State Holds Firm on Deadline for Electric Cars
The California Air Resources Board on Friday unequivocally upheld its revolutionary mandate requiring the auto industry to sell electric cars in the state beginning in 1998, despite intense lobbying by major U.S. and Japanese automobile manufacturers.
The decision on whether California would go forward with its requirement to mass-produce the cars had been awaited by thousands of giant industries and small entrepreneurial businesses worldwide, from General Motors and Toyota to Southern California Edison and Chevron.
“(The mandate) must remain in place,†board Chairwoman Jacqueline Schafer said at the conclusion of the two-day hearing. “There is no doubt that tremendous advancements have occurred since we adopted the (electric car) regulation in 1990. . . . I don’t think we want to take any actions that will slow down or stall this progress.â€
Beginning in 1998, 2% of vehicles sold each year in California by major manufacturers--an estimated 25,000 cars--must be exhaust-free under the new standard. In 2001, the sales quota will increase to 5% and in 2003 to 10%. The board has the authority to prevent companies that fail to comply from selling any cars in the lucrative California market.
The board, meeting in Los Angeles, concluded its marathon review after about 24 hours of public debate over two days.
Because the standard, adopted in 1990, survived this week’s crucial review, it is expected to encourage multimillion-dollar investments, especially in California, as auto makers, utilities, battery producers and others gear up for production. Although another review is scheduled for 1996, auto manufacturers say they soon must begin design of the 1998 models and pilot production of batteries.
“The bottom line is an electric vehicle revolution clearly is being born,†said Malcolm Currie, chief executive officer emeritus of Hughes Aircraft and head of Project California, a statewide group of business leaders trying to foster new industries. “This is a blueprint for environmental and economic revitalization of California.â€
Most observers had predicted that the mandate would remain intact. But Friday’s reaffirmation by the board was a relief to California business leaders, environmentalists and other supporters who feared that the board might give in to pressure and roll the deadline back. The powerful lobby opposed to it and several newly appointed board members gave the issue an element of uncertainty.
Schafer, appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson in January, said she was impressed by the rapid improvement in batteries and other technology for electric cars. She said, however, that the hearings revealed other challenging issues, such as the marketability of the cars and the need for recharging stations and other infrastructure.
“There is a lot of work to be done still to bring this about, but I expect that if we follow this course we will meet and exceed our own expectations and those of the car-buying public,†Schafer said.
Air quality officials say California would never achieve healthful air without the mandate. Even when considering the extra emissions from power plants, electric cars are more than 90% cleaner than gasoline-powered cars, the board says.
When car manufacturers realized there was little support for delaying the deadlines, they tried to persuade the board to conduct another review in six months. But the board rejected that request after hearing numerous business and government officials say the uncertainty would stall investments in the electric car industry.
Instead, Schafer said the board will hold routine evaluations of the mandate “if new and compelling information becomes available.â€
Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) who heads the Assembly’s Transportation Committee, had warned that “investments would dry up or leave the state if the rule is changed.â€
Katz and several others said the opposition from the auto industry was driven more by fear that jobs will move from Detroit to California than by concern over technology.
The mandate is revolutionary because it does not simply set an emissions target such as in the past but establishes a sales quota. Each major manufacturer--GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Mazda--must sell 1,000 to 7,000 electric cars in the first year. The board believes that mandating sales is the only way to spur large investment by the auto industry and slowly wean drivers from gasoline.
In fighting the mandate, auto makers emphasized that there will be few buyers and downplayed the efficiency of their electric cars. Although they said the technology has improved in recent years, they contended that it will not progress far enough to mass-produce practical cars by 1998.
Today’s batteries require recharging within 100 miles, a range the auto industry calls insufficient to generate sales to meet the mandate. They said more efficient batteries, costing $30,000 to $40,000 each, are only in prototype form and cannot be ready in large volumes at a reasonable cost of under $5,000 until 2001.
“We’ll find a way to comply with the mandate but it won’t be the way any of us want,†Peter Pestillo, a Ford Motor Co. executive, told the board.
But the board’s staff said its research shows at least one pilot plant in 1995 will be producing advanced battery technology that can offer a range of 200 miles between charges.
Battery and fuel cell manufacturers and utility executives also argued that the technologies were closer at hand than auto makers say.
Some battery makers described tests in which vehicles traveled well over 200 miles on a single charge--twice the current performance of most lead-acid batteries. Many manufacturers also predicted that costs of the advanced batteries would decline sharply, comparable to what occurred with other new technologies, from microwaves to compact disc players.
*
Utility officials said that despite serious challenges, they could be ready in 1998 with recharging stations, plugs in public parking areas and other infrastructure needed to support electric cars.
Southern California Edison and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power have pledged to install a home electric charging connection within 72 hours of a customer buying an electric car.
If customers do most of their charging at night, when utilities have unused generating capacity, Edison could charge more than 1 million electric cars without new power sources, said Diane O. Wittenberg, Edison’s manager of electric transportation.
“We expect that the average (electric car) will use as many kilowatt hours each year as a small house,†she said.
Also, in an unexpected disclosure, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. said it plans to begin testing an as-yet-unidentified Japanese electric vehicle.
Studies funded by the Big Three auto companies contend that the first generation of electric cars will cost as much as $21,000 more than gasoline equivalents. The board has estimated that electric cars initially would cost $3,000 to $4,000 more.
