Board to Ease Mandate to Build Electric Cars : Pollution: Industry says the technology is not ready. Firms would manufacture fewer such autos per year, but begin program sooner.
Backing off from a controversial state mandate, the California Air Resources Board on Thursday directed its staff to reduce the number of electric cars that auto manufacturers must produce in 1998.
Answering some of the major concerns of the automobile industry after years of impasse, the order by the air board is the first step toward overhauling the mandate requiring mass production of zero-polluting cars, in effect meaning electric cars.
Air Resources Board Chairman John Dunlap said the suggested revisions would put some electric cars in California showrooms as soon as late next year--earlier than the mandate now requires--but scale back the total numbers that must be sold in the initial years of the program.
Under the landmark rule adopted in the waning days of the George Deukmejian Administration, 2% of the automobiles that major manufacturers sell in California, or about 22,000 vehicles, must be exhaust-free beginning in 1998. The requirement increases to 5% of annual sales in 2001, and to 10% in 2003.
“We believe a change is in order, particularly in 1998 to provide some relief from the 2% figure,” Dunlap said. “But we are not going to sacrifice any emissions reductions.”
On Monday, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Chrysler and Nissan sent individual written proposals to the air board that signaled the industry’s first movement toward compromise on the mandate after years of dispute.
Negotiations with the auto companies continue, but in the new offers the six companies said they plan to produce a total of 5,000 electric vehicles in late 1996 and 1997 and 14,000 in 1998. In addition, they said they would begin to manufacture some advanced batteries for cars in 1998.
The staff’s recommendation on how to revise the rule will probably be ready in December or January, with the air board’s vote to ease the mandate expected in February or March.
Air board members said zero-emission cars are still considered pivotal to advancing car technology and keeping air pollution under control as population grows.
Dunlap said that while the number of cars would be below the 2% mandate, the early rollout of some of the cars could compensate for some of the difference.
“No change [in the mandate] shall give up even a pound of emission reductions,” he said. He did not amplify on how the differences could be made up if the number of electric cars in the initial years is lowered.
A crucial question that Dunlap and the board left unanswered is whether the car makers would be required to produce the offered numbers of cars, or whether it would be mostly voluntary.
Dunlap said the “commitments with auto makers would be binding” and that the companies in their offers agreed to “some sort of a contractual agreement.” But he also added that he prefers a “market approach” that would make at least part of it voluntary.
Air board member Joseph Calhoun, a former General Motors employee, said that sticking to the existing mandate would doom the success of electric cars by forcing them to be produced in large numbers too early, with battery technology that is not advanced enough.
“I’m convinced we have a program that is headed for a train wreck,” he said. “If we go ahead with forcing the 2% we will really, really have a disaster.”
Representatives of the auto companies Thursday welcomed the board’s decision, calling it a good first step toward reaching a solution.
Environmentalists and some industry entrepreneurs worry that the changes would leave California with only a small voluntary demonstration program, instead of widely marketed clean cars. Dunlap’s mixed messages about whether the production targets would be mandatory or voluntary worried them the most.
“Please do not back down from this program. We’re too close,” said Jamie Phillips of the Planning and Conservation League. “It is clear Californians want zero emission vehicles. Don’t lose your nerve now.”
