Car Deal Criticized As Hurting Green Sales
A provision of the Clean Cars Program lets automakers sell fewer zero-emission vehicles
When California’s air regulators approved new car-pollution rules to cut down on smog and global warming, they included a provision that critics described as a loophole that could substantially reduce the number of electric vehicles sold in the state in coming years.
Under the new Advanced Clean Cars Program rules, approved last month, automakers will be required, beginning in 2018, to sell an escalating number of automobiles and light vehicles in California that can run on electricity, fuel cells or other zero-tailpipe-emission technologies.
As a result, state officials calculated that 78,100 such vehicles would be sold in California in 2018, rising to 163,600 by 2021.
But under a deal reached by automakers, the Obama administration and two senior California Air Resources Board officials, manufacturers that exceed new federal fuel-efficiency standards, even slightly, will be allowed to reduce the number of zero-emission vehicles they sell by up to 50 percent in 2018, a reduction that will drop to 30 percent by 2021.
The new rules also allow carmakers that do not meet their sales goals to purchase credits from other companies that surpass the goals, like Tesla Motors, a Bay Area company that plans to sell only electric vehicles and electric vehicle components.
“It’s really a matter of flexibility,” said John Cabaniss, the environment and energy director for the trade group Global Automakers, which lobbied during the negotiations for the so-called over compliance provision.
Mr. Cabaniss said the provision was important for Honda, Hyundai and other manufacturers that build and sell fuel-efficient, gasoline-powered cars that limit air pollution. David Friedman, deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ clean cars program, said the provision could reduce the number of zero-emission vehicles on Californian roads by 100,000 in 2021.
“We didn’t see it as a really good deal for California,” Mr. Friedman said. “What we suggested was either get rid of the provision or tune it up.”
But when air-quality board members tried to vote to impose a more stringent provision, one that would have required automakers to surpass federal mileage standards substantially to qualify, their efforts were blocked by Mary Nichols, the board’s chairwoman. She said the provision, the result of federal negotiations, could not be amended.
“I can’t let you go in this direction,” Ms. Nichols told her colleagues as they pushed for a vote on a more stringent provision. “This is completely inconsistent with the discussions that we had at the national level.”
Tom Cackette, an air board official, who negotiated the agreement in tandem with Ms. Nichols last summer, said the provision was needed to secure support from some automakers for the far-reaching package of federal and state rules. Other states are expected to adopt California’s rules on nongasoline cars.
“The idea was to try to get one set of agreements that everybody could live with,” Mr. Cackette said.
This article also appears in the Bay Area edition of The New York Times.
Michael Boyd
But under a deal reached by automakers, the Obama administration and two senior California Air Resources Board officials, manufacturers that exceed new federal fuel-efficiency standards, even slightly, will be allowed to reduce the number of zero-emission vehicles they sell by up to 50 percent in 2018, a reduction that will drop to 30 percent by 2021.
That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. It's OK for California to adopt air quality standards that are more stringent then federal Clean Air Act (CAA) standards adopted by US EPA. But it violates the CAA to allow the state to less stringent air quality standards. The problem is there are federal standards that will be exceeded under the plan you describe.
Sharon Boschert
Once again, CARB caves in to the car companies. You can say this for them -- they're consistent.
s c
I attended the Metropolitan Transportation Commission meeting. They're position is they are cooperating in the "stack and pack' living units plan by ABAG/One Bay Area to consolidate population along a corridor (about Rodeo down past freeway turnoff) to get people out of cars. All this for your own good, for 'sustainability.'
I spoke saying:
(1) You say transportation green house gas is the problem, causing 40% air pollution. You are working on a problem that will be nonexistent in a few years with affordable electric cars.
(2) To 'pack and stack' along known earthquake faults is a recipe for death and destruction. (see maps on One Bay Area)
(3) Your plan to build for expected increase in population (current of 7M to 9M)goes against your own figures. You said you had to decrease state figures by 200k and immigration is drastically decreasing. Moreover, population projections are based on past figures with increase in Latinos that have 3.1 children per family. But that figure is based on a non-English speaking grandma at home caring for the kids. Future families will not have that advantage and will most likely reduce family size just like other populations.
Now add up all these massive tax paid agencies that are sucking money out of the economy that could be disposable income to support jobs,goods and services in the private sector, creating income for city services. Check their salaries on Mercury News. (type 'public employee salary 2010' in search)
The taxes to support these agencies are causing the lowest income (mostly seniors) to lose their houses. They (we) are getting taxed out of our houses which will cause...what? Where are we to live? In tax supported institutions? Tax supported 'stack and pack'? Who pays?
ANYTIME YOU TAX PAST THE ABILITY TO PAY THE RESULT IS CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. It starts at the bottom and wicks up.
In this context, it is perfectly understandable the government ( the puppets of the finance industry) does not want anything that possibly increases electric cars which could add wealth to economy. Nor do they want LOCAL solar energy that would create jobs, dump PG&E home costs creating disposable income, divorce from foreign oil and wars, etc. All very understandable.
This is Agenda 21 in action, compliments of the international bankers. Destroy the economy. Look at Europe for what's next. The political 'leaders' have deserted the people to protect the international bankers. Read economist Michael Hudson. He lays it out. Read info from outside US and economists who predicted 2008 crash.
Big changes yet to come and everyone locked in with digit debt and bloated pensions, benefits. Irony is all the city councils, county officials, agency people who are 'just following orders' will be thrown under the bus when it comes to their retirement. Already started. There's not enough money/credit in the system to pay them and there won't be. China pulling credit card. Dollar as reserve currency going bye-bye. The obvious is too difficult to see? Greatest show on earth now going on right in full view.