Short Summary of Calif's recent rulemaking
Posted to Industry Issues Forum on 1/30/2012
3 Replies
Given the other post on the ZEV mandate, I thought I would
try and give the 2 cent summary on the ARB's recent
rulemaking as it is pretty substantial and thought some
folks would be interested.
ARB recently adopted the next round of tailpipe standards
(LEV III) and zero emission vehicle requirements (ZEV
program) primarily for the 2017-2025 model years. I have
excerpted a few charts just to give you a general idea of
what the requirements are (and no, I'm not the one with all
the answers or know all the nuances of the why or how but I
have what I'll call 'somewhat of an idea' about the
requirements). For those that want to read more, there is
plenty available here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/consumer_info/advanced_clean_cars/consumer_acc.htm and from there you can
get to specifics like the staff reports including executive
summaries that are fairly easy to read for LEV III: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/consumer_info/advanced_clean_cars/consumer_acc.htm and for the ZEV program: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/zev2012/zevisor.pdf
Ok, the short-ish summary. LEV III is the next wave of lower
tailpipe standards. It covers both the traditional tailpipe
pollutants (e.g., HC (known as NMOG) and NOx)). It also
covers GHG (greenhouse gas) pollutants like CO2. Here's
where tailpipe HC and NOx numbers will be going: [LEV III
Tailpipe HC plus NOX]
Manufacturers will still be able to make cars at different
emisison levels (e.g., LEV, ULEV, SULEV, etc.) and the above
graph is the 'fleet' average they have to meet each year (so
they can sell say dirtier mustangs as long as they offset
them with cleaner Fiestas and so on, just like they always
have been able to do). It is new in that it will now be a
combined HC + NOx standard instead of two separate standards
to give manufacturers more wiggle room.
And for the GHG standards, here's a look that shows the last
round and this new round and where the standards are:
[LEV III Tailpipe GHG standard] Maybe it helps a little on
GHG to look at this one that shows the same standards but
also shows where 2008 model year cars and trucks currently
are: [LEV III tailpipe GHG current]
The general premise is that there is a standard based on the
footprint of the far (wheelbase times track width) and so
bigger footprint cars can emit more but there are some tails
to clip very small and very big vehicles. And there are
separate standards for cars vs trucks. And yes, there are
lots of credits and trading schemes that factor in as well
but this still gives you a general idea where things are
headed. The second one shows individual dots for every 2008
model year vehicle model and big dots for the average
passenger car and average truck in the 2008 model year. It
also shows dotted lines for the 2016 standard (that was
previously adopted many years ago) and so you can see how
much manufacturers have to move from where they were in 2008
to get their average below the dotted line for 2016. And
then a solid line for where they need to get to by 2025 with
these new requirements.
Ok, a second part of the rulemaking amended the ZEV program.
As you probably all know, Calif has been trying to
transition the fleet to ZEVs for quite some time because air
quality standards dictate that essentially there be zero
emissions from vehicles if we want a chance to actually meet
the ambient air quality standards in the future. And, in
2003, the Calif legislature passed an Executive Order
targeting an 80% reduction in GHG emissions (relative to
1990 levels) for the 2050 year. So, working backwards from
what we need to have in 2050 to have an 80% reduction in GHG
and meet ambient air quality standards (which is essentially
100% zevs in 2040-2050 timeframe), ARB proposed about a 15%
target in 2025 to start the transition. Here it is
graphically: [ZEV requirement]
And yes, eventually all ZEVs have to be what you think of as
zero emission vehicles like battery electric vehicles (BEVs)
and fuel cell vehicles (FCV) but in the interim years, you
can still get partial credit for other things like
transitional ZEVS (TZEVs) like plug-in hybrids which are
'zev-like' in some respects (e.g., some amount of all
electric range, very low tailpipe standards, very low evap
standards, etc.).
And I know folks like to bring up that zevs are not really
zero emission because there are 'upstream' emissions (such
as producing the electricity or hydrogen, etc.). And yes,
the regulations all comprehend that and model that but I
thought the following four charts might be of interest to
those folks to see the relative magnitudes. These charts
show various types of vehicles (e.g., current gasoline,
future gasoline, plug-in hybrid, electric, fuel cell
vehilce) and the relative amounts of NOx, HC, PM, and GHG
from upstream ('fuel cycle') vs the vehicle (coming out the
tailpipe/evap system) (or even A/C system for GHG). The
'WTW' acronym in some of the figures is 'wheel to well' as a
term used to represent the whole picture. NOx, [NOx
vehicle contribution] , HC, [HC vehicle contribution]
, PM [PM vehicle contribution] , and GHG [GHG
vehicle contribution]
Probably pretty obvious to most folks but stationary sources
(like power plants) are indeed easier to control emissions
from than mobile sources (like cars) because you aren't as
limited by size and weight and things like that. And, for
those that don't know, Calif has a decently 'green'
electricity generation grid (with not insignificant amounts
of hydroelectric, natural gas, etc. in lieu of coal fired)
and has pretty aggressive reguations to move the electricty
grid to bigger chunks of these sources in the same time
frames as these vehicle requirements. In any case, yes there
are still emissions associated with making and transporting
the electricity or hydrogen (for fuel cell vehicles) but it
is generally substantially less than making and transporting
gasoline and then having the vehicle emit too.
As I said, I'm not the guy making this happen and don't
necessarily know all the ins and outs but thought I would
frame it up a little bit for those that might be interested
in knowing what happened recently.
Mike from California