it was like soup. Sorry, but most consumers won't pay more/give up power to stop polluting. Yet cars do pollute, and most people agree something needs to be done about about it.
      Mr. ROBoto
      • 2 Years Ago
      Here is the test: Sell an all-electric sedan at the same price as the traditional ICE-equipped IDENTICAL sedan. No special wheels, grill, or badges. Let the consumer decide. I'll venture to bet the majority will choose the ICE once they notice the sub-100 mile range on the EV. Sure there will be plenty of people buying the EV, but they just aren't practical in the suburbs with their short range; and not convenient in the city with the lack of charging options. Most don't know that for a time the Prius was offered with an ICE, because Toyota didn't advertise it. It supposedly averaged better highway MPG than the Hybrid. I may be incorrect on this, just going on what I've heard. Personal styling opinions aside, if I had to drive a Prius I would choose the ICE (if it were still available) over the Hybrid. Extend the range and vastly decrease the charge time; or develop a fast battery swap for EV's (a "gas-station" that will swap in a charged battery in exchange for your dead battery and some cash in a couple of minutes) and the EV's will sell like hot-cakes. In my opinion, the technology just isn't there yet.
        BipDBo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Mr. ROBoto
        How about just say, "Sell the Camaro ZL1 for the same price as a Cruze. Let the market decide." Of course the Camaro would sell like hot cakes, but that just isn't possible. Chiefly because of the batteries, EVs cost much more right now to develope and produce than ICE power cars.
        ALafya
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Mr. ROBoto
        OK, obviously you know very little about the Prius. Perhaps don't write about stuff you don't know.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Mr. ROBoto
        [blocked]
      throwback
      • 2 Years Ago
      I don't understand how they expect to mandate sales. So car companies make 15% of their cars plug-ins, what happens if people continue to only buy the 2%-3% of these cars they do now? Will they start arresting their citizens?
      GCass
      • 2 Years Ago
      Imagine that, Toyota, Hyundai and Honda all lobbied for this and all happen to be headquartered in California. Coincidence?
        JonnyO
        • 2 Years Ago
        @GCass
        I would think that if the Asian manufacturers had magical emissions or battery technology ready to go they would already be selling it and not need legislation to make it happen.
          rlog100
          • 2 Years Ago
          @JonnyO
          They don't need magic, they just to cast it from an angle where they have the advantage currently. I don't know how CARB does its calculations, but if they've followed the MPG standards of lumping cars and truck together then they have an advantage already because they don't hardly any large trucks, as an example.
        tylermars.design
        • 2 Years Ago
        @GCass
        north american* headquaters.
      Eric G
      • 2 Years Ago
      God I would love an electric long range sports car. The next Delorean coming out is supposed to be much faster then the current one. Ford should come out with a GT40 EV and a Mustang EV. That would be awesome. Hell, that's what I would do.
    • Load More Comments