The California Air Resources Board (ARB) removed all uncertainty about its commitment to the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program at its meeting on September 7 in Sacramento. There will be electric cars in California's future. The automobile industry has consistently opposed the ZEV Program, maintaining that the lack of public acceptance of EVs and their high cost would doom the program to failure. However, despite the opposition of the manufacturers to the ZEV requirements, the ARB has refused to weaken the ZEV Program. Because of the lead time necessary to meet production schedules, the automakers will have to accept the mandate without further challenges.
The original ZEV Program, adopted in 1990, was part of the ARB's Low-Emission Vehicle regulations. Beginning with model years 1998 through 2000, the 7 largest auto manufacturers were required to include 2 percent ZEVs in the vehicles they offered for sale each year in California, 5 percent in model years 2001 and 2002, and 10 percent in model years 2003 and beyond.
To allow additional time for the technology to be developed, the ARB modified the regulations in 1996. The requirement for model years 1998 through 2002 was eliminated. The ARB instead entered into Memoranda of Agreement with the 7 large manufacturers to place 1,800 advanced (long-range) battery electric vehicles (EVs) in the state in the years 1998 through 2000. Because of the costs and the uncertainty of the market, manufacturers that met their quotas then stopped production.
In 1998, the ARB added flexibility to the program by allowing extremely clean advanced-technology vehicles"partial" ZEVs (PZEVs)to meet the 10 percent ZEV requirement that will begin in 2003, except that the 6 largest manufacturers—Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota—must include "full" ZEVs as 4 percent of their sales. PZEVS are to be assigned credits toward fulfilling the ZEV requirement, conditional upon their meeting criteria established by the ARB.
Several candidate technologies are vying for PZEV credit, the latest entrant being the hybrid EV. While technologically feasible, meeting all the PZEV criteria has thus far eluded all candidate vehicles, and they can receive only partial credit toward their manufacturers' 10 percent quotas. Even though the vehicles do not fully qualify as PZEVs, they will significantly lower vehicle emissions in the state. If manufacturing PZEVs is not feasible by 2003 or 2004, the 6 large auto makers and the 11 intermediate ones—BMW, Hyundai, Izusu, Jaguar, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Rover, Subaru, Volkswagen, and Volvo—will have to meet part of all of their 10 percent quotas with battery EVs.
The high cost of producing EVs has caused manufacturers to have serious doubts about their acceptability to consumers. Improved technology and mass production will reduce the cost, which is now about $20,000 per vehicle. The ARB assumes that when the volume of production exceeds 100,000 ZEVs, they will become cost-competitive with combustion vehicles. To stimulate the market, the ARB has offered a variety of incentives and subsidies. Funds from the state's Petroleum Violation Escrow Account have been used for grants to partially offset the cost of EVs, passed on as discounts to the lease prices of the vehicles. New funding sources must be sought, however, because the Escrow Account is nearly exhausted.
Local air districts also have programs promoting the leasing or sale of EVs. For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Vehicle Incentive Program offers grants to public agencies for leasing ZEVs. The district also grants subsidies to install public charging stations for EVs through its "Charge!" Program.
Batteries are the most expensive component of EVs. The ARB has focused research on developing batteries that are both affordable and long-range. A panel that included outside experts concluded that nickel metal hydride batteries had high performance and the longest useful life, but these are likely to remain costly for some time.
Lead acid batteries produce more waste than the advanced batteries because they don't last as long, and they fill a narrower range of driving needs. However, experience in driving EVs indicates that lead acid batteries may be more satisfactory than initially presumed. EV drivers told ARB that they had overestimated their driving needs before leasing the vehicles and that advanced batteries were not worth the extra cost. Some auto makers are concentrating on vehicles for the market sector in which limited range is not a problem.
Lead acid battery-powered EVs have also proved more satisfactory than predicted because technological advances during the past 10 years have improved the efficiency of EV component parts and of vehicle operation.
Problems with no ready solutions are arising around the lack of uniform charging standards and equipment and the different charging requirements of various types and makes of vehicles. However, battery powered ZEVs do not need an extensive refueling infrastructure—most will be recharged at work or at home. Public recharging stations allow greater range and flexibility in their use, and about 400 of these exist in the state. Some private companies offer charging service to their customers.
Hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles have the potential to become another ZEV technology, but they will not be available commercially by 2003. To address fuel cell vehicle and infrastructure issues, the California Fuel Cell Partnership has been formed—a unique collaboration of auto makers (Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, and Volkswagen), energy providers (BP Amoco, Shell, and Texaco), Fuel Cell Companies (Ballard Power Systems and International Fuel Cells), and government agencies (ARB, California Energy Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management District, US Department of Energy, and US Department of Transportation), plus associate members with expertise in specific areas. From 2000 to 2003, the Partnership will test about 50 fuel cell cars and buses under day-to-day driving conditions.
Until the ZEV Program is firmly established, marketing research and development must be on-going, to identify applications where quiet, smooth operation, ease of driving, and low operation and maintenance costs are important attributes. The ZEV Program is not an incremental step in tightening the regulation of an existing technology. It is a huge leap into a new technology involving a major sector of the nation's industry, and the near-term costs will be high.
However, zero emission technology is essential if California is to meet the health-based state and federal clean air standards. Vehicles using petroleum-based fuels emit many pollutants, and as combustion engines age, they deteriorate and pollute more, particularly if their emission control systems fail. Battery-powered EVs are zero-emitting throughout their useful lives.
Manufacturing, storage, and delivery of petroleum-based fuel produce significant emissions from routine operations, accidents, and compliance problems. Pollution from highway traffic, refineries and distribution facilities disproportionately impacts inner-city and low-income neighborhoods. Water quality also suffers—leaking underground fuel storage tanks threaten groundwater, and motor oil contaminates surface water. The impacts of electric power generation are relatively minor.
Growth in the state's population and economy challenges its ability to reduce air pollution. Advances made under the Program may benefit not only the state but the entire country.
Adelia Sabiston
For more information:
California Air Resources Board, 916-322-2990; http://www.arb.ca.gov
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 415-771-6000; http://www.baaqmd.gov
The Acronym Game:
EV: electric vehicle
ZEV: zero emission vehicle (note that the E does
not stand for "electric", but "emission")
PZEV: partial ZEV (not a zero emission vehicle, but
entitled to a partial credit as one)