A Major Shock on the Electric-Car Front : Unwisely, state air board decides to ease 2% sales mandate
The decision by the California Air Resources Board to back away from the state’s commitment to electric vehicles is disappointing and unwarranted. The action is particularly discouraging in light of the fact that Californians, despite significant environmental improvements in recent decades, still are breathing the dirtiest air in the nation.
Under the existing state mandate, 2% of cars sold in California by major manufacturers beginning in 1998 must emit no pollutants, which essentially means electric cars. The mandate translates into about 22,000 electric cars per year, increasing to 10% of annual sales in 2003. The state adopted this rule during the last days of the Deukmejian Administration as part of its effort to comply with federal clean air requirements.
NATIONWIDE IMPACT: California’s 2% requirement had a national impact because the state’s car market is so large that it directly influences the national production decisions of the major auto makers. Not surprisingly, then, the air board’s scale-back will also have national implications, possibly slowing already sluggish progress toward cleaner air in California and elsewhere.
John Dunlap, the chairman of the Air Resources Board, said last week that the state will reduce the number of electric cars that auto makers must produce in 1998. He directed the air board staff to recommend how precisely to “provide some relief from the 2% figure.” Those recommendations will probably be ready by January.
At the same time, Dunlap insisted that the board is “not going to sacrifice any emissions reductions.” That will be a neat trick, especially since Dunlap has signaled an interest in developing voluntary measures to encourage electric vehicle production while continuing to rely on some mandatory rules.
While there was widespread speculation that the Wilson Administration would ease the 1998 requirement under intense pressure from the auto and oil industries, the timing of the board’s announcement is disheartening. Just days before the board met, six major U.S. and Japanese auto makers told the air board they would produce a small number of electric cars for California in 1996 and 1997, earlier than expected.
Indeed, Dunlap said that the early rollout of some electric vehicles would compensate for the ground lost by backing off the 2% rule. But if the auto makers themselves are now saying those cars can be ready sooner, why back off?
And last month, an independent review panel named by Gov. Pete Wilson reported that development of a commercially viable battery--the key requirement for mass production of electric cars--may be closer than previously thought. The auto makers themselves said they would begin to manufacture some advanced batteries for cars in 1998.
According to estimates, the price of the electric cars will begin at about $25,000.
ONE KEY REMEDY: Certainly electric vehicles are not the only answer to California’s large and complex air pollution problem. Major advances in the design of the internal combustion engine that would reduce pollutants would help greatly. A more carefully designed Smog Check program could accurately identify the cars already on the road that generate the most smog-producing chemicals. A serious effort to fund either the repair of those cars, often driven by the poorest Californians, or get them off the road through trade-in programs could effect a big improvement in air quality. So would a greater reliance on ride sharing and mass transit. But with little progress in these directions, the availability of commercially viable electric vehicles in California could make an important difference.
