Los Angeles Times, Op-Ed article
Bring back the electric car
The state should reverse its mistake of putting its clean-air hopes in
hydrogen instead of battery-powered autos.
By Sherry Boschert
November 19, 2007
Californians are being taken for a ride by state clean-air regulators,
who are bringing the rest of the country along. Decisions made by the
California Air Resources Board early next year will determine whether we get
the option of driving zero-emission, non-polluting cars soon, or whether
we'll see smoggy business as usual from the car companies for another
decade.
Many consumers would love to drive cars that reduce greenhouse gases and our
addiction to oil, but the automakers resist. Fortunately, the Air Resources
Board has the power to compel them to make the clean cars society needs.
Progress through regulation is nothing new: It took laws to get seatbelts,
airbags and catalytic converters. It took laws to get average mileage
standards up from 12 mpg to 27 mpg. It will take regulations to get clean
cars.
The air board's first attempt to compel clean cars -- the
zero-emission-vehicle mandate of 1990 -- put thousands of gas-free electric
cars in the hands of consumers, who loved them. In 2001, however, the board
started giving car companies partial credit toward meeting the mandate if
they sold hybrids and other gasoline-dependent cars. Bad move. Automakers
sued, asserting that because the 2001 standards included gas-burning cars,
they were, in essence, fuel-efficiency standards. And only the federal
government can set those.
At the same time, automakers were making inflated promises to build
zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell vehicles -- if they could just have a few
years more. So the board gutted the zero-emission-vehicle mandate in 2003
and essentially turned it into a hydrogen research program. General Motors
dangled claims that hydrogen fuel cell cars would be competitive in
showrooms by 2004. Daimler-Chrysler predicted that it would sell 100,000
fuel cell cars by 2006.
But since 2003, automakers have produced fewer than 200 hydrogen fuel cell
cars, each costing about $1 million, with a fuel cell lifespan of two to
four years and many technological challenges left to overcome.
A few major automakers are trotting out their hydrogen hardware this week at
the Los Angeles Auto Show, claiming they'll lease small numbers of them to
handpicked drivers in the next few years. In a deja vu to 2003, automakers
are hyping the promise of hydrogen just as the air board is again revising
the zero-emission-vehicle mandate. Behind the scenes, car companies have
convinced the board's staff that they can't meet the goal of producing
25,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles after 2012, so the staff is suggesting
that the board ease that requirement.
There are signs, however, that the bloom may be fading from the hydrogen
rose. This month, one of the biggest fuel cell companies, Ballard Power
Systems, bailed out after pouring millions of dollars into fuel cell
vehicles. A Toyota official predicted that fuel cell cars won't be mass
commercialized until after 2030.
That's not soon enough to avoid global warming, thousands of deaths from air
pollution and wars over oil.
Meanwhile, the battery electric cars produced until 2003 have shown that
they can do the job. Some have passed 100,000 miles on the odometer, and the
batteries are still going strong. A few hybrid owners have added batteries
and converted their cars to plug-in hybrids that drive mostly on electricity
but retain a gas engine for long-distance trips. Building a network of
fast-charging stations would cost a fraction of the tab for building
hydrogen fueling stations.
The persistent bias in favor of hydrogen among state regulators defies logic
-- and yet it could once again distract from fair treatment of
more-realistic electric cars. Examples:
* On Thursday, the air board adopted a state alternative fuels plan that
suggests using plug-in hybrids and biofuels would be cleaner than scenarios
that rely on hydrogen fuel cell cars. But the plan largely ignores battery
electric vehicles. That's foolish, especially in light of a study done for
the state Energy Commission that found that electric cars -- which use the
existing power grid -- reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by 68%
compared with conventional cars. Hydrogen fuel cell cars -- for which there
is no infrastructure -- would achieve only a 54% reduction.
* State-funded studies starting soon at UC Berkeley and UC Irvine will
compare plug-in hybrids with conventional hybrids and with hydrogen fuel
cell cars -- but not with battery electric cars. That makes no sense,
especially because right now several major automakers are expressing
interest in resuming production of electric cars. The air board should
provide state-owned electric cars for the studies, if necessary, for
complete comparisons.
* The board's current zero-emission-vehicle regulations favor hydrogen by
granting one fuel cell vehicle the same amount of credits as 10 electric
vehicles in meeting state goals; the proposed regulations for 2008 give
three fuel cell cars the same credits as four electric vehicles. Narrowing
that credit gap isn't enough. The board should insist on one-to-one
technological neutrality and not push back the deadlines just because
hydrogen cars aren't ready. Treat hydrogen and electric vehicles equally,
and let the market decide.
There's no time to waste. Only California can pass clean-air laws that are
stricter than federal standards. But many other states adopt California's
requirements, so what the board does has national implications for our
health, for the environment and for national security. A slower drive away
from gasoline is a ride we don't want to take.
Sherry Boschert is the author of "Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars That Will
Recharge America."
FAIR USE NOTICE. This website may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Plug In America is making these articles available in our efforts to advance the understanding of current plug-in electric vehicle technology, achievement, regulation, consumer acceptance and demand, and corporate direction for the general education of the public, in the interest of improving our shared environment and energy resources. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
