Killing the CA Economy with AB-32
01/27/2012 5 Comments
The premiss for AB-32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is that human emission of CO2 are warming the planet and there is a potential for run-away warming. The result has been a series of polices to reduce CO2, including this bit of lunacy spelled out in KQED Climate Watch:
California Holds Lead in Clean Car Derby Air Board adopts landmark rules to curb emissions
The California Air Resources Board has unanimously approved sweeping new rules designed to facilitate the transition from gasoline-powered to electric and hydrogen-powered cars. By 2025, automakers are now required to produce 1.4 million “zero-emission” vehicles for the California market, a number that would make clean cars 15 percent of all new car and truck sales.
The rules also require automakers, by 2025, to halve greenhouse gas emissions emanating from vehicle tailpipes, compared to current levels. The federal Environmental Protection Agency is considering similar emissions rules, as well as a new fuel economy standard of 54.5 mpg by 2025.
The new rules announced today include the following:
- Greenhouse gas emissions cuts
The rules cut greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes 47% by 2025 compared to today’s new cars.
- Cuts in smog-forming emissions
Today’s cars are 99% cleaner than cars were in the 1960s. But the new rules reduce smog-forming emissions from tailpipes a further 75% by 2025.
- Zero-emission vehicle mandate
Beginning in 2018, automakers must sell increasing numbers of electric cars, hydrogen fuel-cell cars or other cars emitting little to no pollution. By 2025, zero-emission vehicles must make up 15% of new car sales. In the early years of the program, car companies can get credit for plug-in hybrid car sales or for going above and beyond requirements of the greenhouse gas rule.
- Hydrogen Fuel Stations
The rules would require gas stations to install hydrogen fueling pumps based on the number of hydrogen fuel-cell cars in the state. The oil companies are negotiating with ARB on a Memorandum of Agreement that would allow them to avoid regulation if they build hydrogen stations with government or private funding.
As for the response from the car industry, at a public meeting this week automakers asked for maximum flexibility in meeting the new sales mandate. They say success will ultimately depend on consumer adoption of the new technology, which includes cars like the all-electric Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid. Of the 10,000 Leafs sold in the US, almost 4,500 of them were sold in California.
Read the above high lighted text, it all depends on consumer adoption. According to Wall Street 24/7 Volt was number 3 in the worst products of the year.
3. Volt Company: General Motors
GM (GM) was originally so excited about the Volt that the company had announced in January it was speeding up its roll-out by six months. But by November the excitement had fizzled out. Larry Nitz, GM’s executive director for vehicle electrification told Reuters, “It’s naive to think that the world is going to switch tomorrow to EVs [electric vehicles].” Indeed, sales for the vehicle have been consistently low.
However, Nissan still leads in overall sale for 2011 so far: 8,720 LEAFs versus 6,142 Volts. It should be noted that about 4,000 of the 6,142 Volts sold were government purchases. Only a little over 2,000 were consumer purchases. So, how to consumers see the Volt, Leaf and Prius. This is what a 2012 J.D. Power and Associates’ 2012 Avoider Study found:
- Consumers think the Volt costs too much and that’s why a lot of shoppers avoid the plug-in hybrid, according to the study. When people decide to skip over the Leaf or Prius, the most cited reason is the styling is unattractive.
- Other shoppers said the Volt’s and Leaf’s diminutive cabins and lack of cargo space as reasons to avoid the vehicles. Shoppers don’t like the Prius’ performance, either.
- For people who like the Volt, the most cited reason is its impact on a person’s image; that’s a good shout-out to Chevrolet’s successful marketing campaign. The most cited reason for buying a Leaf is its low maintenance costs, and for the Prius, its reliability.
CARB is expecting these non-price competitive loosers to be 15% of the car market by 2025. The only people buying the Volt and Leaf are rich people trying to impress their neighbors and peers, and government employees trying to impress their environmental agency bosses.
I do not think that is 15% of the car buying market. So, how will CARB forces us to buy these looser vehicles? It took four charges for a Leaf to go in a 180 mile trip in Tenn. By the way there are only about 1,200 charging station in California with a 240 volt outlet to give full charge in 4 hours.
How many of those 240 charging station do we have in Nevada County. Zero according to EV Charging Locator. Two in Auburn and one at the Galleria Mall. If 15% of all vehicles on are the road are EV, local political leader may want to get with in and start installing those 240 volt charging stations. If EV user drive to Nevada County from the Valley they are going to need a full charge, which takes 4 hours. In 12 hour period, one stations can only charge 3 vehicles. If we get a 100 EV visitors for a day visit, that will require about 40 charging station in Grass Valley and Nevada City.
The real issue is that there is no proven connection between global warming and human CO2 emissions, see details at Rebanes Ruminations.