Boomburg: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry(ICEv) as We Know It(by 2030)

[RobStark]

California Regulator Mary Nichols May Transform the Auto Industry - Bloomberg Business

Nichols(CARB Chairwoman), who drives a tiny electric Honda Fit, acts as if she’s an unstoppable force. California’s goals for the adoption of electric vehicle technology are the most stringent in the nation, but Nichols thinks they need to be even tougher. Regulations on the books in California, set in 2012, require that 2.7 percent of new cars sold in the state this year be, in the regulatory jargon, ZEVs. These are defined as battery-only or fuel-cell cars, and plug-in hybrids. The quota rises every year starting in 2018 and reaches 22 percent in 2025. Nichols wants 100 percent of the new vehicles sold to be zero- or almost-zero-emissions by 2030, in part through greater use of low-carbon fuels that she’s also promoting.

The 2030 target is what’s needed to meet Governor Jerry Brown’s goal, set in an executive order, of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century, Nichols says. The conventional internal combustion engine needs to be off the road by 2050 and, since cars last many years, on its way out of new-car showrooms around 2030

.

 

[Electroman]

Nichols, the Super woman.

Go get'em!

 

[jerjozwik]

nice, did not know she drove a fit ev!
[happy fit ev leaseholder]

 

[mwulff]

Here's to her success. Not only would it benefit California, but the rest of the world would benefit immensely as cars made for California trickle into sales everywhere. This is how we got the i3, e-up, e-golf and b-class ev. All compliance cars build for California.

 

[AustinPowers]

This is how we got the i3, e-up, e-golf and b-class ev. All compliance cars build for California.

Yeah, right

I think you greatly overestimate the importance of that market. What about Europe, or China? I can't believe BMW for example would spend those billions they invested in the i-brand just to satisfy Californian CARB rules. Same with VW. They have been experimenting with (and selling, albeit in very limited numbers) BEVs for decades, and not just in California. Plus, i3 as well as e-up and e-Golf are far from being compliance cars. They are very viable alternatives for people who don't need to drive hundreds of miles a day all the time.

The B-class EV otoh, maybe yes, originally.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Here's to her success. Not only would it benefit California, but the rest of the world would benefit immensely as cars made for California trickle into sales everywhere. This is how we got the i3, e-up, e-golf and b-class ev. All compliance cars build for California.

Dude, they don't even sell the e-Up in the US! Norway was probably the most important target market when it came to the e-Up. Some cars though were definitely made because of California:

- Toyota RAV4 EV
- Honda Fit EV
- Chevy Spark EV
- Fiat 500 EV
- Ford Focus Electric

Of the above, only the Ford Focus made it to Europe in limited numbers.

 

[Spidy]

I can't believe BMW for example would spend those billions they invested in the i-brand just to satisfy Californian CARB rules.

Especially with the whole carbon fibre.

If they wanted to make a compliance car they would probably just have went with the ActiveE

BMW EfficientDynamics : BMW Concept ActiveE

 

[ggies07]

This is what we need! Love her thought process.

 

[RobStark]

In addition to CA their are 12 other CARB affiliated States compromising roughly 1/3 of US population.

Norway is not a significant enough market for the legacy automakers to make alternative powertrain vehicles for.

China has just started getting serious about "New Energy Vehicles" in the last 2 years and has solicited CARB Chairwoman Nichols for advice on how to construct their regulations.

And Germany is way behind.

Japan was the leader in BEVs but now seems to ignore BEVs in favor of a strong push for FCEV.

Sorta what is good for Toyota is good for Japan and vice versa thinking.

California pulled the i3 at least 10 years ahead of where it would otherwise be produced even if was not made exclusively or primarily for CA.

 

[mwulff]

Yeah, right

I think you greatly overestimate the importance of that market. What about Europe, or China? I can't believe BMW for example would spend those billions they invested in the i-brand just to satisfy Californian CARB rules. Same with VW. They have been experimenting with (and selling, albeit in very limited numbers) BEVs for decades, and not just in California. Plus, i3 as well as e-up and e-Golf are far from being compliance cars. They are very viable alternatives for people who don't need to drive hundreds of miles a day all the time.

The B-class EV otoh, maybe yes, originally.

I believe personally, without any shred of evidence, that all the money that went into i3 construction was to prepare BMW for making ICE cars with more carbon fibre in it. The I3 was made to satisfy CARB and try out/perfect a new manufacturing process. BMW needs cheap lightweight bodyshells to meet emissions-targets for the next 15 years. They need weight savings and they need them bad. BMW would kill the I3 (non-rex) in a heartbeat if it could. They don't even sell them at all their dealers. In this country only 1 dealer is allowed to sell them at all.

And what electric cars have VW launched to market before the E-Up and the e-Golf? I can't recall a single one being sold in my country ever. And still here VW is pushing the Golf GTD or the GT-E.

So far all I see is compliance except for Tesla, Renault and Nissan.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Norway is not a significant enough market for the legacy automakers get make alternative powertrain vehicles for.

Agree, but we certainly contribute a significant amount to the volume of BEV sales for virtually all manufacturers. I doubt the e-Up and Soul electric would have been made without Norway. I doubt the Focus Electric would have come to Europe without Norway.

- - - Updated - - -

And what electric cars have VW launched to market before the E-Up and the e-Golf?

What does that have to do with anything? What electric car did Nissan lanch before the Leaf?

So far all I see is compliance except for Tesla, Renault and Nissan.

I disagree. I would classify (some of) the car companies roughly like this:

Strong BEV supporter: Tesla, Nissan, VW
Cautious BEV supporter: BMW, Renault, Kia, GM, Citroen, Mitsubishi, Peugeot
Indifferent to BEVs: Mercedes, Honda, Ford, Hyundai
Strong BEV opposer: Toyota, Fiat

VW has sold 5555 BEVs in Norway between January and May. Nissan has sold 2340 BEVs and Tesla has sold 2108 in the same period. That means that VW is selling more BEVs than Nissan and Tesla combined, here. This trend isn't passing, here are the BEV sales from July (including used car imports):

728 Volkswagen e-Golf
413 Nissan Leaf
227 Mercedes-Benz B-class Electric Drive
222 Tesla Motors Model S
190 Kia Soul Electric
126 BMW i3
97 Volkswagen e-Up!
32 Citroen C-Zero
32 Peugeot Ion
31 Nissan e-NV200
24 Renault Zoe
24 Mitsubishi i-MiEV
10 Renault Kangoo Z.e.
9 Peugeot Partner
6 Smart Electric Drive
2 Citroen Berlingo
1 Ford Ranger

 

[toto_48313]

Strong BEV supporter: Tesla, Nissan, VW
Cautious BEV supporter: BMW, Renault, Kia, GM, Citroen, Mitsubishi, Peugeot
Indifferent to BEVs: Mercedes, Honda, Ford, Hyundai
Strong BEV opposer: Toyota, Fiat

View from a Canadian point of view:

Strong BEV supporter: Tesla, Nissan, Renault ( Not selling in North America),
Cautious BEV supporter: BMW, VW, Kia, GM
Indifferent to BEVs: Mercedes, Honda, Ford, Hyundai, Peugeot, Citroen, Mitsubishi
Strong BEV opposer: Toyota, Fiat, Chrysler

 

[RobStark]

Agree, but we certainly contribute a significant amount to the volume of BEV sales for virtually all manufacturers. I doubt the e-Up and Soul electric would have been made without Norway. I doubt the Focus Electric would have come to Europe without Norway.

No doubt that Norway punches way beyond its weight.

Without Norway, perhaps Tesla Europe fails and Tesla crawls back to California with its tail between its legs.

But none of the Global Automakers are making specif technologies and platforms specifically for Norway.

They may conjure up a unique combination of parts bin technologies and platforms but that is as far as it goes.


If a company does design a car specifically for Norway they end up with something like this.

 

[renim]

that Californian plan is not a ZEV plan, its H2 fuel cell plan.

 

[jerjozwik]

If a company does design a car specifically for Norway they end up with something like this.

i really like those turn signals though!

 

[RobStark]

that Californian plan is not a ZEV plan, its H2 fuel cell plan.

It is a ZEV plan.

CA is currently spending more on EV subsidies in the form of $2500 rebates for EVs , $1500 rebates for PHEV, and subsidies for the West Coast Electric highway than it spends on H2 station subsidies and $5k FCEV rebate.

It just the numbers per unit is greater for H2.

If you are a scientifically illiterate CA bureaucrat it sounds reasonable to have higher per unit subsidies for the less developed technology.

By hood or by crook we will get there. Toyota will eventually see the light. The CA governors office will eventually see the light and Detroit will eventually see the light.

BTW We need all the competent and better scientist and engineers at auto,battery,and materials companies not in bureaucracies. They should just moonlight as advisers. But even if they were there politics are politics. Engineers and scientist are usually not very good at politics.

 

[AustinPowers]

So far all I see is compliance except for Tesla, Renault and Nissan.

Renault?
If the e-Golf is a compliance car in your opinion, in what way are Renault BEVs any less compliance? A Zoe for example loses to the e-Golf in every BEV category except price. The Twizy? I wouldn't even dare to compare that against the e-up.

- - - Updated - - -

But none of the Global Automakers are making specif technologies and platforms specifically for Norway.

Neither do they do for California, I tend to wager.

- - - Updated - - -

And what electric cars have VW launched to market before the E-Up and the e-Golf? I can't recall a single one being sold in my country ever.

Well, no offence intended, but Danmark certainly isn't a market that will be a strong driving force in the minds of any automaker (except Zenvo perhaps ;-) )

As for previous VW BEVs:
1973: T2 electric (only 70 made, but still at least a first effort, decades before the first CARB EV rules of 1990 (LEV-1))
late Seventies: Golf I CitySTROMer
early Nineties: Golf II and III CitySTROMer

None of these sold any relevant numbers, but at least they go to show that VW was investing in BEVs long before many other established automakers.

- - - Updated - - -

VW has sold 5555 BEVs in Norway between January and May. Nissan has sold 2340 BEVs and Tesla has sold 2108 in the same period. That means that VW is selling more BEVs than Nissan and Tesla combined, here. This trend isn't passing...

+1

VW has often shown a tendency to enter a market very late, but then overcome that by offering a product that sells better in the long run than any competition.
Take minivans for example: Renault founded that segment in Europe with the Espace, yet the Touran (which launched ridiculously late) outsells any other car in that segment by a large margin. Same with small SUVs: the Tiguan came very late in the game but far outsells its competition.

I wouldn't dismiss VW's BEV efforts as compliance just yet.

 

[eloder]

that Californian plan is not a ZEV plan, its H2 fuel cell plan.

While that may be true initially, I also feel that Tesla, and the BEV revolution it's sparking, will eventually cause CARB to understand that H2 is dead for consumer vehicles and that BEV is the way to go.

CARB has a very heavy environmental point of view because of the tremendously huge issues California had, and still continues to have to a lesser extent, with pollution. I think it'll get to a point with enough BEV penetration and more H2 misery from consumers that California will start dropping H2 support.

 

[stopcrazypp]

CA is currently spending more on EV subsidies in the form of $2500 rebates for EVs , $1500 rebates for PHEV, and subsidies for the West Coast Electric highway than it spends on H2 station subsidies and $5k FCEV rebate.

Yes, they have spent more on the rebates (simply because H2 cars are not sold in any volume yet), but is it true of infrastructure? CA plans $200 million for hydrogen stations (not including what has already been spent so far which are in the tens of millions).

CA had $100 million out of a settlement with NRG that went toward charging stations (NRG is not finished yet installing them), and also a couple of smaller grants (single digit millions) for charging stations. So it seems for infrastructure, CA spending is smaller for charging stations, but the amount of cars it can cover is far more (the hydrogen stations will only satisfy 10,000 FCVs by the time it is all done).

 

[renim]

It is a ZEV plan.

Its a Frackogen plan masquerading as a ZEV plan.

Hydrogen is never competitive vs a hydrogen source. So a hydrogen economy is a template for increased CO2 production, not reduced CO2 production.

but anyway, their objective is to have 3x as many H2 vehicles on the road as there are EVs.
the numbers reveal the intent.
52.6% H2 vs 16.8% electric vs 9.7% PHEV