The Large Volume Manufacturers, the automakers with obligations under the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Zero Emission Vehicle Program, have made a joint comment about the staff proposed revisions that will be voted on Thursday March 27 in Sacramento. It can be seen here (comment #121) along with 187 other public comments (overwhelmingly asking for a stronger mandate for plug-in cars) on the CARB website. Despite the various positions advanced by each automaker independently, they overcame their differences to say they “remain very concerned” that “provisions being proposed by Staff are overly stringent.” The letter states that the Staff recommendation has increased the volume of ZEVs and PHEVs required from 2012-2014 and this would result in additional costs of up to $3.4 billion. An accompanying chart shows the increases.
But the explanation is disingenuous. The chart compares the November 2007 Concept Paper to the February 2008 45-day Notice, which results in a possible increase of 630 zero-emission vehicles. Yes, 630 vehicles over a three year period from 2012 to 2014. What is missing in this presentation is the ZEV Program requirements endorsed by CARB in 2003, the requirements as they stand now. Back then, when the intention was to kill the electric car, automakers signed on to an “alternative path” replacing battery electric vehicles with fuel cell vehicles. An obligation to manufacture a meaningful percentage of electric cars dropped down to a required 250 FCVs by 2008, then 2500 by 2012, and then 25,000 by 2015. But what happened to the 25,000 ZEVs in the automaker’s plea? Absent of course, since including it would make clear that the staff revision in fact lops off 90% of the 2003 ZEV requirement. The automakers bemoan a supposed 25% increase, while ignoring what is actually a 90% reduction.
Chutzpah.
Home » zev mandate » Some of the Facts : Automakers Comment to CARB
Some of the Facts : Automakers Comment to CARB
01:30
Unknown
Labels:
california air resources board,
zev mandate
Popular Post
-
by Rick Woodbury I've recently asked all of my facebook friends to join the Lane Sharing Cause. http://apps.facebook.com/causes/113221?m...
-
Most developers when developing Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) services, will take security for granted and deploy their web service...
-
My rich-client saga continues today with the green-light given to my Java colleagues to proceed with Thinlet , an OSS rich-client solution. ...
-
We take our duties as activists working to "Save the Denburn Dual Carriageway!" very seriously. ('Like' us on FaceBook , ...
-
Over the years, I have collected a number of frequently asked questions while working on Layered Architecture Solution Guidance (LASG) and ...
-
I have just gotten a MacBook Pro for work and like all the other notebooks before it, the first thing I would do is to install Windows Serve...
-
ARC213 - Microsoft Architecture Vision & Direction by Gurpreet Pall Started my day with this. Was 15 minutes late but I manage to get...
-
Today is the last day of Tech.Ed. *So Sad* Went there early hoping to attend the Microsoft Business Solutions session but it was knocked off...
-
"Arguments are 90% emotions and 10% nonsense." That's what I learnt from my trainer the other day. Most of the time, human be...
-
While working on a new ASP.NET MVC layer sample with SignalR, I have constantly encountered the following error when I tried to access the ...
No comments:
Post a Comment