Comment Log Display

I am writing to you as a very concerned CA resident. I have grave
concern about the recently proposed changes to the California Zero
Emissions Mandate as reflected in the staff’s Initial Statement of
Reasons (ISOR) dated February 8, 2008. If adopted as proposed, key
provisions of the ISOR would needlessly weaken the intended purpose
of the Zero Emissions Mandate, if not make a mockery of CARB
itself.

On the very first page of the Initial Statement of Reasoning
(ISOR), the staff wrote, “The Board adopted Resolution 07-18
directing CARB staff to return to the Board with proposed changes
that address the state of technologies needed to meet the
regulation. In directing that changes were needed, the Board
affirmed its support for the program and emphasized that any
changes should strengthen the overall objective of the program”.
The staff echoed this directive by asserting that “the proposed
amendments are expected to maintain pressure on the
commercialization of PURE ZEV technologies” (p. ii, top
paragraph).

In order to fulfill the Board directive the staff’s experts have
evaluated various zero emission technologies and have concluded,
“Given the current state of Battery technology staff doesn’t
anticipate that manufacturers will produce any battery EV prior to
2012” (p. 29, last paragraph).

I assure you that one CA-based company, Tesla Motors, is already
in production of road-worthy fully certified battery powered ZEVs.
I would like to emphasize that these cars are neither a “pipe
dream” nor are they exotic one-of-a-kind creations. They've
designed, developed and produced, without benefit of any state or
federal aid, a remarkable and commercially viable battery powered
zero emissions automobile. What’s more, they're currently ramping
up production that should reach an annual rate in excess of 1800
cars.

It seems clear that you have been misinformed about the
availability of pure ZEVs and that the staff has completely erred
in recommending that the Board substantially loosen for years to
come, requirements that can in fact be met today.

What erroneous recommendations did the staff make?

Rather then recommend an increase in the minimum number of pure
ZEV required in the years 2012-2014, the ISOR asks for 90%
reduction from 25,000 to a mere 2,500 (p.26 section 4.1). Is this
in line with “maintaining the pressure on the commercialization of
pure ZEV technologies”?

What’s more, the ISOR proposes substitution of pure ZEVs with up
to 90% Enhanced AT PZEVs in Phase III and substitution of up to
50% pure ZEVs with Enhanced AT PZEVs in Phase IV.

In their own words the staff proposal, if adopted, will decrease
the number of pure ZEVs by 2/3 from 75,000 to 25,000 (page iii,
last paragraph) between the years 2012 to 2017. How does one
reconcile this with the Board’s stated mission and directive to
“strengthen the overall objective of the program”?

The ISOR is extremely concerned about the cost of compliance to
automotive giants and foreign car makers, in their own words, “The
proposed amendments to the ZEV program are projected by CARB staff
to reduce the cost of compliance for automobile manufacturers.”
It’s entirely illogical to grant a relief to the most prosperous
auto makers such as BMW, Mercedes, and Volkswagen by proposing
that these foreign car makers will be exempted from delivering
pure ZEVs for a period of twelve years as they transition from
intermediate volume manufacturer (IVM) to a large volume
manufacturer (LVM). The ISOR reasons that it was warranted in
order “to provide additional time to develop full ZEV
technologies” (p. 22, the paragraph below table 3.9).

Unequivocally no automobile manufacturer should be granted a
waiver, an exemption or a delay in fully complying with the pure
ZEV requirements. The CARB requirements were not sprung on the
automakers suddenly. All manufacturers knew of these requirements
for years and should they really wanted to comply they certainly
have much more financial and engineering resources than Tesla, yet
Tesla has done it. Tesla dispels the notion that it can’t be done.
It’s transparent that rather than take seriously CARB’s
requirements and work on a timely compliance the car makers have
opted to rely on their considerable lobbying power.

Staff mistakenly has concluded, “Because the proposed amendments
are anticipated to reduce costs faced by California businesses,
they would have no adverse impact on the ability of California
businesses to compete with businesses in other states” (p.35,
section 6.8), where in fact the opposite is true. The staff
proposals if enacted will have a severe negative impact on Tesla,
the only car maker based in California, since having the ability
to sell the accumulated ZEV rights mitigates in part some of the
large costs incurred by the company in the development of a pure
ZEV car. The staff recommendation is disturbing since in essence,
not only it would substantially weaken the ZEV program, but it
will also bestow a financial windfall on rich foreign auto makers
and domestic giants while at once penalizing a California based
ZEV manufacturer. This untenable proposition is not only illogical
but in fact contravenes both the letter and the spirit of the
State’s own code (sections 11346.3 and 11346.5 of the government
code).

With all the compelling evidence and facts provided, it is
apparent that CARB must reject staff recommendation for granting
any reduction, delays or reliefs in fully implementing the present
requirements for pure ZEVs. In fact CARB is now in a position to
accelerate the schedule and increase the number of pure ZEVs
mandated.

Thank you.

MAT