This week, the California Air Resources Board...
This week, the California Air Resources Board wants to finalize its decision to continue the zero-emissions vehicle mandate, originally adopted in 1990, even though there is no demonstrated, sustainable market for battery-run electric vehicles. While the goals of the original mandate may have been laudable at the time, the technological promises made then have not come to pass. And because new gasoline-powered vehicles continue to be cleaner, the board’s staff admitted in a September report that there is very little air quality benefit to be derived from this technology mandate. They originally believed that, by forcing electric vehicles on the market, eventually all vehicles would be battery-powered electric. This simply will not happen.
At the same time the Air Resources Board admits to little air quality benefit, it also acknowledges that these new electric vehicles will cost at least $20,000 more than gasoline-powered cars, go only 70 to 100 miles before they need recharging and then sit idle up to six hours as they recharge. How can anyone believe there is a sustainable market for such vehicles? So, what should we do?
Two proposals surfaced over the past month to remedy this problem, one from the Air Resources Board and one from the auto industry. The board’s plan supposedly deemphasizes fully electric vehicles in favor of other clean-car technologies, such as gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles. I say supposedly, because the heart of its proposal maintains the original mandate while adding all sorts of bells and whistles in an attempt to make the mandate more workable. However, most of the options are of little value for auto manufacturers, which have to comply with this regulation.
The Air Resources Board’s proposal does not address the question of whether a sustainable market exists for electric vehicles. It also ignores the fact that these electric vehicles will compound the problems of an overtaxed electrical supply system. Some will argue that electric vehicles would not cause problems because they are only charged late at night. That is simply not true. Experience has shown that electric vehicle drivers plug in every chance they get because of the short driving range of these vehicles.
The second proposal, offered by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, is a fair-market test designed to determine whether a successful, sustainable consumer market exists for battery-powered electric vehicles. The alliance’s proposal also fully offsets the emissions benefits the mandate would have provided, while the Air Resources Board’s proposal does not.
The California Manufacturers & Technology Assn. supports the alliance’s alternative, which is a common-sense approach to determine the extent, if any, of consumer demand. At the outset of the test, the Air Resources Board and the industry would determine clear, objective standards. This test would provide a common yardstick for evaluating consumer response to electric vehicles, something that has until now not existed.
The fair-market test would be conducted under the auspices of a governing board established by the Air Resources Board that includes representatives from the auto makers, environmental groups and other stakeholders. Under the fair-market test, large automobile manufacturers would provide for lease or sale a mix of electric vehicles to be used in urban and suburban areas. Test funding would be provided by the auto industry and could include contributions from other stakeholders. The sale or lease of the vehicles would occur through existing dealerships in one California market over a reasonable time period, say three years. At the completion of the test period, we would know whether there is a sustainable market for battery electric vehicles.
This realistic approach is a viable and practical alternative to the current mandate requirements. Because the fair-market test is objective, it accommodates the interests of the Air Resources Board, manufacturers and California consumers. Who could object to that?
