Electric Cars--the Big Retreat : State shift underlines the auto makers’ clout on smog issues
California’s electric car mandate was never intended to be the sole solution to the state’s air pollution problem. But the requirement that 2% of the 1998 model cars sold be emission-free, meaning electric, was vitally important, particularly for the change in technological direction it might have stimulated here and nationally. So what is most disappointing about the newly disclosed details of the state Air Resources Board deal with auto makers to roll back that mandate is it shows that the makers, not public officials, are still in the driver’s seat when it comes to smog reduction.
The Wilson administration has agreed to replace the requirement that 20,000 electric cars be offered for sale in California starting next year with voluntary contracts that let the auto companies themselves decide how many of these cars to produce. The companies, including General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, Honda and Mazda, will sign confidential agreements with the state that do not guarantee a quota of electric cars to be marketed. Instead, customer demand will determine how many cars are offered for sale.
In 2003, the voluntary arrangement would give way to a mandated formula under which 10% of California cars offered for sale by the seven companies would have to be exhaust-free. The air board will decide whether to adopt the marketing deal at its March 28 meeting.
Formidable technological problems and marketplace uncertainties have long clouded the future of electric vehicles. Concerns about range and performance, the availability of facilities such as recharging stations and the high projected price of electric cars made auto makers resist the state’s 2% mandate. Car makers envisioned these early-generation models marooned at dealerships while gas-powered minivans, pickup trucks and sports cars rolled off the lots. But the 2% mandate had importance far beyond the first, unpredictable sales. The mandate signaled an abiding commitment on the part of car makers, the state and others to what could eventually be a viable technology promising major smog reductions. Absent that commitment, and absent strong enforcement measures and clear disclosure to determine whether car makers will meet their new, voluntary agreement, California may be closing the door on a long-term smog solution.
Will battery and component makers continue to fund research and development without any guarantee that auto makers will be their customers? Without the mandate, will utility companies build charging stations? And what will become of Burbank-based Calstart, the public-private incubator for new electric vehicle technology to which state air officials so often proudly pointed? These are now open questions of no small consequence.
