Nissan to expand Thailand-based Nissan Technical Center South East Asia (NTCSEA)
Better Place winding down ops in North America and Australia, to focus on Denmark and Israel

California Governor’s Office releases 2013 ZEV action plan; 1.5M ZEVs on CA roadways by 2025

California Governor Jerry Brown’s Office and state agencies issued a 2013 Zero-emission Vehicle (ZEV) Action Plan. The Action Plan follows on Governor Brown’s Executive Order (B-16-2012) released March 2012, which set required milestones for state government to enable 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on California roadways by 2025. (Earlier post.) The Action Plan details concrete actions that state agencies are taking to help accelerate the market for plug-in electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles.

For the purposes of the executive order and action plan, ZEVs include hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). They also address light-duty passenger vehicles and heavier vehicles such as freight trucks and public buses.

The action plan—which will be adjusted over time to address changing market conditions—is the product of an interagency working group led by the Governor’s Office that includes several state agencies and associated entities and builds upon significant work already undertaken by these agencies.

The action plan also benefits from input from outside stakeholders, including the California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative (PEVC) and the California Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP). The Governor’s Executive Order specifically directs collaboration with these two organizations.

The Executive Order established several milestones organized into three time periods: by 2015, by 2020, and by 2025. The Executive Order also directs state government to begin purchasing ZEVs. In 2015, 10% of state departments’ light-duty fleet purchases must be ZEVs, climbing to 25% of light duty purchases by 2020.

The Action Plan outlines actions grouped under four broad goals that state government is currently taking or plans to take to help expand the ZEV market:

  1. Complete needed infrastructure and planning
  2. Expand consumer awareness and demand
  3. Transform fleets
  4. Grow jobs and investment in the private sector

Complete needed infrastructure and planning. This action plan is intended to help provide sufficient infrastructure to support up to 1 million ZEVs by 2020. Further actions beyond 2020 will likely be necessary to reach the Executive Order’s target of 1.5 million vehicles by 2025, the plan notes. Due to the changing nature of the ZEV market, the action plan does not address infrastructure and planning-related actions after 2020.

The 45 detailed actions under this goal are grouped into 13 areas:

  1. Provide crucial early funding for ZEV charging and fueling infrastructure.
  2. Support ZEV infrastructure planning and investment by public and private entities.
  3. Enable universal access to ZEV infrastructure for California drivers.
  4. Ensure pricing transparency for ZEV charging and fueling.
  5. Expand appropriate ZEV-related signage on highway corridors and surface streets.
  6. Support local government efforts to prepare communities for increased PEV usage and the coming commercialization of FCEVs.
  7. Ensure that hydrogen and electricity can legally be sold as a retail transportation fuel.
  8. Make it easier to locate and install public PEV infrastructure.
  9. Ensure a minimum network of hydrogen stations for the commercial launch of fuel cell vehicles between 2015 and 2017.
  10. Streamline permitting of hydrogen stations.
  11. Plan for and integrate peak vehicle demand for electricity into the state’s energy grid.
  12. Establish consistent statewide codes and standards for ZEV infrastructure.
  13. Coordinate with other “Section 177 states” that have adopted California’s ZEV mandate to learn from each other’s innovations and enable a seamless consumer experience for ZEV drivers across the country.

Expand consumer awareness and demand. The action plan includes several strategies to help expand consumer awareness and interest in ZEVs, including reducing upfront purchase and operating costs, promoting consumer awareness and strengthening the connection between ZEVs and renewable energy. The 30 actions are grouped into seven areas:

  1. Reduce up-front purchase costs for ZEVs.
  2. Encourage and support auto dealers to increase sales and leases of ZEVs.
  3. Reduce operating costs for ZEVs.
  4. Develop and maintain attractive non-monetary incentives for use of ZEVs.
  5. Strengthen connections between research institutions and auto makers to better understand how ZEVs are being used.
  6. Promote consumer awareness of ZEVs through public education, outreach and direct driving experiences.
  7. Provide plug-in vehicle (PEV) drivers with options to connect PEV charging with energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Transform fleets. The Governor’s Executive Order aims to expand ZEVs in both public and private vehicle fleets. The order specifically directs DGS and state departments to increase the share of ZEVs in their own fleets through the normal course of fleet replacement. The action plan also calls for expanded ZEV deployment within private vehicle fleets, including public transportation and freight transport.

The plan identifies a range of actions that state government should take to encourage increased ZEV deployment in private fleets including providing funding support, keeping fueling affordable, and increasing coordination and communication among fleet users.

For both state and private fleet, the plan outlines 30 actions grouped into 10 areas:

  1. Incorporate ZEVs into state vehicle fleet.
  2. Identify funding to expand fleet purchases of ZEVs and ZEV infrastructure.
  3. Track benefits of fleets’ transition to ZEVs to the extent practicable.
  4. Complete necessary infrastructure to allow for 10% ZEV purchases by 2015.
  5. Maximize use of ZEVs in state-sponsored car rentals.
  6. Ensure that state vehicles can benefit from evolving benefits associated with ZEVs and position state vehicle fleets to participate in technology demonstrations.
  7. Expand use of ZEVs for private light- and medium-duty fleets.
  8. Help to expand ZEVs within bus fleets.
  9. Reduce cost barriers to ZEV adoption for freight vehicles.
  10. Integrate ZEVs into freight planning.

Grow jobs and investment in the private sector. While state government continues to provide publicly funded financial incentives to expand the consumer market for ZEVs, the state’s actions are intended ultimately to build a ZEV market that is sustainable without public subsidies through growing consumer demand and private investment.

The plan outlines 15 actions grouped into four areas:

  1. Leverage tools to support business attraction, retention and expansion of ZEV companies.
  2. Support demonstration and commercialization of ZEV-related technologies by California companies.
  3. Support R&D activities at California universities and research institutions.
  4. Prepare California workers to participate in ZEV-related jobs.




Briefly, I wrote some free online solar energy courses until Ameren lawyers subverted Prop C:

"The rebates were authorized by a 2008 ballot initiative, Proposition C. The measure, approved by two-thirds of voters, .. A fraction of the renewable energy must be solar power. And the rebates — which have been available in amounts up to $50,000 — were intended to stimulate solar development in a state that still gets 80 percent of its electric generation from coal."

I have no idea how MO, a 'Red state', 2/3 agreed on anything, but Ameren attacks customer solar power through over complicated/denied permits, fees, etc. whatever the web window dressing. Ameren destroyed $5,000 of my/relatives property with $0 "arbitration".

However, I will finish reading your Ameren links.

"How about where kelly lives and gets his electrical power from the evil Ameren?" Ans: ~170%

America developed a better horse(car), bird(airplane), etc. and electric power(solar) - which the world then exploits.

All US military swore "to defend the US Constitution", i/o uniform, against all enemies, "foreign and domestic".

It's hard to read Col. Lechliter or the unconstitutional Patriot Act or or the unconstitutional "kill lists"/drone 'Acts of War'..

Kit P

“Ans: ~170%”

The correct answer is 75%.

The power industry bench marks performance and develops Key Performance Indicators (KPI). The bench mark is good performance not the world’s worst losers. The best performance for PV that I have found for fixed PV is Springerville Station at (Tucson Electric Company) a 19% CF compared to a 20% expected by design. Ameren at 15% (KPI = 75%)is about what you would expect for a location with more clouds and humidity. If you start putting PV on less ideal locations like on the roofs of houses, then you may only have a 10% CF (KPI = 50%).

Why does this matter? Well if you systems does not work very, say 5% CF (KPI = 25%), then it will produce enough electricity to pay to maintain it.

“Solar industry grapples with hazardous wastes”

Picking the better choices for renewable energy is important. The new coal plant near where I live can use 20% wood. We have poor solar and wind resources but we have huge biomass and waste coal resources.

I think it is very interesting Ameren put 4 different kinds of solar PV in the same location to help consumers make a better choice.


@Kit P, my 170% was based on the link radiation map, blue Germany as 100%(1000w/sq. meter[M2]), ~yellow/orange Mo as 170%(1700w).

Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.

At just 1/2000th area and 10% solar panel efficiency - all human power needs are economically met(+ time shift with night battery, compressed air storage,.. besides wind, ..) - and some commercial solar is already over 25% efficient.

Considering a "all of the above" approach, if your 40 years of nuclear power experience, comment on this: - The Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie: Nuclear power that dissolves waste into molten salt video.

Henry Gibson

There is a very good place for electric vehicles: most automobile trips that people make. Long Motorway commuting is not one of them. But cheap low power electric automobiles should be used and all should have liquid powered range extenders of low capacity; perhaps only three kilowatts that are hardly ever used. Cheap fuel cells are mostly imaginary and the NOAX free-piston engine could be made equally efficient. Artemis proved that fuel efficiency can be doubled with hydraulic hybrids and the same engine, but low power engines can give the same acceleration performance in hydraulic hybrids with even greater efficiency.

The major energy source in developed countries remains coal and petroleum, even in California. Solar and wind energy have not surpassed water power which contributes the major so called "renewable" energy in the world. The shallow water areas behind most dams collects organic materials which decay into methane that is released into the air which makes many dams large contributors to the greenhouse effect. No actions taken by western nations can substantially reduce the increasing CO2 levels in the air considering the very large amounts of CO2 released in the rest of the world.

Countries that allow the sale and use of smoking products, cannot, with any degree of honesty, forbid the use of nuclear power plants as being too dangerous for their populations, and it may even be the radioactivity in these smoking products that cause some of the early health failures caused by these products. The latest Mars rover proves that enough money allows a sufficiently safe nuclear powered automobile. ..HG..

Kit P


“my 170% was based ”

Based on BS!. I provided kelly links to actual PV performance where he lives. He ignored it. He want to BS.

“humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times ”

So what? Since kelly has not experience in the power industry, I will explain it. We only produce enough power to meet our customers needs. The power industry is not having a problem meeting the need.

“that can solve the planet’s most pressing and difficult problems ”

I listen for about six minutes. Someday the graduate students at MIT may have experience solving real problems not those made up professors to test their understanding of engineering.

LWR produce very little hazardous waste as spent fuel. Less hazardous waste per kwh than solar. Tens years of spent fuel can sit in a 1200 square foot pool then it can be stored forever in dry case storage.

It is not that we have a problem handling spent fuel but debating better ways of doing it. Spent nuclear fuel is not pressing and difficult problem. The French and other countries recycle spent fuel because only 5% of the energy in uranium is used.

It is like I tried to tell kelley before. The NRC requires operators of nuclear power plants to show how they safely handle spent fuel until DOE accepts responsibility for it. That is easy. If DOE would completely fail, the power industry will not have a problem developing permanent storage. It is not a difficult engineering problem.

Kit P


There is a very good use of ICE, short trips. Making electricity and then storing it in batteries is very wasteful.

Nuclear power plants not like smoking. We do not expose people to radiation in general. Smoking is harmful. Even in Japan after 3 cores were damaged, no one received a harmful exposure.

"latest Mars rover proves"

It only proves that there are no people on Mars to be harmed. BEV powered by LWR in a load following mode (France most of the time)would work fine when we run out of liquid fuel.


@Kit P, "If DOE would completely fail, the power industry will not have a problem developing permanent storage. It is not a difficult engineering problem."

The "not a difficult engineering problem." hasn't been solved in 55 years, so the US has stopped issuing nuclear power permits, like Japan, Germany, ..

Soon, another(likely China) "no problem/can't happen" Chernobyl, Fukushima, .. type accident(s) will happen and finally close all nuclear power plants.

The nuclear molten salt reactor video was the most positive argument I've heard, but apparently the rod-less radiation problem can't be solved either.

Your 40 year power industry experience in stuck in the light water reactors being phased out, except for the overpriced military boats.

I've written Rural Electric Association reports and been before Congress, as well as designed electric power systems for industry, including the then City of Austin P&L.

I showed you the link of Japanese CITIZENS adding over a GigaWatt of electric power IN TWO MONTHS, just from distributed solar panel panels.

But you can't understand even a bountiful US solar map of free energy overhead - and could care less. Gouge the power customer and smoke those Lucky Strikes.

Also, most everyone knows that winds blow strongest at night, powering turbines while electric loads are less and solar power is peaking in another time zone. Batteries, NG, hydro, fill in the balance..Enough..


Governor Moonbeam is still at it.

The North American continent is a CO2 sink bio-sequestrating every gram of CO2 emitted by Nature and Man on the continent, and also a significant amount of CO2 blowing in from Eurasia. So there is no longer a CO2 problem here, just as there is now no significant Air or Water pollution in America, except for Metro Houston and Metro Los Angeles.

Both of which are not yet compliant clean, by today's criterion, but measurably cleaner than before. So clean that by 1970s Earth Day emissions standards, these two metropolises are even now compliant.

Science 16 October 1998:
Vol. 282 no. 5388 pp. 442-446
DOI: 10.1126/science.282.5388.442

A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models

S. Fan,
M. Gloor,
J. Mahlman,
S. Pacala,
J. Sarmiento,
T. Takahashi,
P. Tans

Every day the air gets cleaner and the endgame for Houston and Los Angeles to reach compliance is in sight, even using present day T2B5 emissions without further tightening to T2B2.

I note that the only acceptable ZEVs are electricity based, aside from an irrational longing for impossibly expensive FCEVs. This supidity occurs in a state whose jackass political leaders have allowed electric generation capacity to decay and approximate less than 70% of ususal California State demand, even without the substantial additional load of electric autos. Daily, California turns off more and more of its own generation capacity, tearing down hydroelectric generation, while importing more and more electricity from neighboring States and Countries.

Why are clean ZEVs ICEs that emit no more emissions than an electric ZEV, unacceptable to these demagoguish ignoramuses? Are they just plain STUPID?

The technology to do so is not only possible as shown by the automakers; but mandated by CARB that all vehicles no matter the propulsion method to be equivalent in ZEV emission levels to a Battery Electric Vehicle.

Long before this moonbeam executive order goes into effect, there WILL BE a major electrical grid insufficiency in California, forcing massive and enduring blackouts, for months on end, when any ONE of the surrounding States: Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona; or countries, Mexico, decides its own electric reserves are becoming insufficient and simply cuts California off of its electricity exports.


PHEVs are not ZEVs, writer.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)