California ARB to Hold Public Meeting on Feebate Program for New Vehicle GHG Reduction
22 October 2008
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is holding a public consultation meeting to discuss ARB’s proposed research contract titled “Potential Design, Implementation, and Benefits of a Feebate Program for New Passenger Vehicles in California” at the CalEPA Headquarters Building, in Sacramento, California, 5 November.
As described in the Proposed Scoping Plan (earlier post), ARB is commissioning a study to analyze the implementation of feebates for new vehicles in California both in place of and in addition to the Pavley (AB1493, greenhouse gas emissions) standards. The study will assess elements of program design including fee and rebate levels, point of regulation, implementation strategy, consumer response, and interaction with other AB 32 programs.
Based on standard research contract processes, ARB issued a research solicitation to University of California and California State University researchers for pre-proposals to analyze the potential design and benefits of a feebate program for California. Through this solicitation process, ARB selected the team from the Institute of Transportation at University of California, Davis, led by Dr. David Greene and Prof. David Bunch, in collaboration with researchers from University of California, Berkeley and Irvine campuses to develop a full proposal for funding.
The public consultation will provide an opportunity for stakeholders to review the research objectives and discuss the scope of work with the research team and ARB staff. A summary of public comments will be presented to the Research Screening Committee (RSC) for consideration at their meeting later in November. The Board’s legislatively mandated RSC consists of scientists, engineers, and others knowledgeable, technically qualified, and experienced in air pollution and climate change problems. Depending on the RSC’s recommendation, the proposal would then be presented to the Board for approval of the contract award.
Materials and an agenda will be posted prior to the consultation meeting at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/econprog/feebates/feebates.htm. This meeting will be webcast and can be viewed the day of the meeting.
This will work well by harnessing the tax avoidance mindset to get people to waste much less fuel $ than it would have cost them in extra tax (Assuming the feebate will not be a very aggressive schedule to appease the special interests that will scream and whine...).
The manufacturers will also have to give better options than the current garbage.
Look at the low MPG of the PT Cruiser for example. A bunch of cheap mods and it could be much better.
Posted by: GdB | 22 October 2008 at 07:21 PM
Translation: More TAXES...
Posted by: stas peterson | 22 October 2008 at 07:26 PM
I know stas, the idea of making an inefficient car more expensive so we can make efficient cars proportionally less expensive is so horrible. It's not like pollution and waste have externalized costs we have to bear... ;)
Posted by: yesplease | 22 October 2008 at 09:11 PM
A feebate program is doomed to fail. Car manufacturers will price their automobiles to maximize revenue. Say for example, that a manufacturer determines that they will receive optimal revenue if the price of their SUV is $35,000 and the price of their sub-compact is $13,000. Along comes California with their feebate program which changes the final price of the SUV by $1,000 and the price of the sub-compact by -$1,000. The car manufacturer will decrease the price of the SUV to $34,000 and increase the price of the sub-compact to $14,000. In the end, the consumer is paying the same price as before and nothing useful is accomplished.
Posted by: David | 23 October 2008 at 07:34 AM
The dealerships in Nevada and Arizona are on their knees praying that California institutes a feebate. They profited mightily when CARB banned small diesels. I have a friend that banked the best 2 years of a 25 year career selling TDI's to Californians. Result of the ban: California had just as many small diesels yet they collected $0.00 in taxes for them.
Brilliant!!!
Posted by: Joseph | 23 October 2008 at 07:54 AM
California is broke. It should no longer support any energy programs with tax monies. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 23 October 2008 at 10:57 AM
Californian's don't get to complain about the state being broke, you guys did it to yourselves.
California spends 300 million a year to clean beaches of the sludge from natural seeps.
Posted by: Joseph | 23 October 2008 at 01:43 PM
@yes please,
All of the CARB nonsense is mis-directed. Conversion to a non oil substitute namely electricity, is the only thing that will accomplish their aims. And that si happening if they weren't there at all.
For all the goo and nonsense, the net oil savings obtained by altering 5% of the buying decisons from an EPA midsize, that gets mid twenties milege, to a sub compact "B" size that gets mid thirties mpg mileage, is tiny, only 140 gallons per year, on average. And that is with the EPA mileage guess-stimates. Using CAFE measurements, the savings would be but 75 gallons per year, per car.
A Volt reducing oil consumption to 300 mpge, essentially eleoiminating oil consmption, makes a substantial difference. Besides, before long the conventional mid-size will be obtaining low thirty mpg with a dual-mode hybrid setup, if not a pure EFLEX design.
In short its a waste of time, to no good purpose. By the time the new bureacracy gets established, builds its fancy new Office buildings, hires its personnel, sets up its internal perquisites, and then turns it attention to actually simulating doing something, three years will have elaspsed. And the "problem" will have diappeared.
But they will remain with nothing to do except suck off the taxpayer's teats. Just like CARB exists with no longer a purpose but heaven forfend, we can't just buy them all gold watches, and shut it down.
Posted by: stas peterson | 23 October 2008 at 01:49 PM