« Rapid Increase in Number of Private Vehicles in New Delhi Threatens to Erase Air Quality Gains Since 2000 | Main | Hydrogenics Reports Higher 3Q Revenue; Closing Fuel Cell Test Equipment Business »
California ARB Staff Posts New Concept Paper for ZEV Amendments; Encouraging BEVs and PHEVs
10 November 2007
The California Air Resources Board has posted a new concept paper outlining proposed amendments to the zero emission vehicle (ZEV) regulation. (Earlier post.) In developing the new proposals, staff started with the range of proposed amendments heard at the 24 July 2007 workshop, and considered comments received at the workshop and in dozens of subsequent meetings with affected stakeholders.
The new concept paper presents six, more refined amendment proposals—particularly in the area of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)—as a starting point for further discussions with interested stakeholders and in preparation of the Initial Statement of Reasons and proposed amendments for the ZEV regulation.
The amendments cover: the Alternative Path to the ZEV requirement; the use of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) after 2008; hybrid electric vehicles, including PHEVs; neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV); timelines for intermediate volume manufacturers; and an extension of the travel provision that allows ZEVs placed in any state with the ZEV regulation to count in California.
| Existing Alternative Path Requirements | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phase | Model Years | Total target |
| I | 2005 to 2008 | 250 |
| II | 2009 to 2011 | 2,500 |
| III | 2012 to 2014 | 25,000 |
| IV | 2015 to 2017 | 50,000 |
Alternative Path. In 2003, the Board made its most recent amendments to the ZEV program, increasing the ZEV requirement to 16% in 2018. It also defined an alternative path for automaker compliance with the ZEV regulation that was solely designed to advance the commercialization of fuel-cell vehicles. Also, the credit system was adjusted so that one fuel cell vehicle garnered the same credits as 10 battery-electric vehicles.
Under the Alt Path, automakers are required to produce their sales-weighted market share of a target number of vehicles during four multi-year implementation phases. With fuel-cell vehicle development not proceeding as expected, ARB has been grappling with whether or not to ease the requirements.
Under the proposed amendment outlined in the November concept paper, ARB would maintain the 2,500-unit target for Phase II.
For Phase III, ARB would maintain the 25,000 target; establish a floor of 10% of those vehicles which must be either hydrogen fuel cell or battery electric ZEVS; and allow the remainder of the target to be met with a new category of “silver +” vehicles. Silver + vehicles are defined as high scoring (greater than one credit per vehicle) AT PZEVs that utilize fuel that can be used in a ZEV—e.g., plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) and hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles.
For Phase IV, the fuel cell/BEV floor would be set at 50% of the target of 50,000 ZEVs, and silver + vehicles would be allowed to fulfill the remaining 50 percent of the target.
ARB staff views the silver + vehicles as a more significant technology bridge to ZEVs than conventional AT PZEVs.
The requirement that they make use of a ZEV fuel significantly shifts the user towards the ultimate goal of electric drive using either batteries recharged from the grid or hydrogen. This is not an easy offset option for automakers. For most automakers it means an entirely new product that has not yet been demonstrated. In this sense, the silver+ option is highly technology forcing and at the same time incrementally more valuable as a bridge to pure ZEVs than silver vehicles.
A second proposal in this amendment area combines the Alternative and Base Paths into a “New Path” for Phase III and beyond that maintains the vehicle numbers. Staff is making this proposal to simplify the regulation, which most stakeholders, including staff and Board Members, are saying has become too complicated.
The New Path would return the compliance calculation to an annual percentage requirement for ZEVs with options to comply with percentages of PZEVs, AT PZEVs and a new AT PZEV plus or “silver+” category.
Battery Electric Vehicles. Another proposed amendment adjusts the credit ratio between full-function BEVs and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Rather than the existing 10:1 ratio, ARB staff is proposing a 1.33:1 ratio.
Hybrids and PHEVs. ARB staff is proposing several modifications to the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) AT PZEV requirements, mostly to address plug in HEVs (PHEVs).
When the regulators first considered plug-in hybrids, they assumed that the vehicle would run in all-electric charge-depleting mode until the battery state of charge reached the designated threshold of depletion, and that the vehicle would then transition to operation on the engine and charge-sustaining mode.
Under a blended operating strategy, however, the engine may turn on before the depletion of the battery is complete—to assist with acceleration, top speeds or peak power requirements, for example. ARB staff is proposing retaining the same 10-mile minimum all electric range (AER)—now to be called Equivalent AER, EAER) for blended mode plug-ins as in the existing regulation.
The EAER takes the miles driven by the PHEV in charge-depleting mode and then adjusts those miles by the percentage of those miles operated electrically (Equivalent Electric Range Fraction or EERF). Staff further proposes that the EAER credit allowance be adjusted by a utility factor related to miles driven by consumers that normalizes the credit allowance to a maximum of the credit earned by a city electric vehicle. The proposed equations to govern calculation of the EAER credit allowance are:
EAER = Rcd * EERF
AllowanceAER = (EAER/ 50) * [(1-UFRcd)/ (1-UF50)] * 1.45
Where:
- Rcd is the range of the PHEV in Charge Depleting mode
- EERF is the Equivalent Electric Range Fraction
- [(1-UFRcd)/ (1-UF50)] adjusts for the lower probability that the blended PHEV will be driven far enough to make use of its stored electric energy and is from the 0-100 mile 4th order curve fit from SAE’s J1711, March 1999, page 52 which plots the likelihood of a vehicle being used to travel a daily range in miles,
- (EAER/ 50) normalizes the range allowance to a 50 mile range, the same as the minimum range for a Type I or City EV, and
- 1.45 is the assigned AER credit allowance because this is what a Type I ZEV would earn [2 credits – (0.2 PZEV base) – (0.35 Advanced Componentry allowance)] ≈ 1.45 AER allowance @ 50 miles.
ARB staff is also proposing to add a new, higher-power Type F HEV category that would meet a peak power requirement of 100 kW, or alternatively, when installed on AER-type PHEVs, would demonstrate sufficient power capability to propel an HEV through the entire UDDS driving test cycle on electric power alone.
The Type F HEV category is intended to encourage the deployment of HEV drive systems interchangeable with those deployed in full function ZEVs.
Staff is also proposing the elimination proposes to eliminate the low fuel-cycle emissions (LFCE) allowance for PHEVs and to increase the credit for AER PHEVs under the advanced componentry provision by at least 0.15 credits to recognize and compensate for the LFCE benefits of electric fuel. As a result of this proposed change, now only dedicated LFCE-fueled vehicles (e.g., compressed natural gas and hydrogen, depending on the source) will be eligible for AT-PZEV LFCE allowance.
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. Staff proposes to increase the credit for neighborhood electric vehicles to 0.30 credits per vehicle, reflecting the vehicle’s positive benefits but limited functionality compared with full function battery electric or fuel cell electric vehicles.
ARB is encouraging stakeholders to meet with them between now and 28 November 2007 to further discuss these proposed amendments. Stakeholders may also provide comments on these topics in writing.
ARB plans the public release of the staff report on 11 January 2008, followed by a Board hearing in Sacramento 28-29 February 2008.
Resources
November 10, 2007 in Electric (Battery), Fuel Cells, Hydrogen, Plug-ins, Policy | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: NBK-Boston | November 12, 2007 at 07:10 AM
Air pollution comes from burning fuel for the most part. Less fuel means less pollution. CARB could achieve its goal through fuel rationing. Issue licenses to retailers or distributers to sell a predetermined amount of fuel each day/week/year. If people know far enough in advance this will happen then market forces would produce the demanded product. Some folks and businesses may choose to move elsewhere, hopefully to places which are not desert.
Posted by: tom deplume | November 12, 2007 at 11:47 AM
==The free market solves all problems. Government is a cancer.==
Thats not what Adam Smith said.
http://greyfalcon.net/smith.png
Fact is we don't live in a perfect society where all damages and services are adequately paid for.
And while market forces are a powerful tool, it doesn't mean they are always the correct tool, or that they don't have just as much ability to do harm, as well as good if inappropriately handled.
"You don't grasp power-tools with a weak grip and a lack of attention."
Posted by: GreyFlcn | November 12, 2007 at 12:46 PM
==The first incarnation of their ZEV mandate failed==
And why did it fail?
Largely because Alan Lloyd, the then head chair of CARB, got bribed with a new position of authority at a Fuel Cell board.
And then canceled the program.
_
And they pushed forward these perverted incentives for Fuel Cells.
The ones which they are finally getting around to eliminating now.
Posted by: GreyFlcn | November 12, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Gryflcn wrote:
"Fact is we don't live in a perfect society where all damages and services are paid for."
Sounds like you're advocating Pigovian taxation of externalities. Identify the harm, price it's magnitude (or cost of remediation), make users pay the price, and let them figure out how best to reduce or avoid the bad behavior to avoid the costs, or pass the costs on to those willing/able to pay.
What you don't do is mandate specific methods of reaching the goal, which may or may not be the best ones available. If what you are interested in is air quality, why look under the hood? Just check the tailpipe.
Welcome to the club.
Posted by: NBK-Boston | November 12, 2007 at 02:30 PM
Gee the world is beginnng to catch on.
WAh! Wah!Wah!!
The CARBites babies are still out to have their temper tantrum, hold their breath and stamp their feet while turning blue. They want their NEATO and KEANO FCEVs. Nothing else will do.
Now we have a "compromise" dreamed up in Fantasy Land.
But reality intrudes. The world is marching to a different drummer. Electric vehicles are coming but NOT their magical mystery tour and impossibly costly FCEVs of their wet dreams.
They still issue their threeats and mandates and FCEV production requirements damning other than their FCEVS but people are now ignoring them, and starting to make them irrelevant.
Reality and economics intrudes. Hydrogen FuelCells are tooexpensive, hydrogen doesn't package well. And making hydrogen is worse than burning dirty old gasoline ICEs when you measure well to wheel.
So they issue their nonsensical "compromises" that HEVs, BEVS, PHEVS are now to count not as but one tenth of a FCEV ZEV, but only 33% or 45% of one.
As if anyone cared, any longer.
The Gouvernator really needs to call a meeting. He can publically thank them all, give them gold watches, and disband the Agency and send them all home. That is what happens to all hopeless cases that have decended into pure senility.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | November 13, 2007 at 11:29 PM
That is what happens to all hopeless cases that have decended into pure senility.
You know all about pure senility.
WAh! Wah!Wah!!
Posted by: | November 14, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Battery Electric Vehicles are coming onto the market now from lots of companies both here and abroad, except not from GM and Ford, because GM and Ford remain like oil tankers, which take ten miles to turn a corner. They are stuck in intermediate, and still polluting technologies when we don't have time. We need ZEV vehicles now!
It is ironic that GM proved the viability of the battery electric car for all those other companies.
See my free website if you need more convincing: www.evmaine.org
Posted by: Bill Drinkwater | November 21, 2007 at 09:17 PM
Bangor car dealers and realtors: It’ s a race to see who can rip you off the most.
Posted by: wan optimization | November 20, 2008 at 04:07 PM
Earth hour hopes to combat climate change and make a long- term difference on a global scale ALYSIA LAU SILHOUETTE STAFF On Saturday, Mar. 29, cities around the globe— from Sydney to Copenhagen— will be turning off their lights at 8: 00 p. m. for one hour. The message is simple— individuals and corporations need to do their part to combat the effects of climate change and global warming. Twenty- six major international cities are participating in the event by encouraging businesses and residents to turn off...
Posted by: used hybrid cars | December 15, 2008 at 08:06 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e54f92ca0f8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California ARB Staff Posts New Concept Paper for ZEV Amendments; Encouraging BEVs and PHEVs:

Twitter headlines

CARB has done a fairly successful job cleaning California's air, mainly by setting fleetwide emissions targets and telling the automakers the work out the rest themselves. Of course, you need a professionalized and expert body just to decide what performance targets are likely do-able and likely sufficient to protect the atmosphere.
CARB has done a pretty poor job picking individual technologies and "forcing" particular developments. The first incarnation of their ZEV mandate failed, and there is little reason to try this sort of thing again.