Reader reaction to last week's California Air Resources Board vote to cut the ZEV Mandate by 70 percent was pretty resoundingly negative (although it's only fair to note some of you said the result was a good thing). Automotive News' Richard Truett has written an article that finds the decision's silver lining: it created a "sizable" market for plug-in hybrids. While pure EVs took a hit in the revision, automakers are now required to sell 66,000 PHEVs between 2012 and 2014. Considering you can't buy a single one today, this would be a nice change. Truett notes that Chrysler, Honda and Nissan could be face "major headaches" to comply with the rule, since they don't have any PHEVs in development. At least, there are no public plans for such vehicles from these companies. Smart grid PHEV charging technology is here, at least in testing form. What plug-in vehicles will we Californians (and people in the dozen or so states that adopt California's auto rules) be able to buy in 2012?

[Source: Richard Truett / Automotive News]

Well, it happened. The California Air Resources Board decided that electric vehicles and similar zero-emission autos are not ready for prime time. CARB voted to cut the number of zero-emission vehicles that automakers will need to sell in the state by 70 percent. This isn't as bad as the 90 percent cut many had feared, but it's still a massive reduction in pressure on the big auto companies to produce clean rides. CARB chair Mary Nichols called the reduced requirement (7,500 cars between 2012 and 2014 instead of 25,000 as a 2003 revision had called for) was "realistic" and that the pressure would still be brought to bear to get hydrogen fuel cell and electric vehicles onto California roads. The definition of "zero emission" and "partial zero emission" has always been slightly confusing (I mean, really, what is a partial zero?), and it just got murkier. According to Reuters, Nichols said, "All we've done is change the definition of a ZEV to allow an electric vehicle to have a little supplemental gasoline that goes with it. I don't think that it's a step backward in the real world." No, but it's not really a step forward, either.

[Source: Nichola Groom / Reuters]

One day before what could be an historic vote of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that happens today, Plug In America held a press conference and rally to press the case for a strong Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program. Directly opposite the California EPA building, a large banner was dropped during the event with a message for CARB: "Electric Cars for a Change." Activists hope to move the CARB Board members to reject the staff proposal to cut by 90 percent the number of zero-emission vehicles now required of the major automakers by 2015 (currently set at 25,000). One additional major point of contention with the program has been the tilt toward hydrogen and fuel cells embedded in the ZEV program since 2003, when a revision ended the agency's promotion of battery electric cars. Jim Woolsey, former Chief of Central Intelligence, flew across the country to add his voice to the activists call for parity between fuel cell and battery electric cars. Woolsey railed against the expense and inefficiency of hydrogen for vehicles in a preview of his testimony to come on Thursday (today). (Full disclosure: I am on the Board of Plug In America)

[Source: Plug In America]

California Air Resources Board's important meeting that will decide on the fate of the Zero Emission Vehicle Program (aka the ZEV Mandate) takes place Thursday (background here and here). As one of the big players in the electric vehicle space, Tesla Motors certainly has an interest in how the vote goes on the 27th. To explain his company's point of view, Tesla Motors President and CEO, Ze'ev Drori, published a letter to CARB on the Tesla website today (it was sent to CARB on the 18th). He will also attend the meeting to deliver his message in person.

Drori's main message is that the proposed changes to the the ZEV Mandate, which would reduce the amount of pure electric cars the automakers would be required to make. Instead of 25,000 in 2014-2017, the revisions call for a 90 percent drop and claim that battery technology is not available yet to produce that many EVs. Drori, who knows at least a little about how to build an EV, says such a change could "make a mockery of CARB itself." For his detailed explanation of why CARB might be making this huge mistake, read his letter.

[Source: Tesla Motors]

We have a new chapter to add to the EPA vs. state regulations soap opera. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson has finally given a reason why the EPA is anti-state rules. Basically, Johnson says the EPS does not see enough proof of increased climate change in California compared to the rest of the nation to justify separate rules. Still, he admits that EPA's authorization of separate pollution rules in the '60s and '70s were justified because air quality was considerably worse in California than in the rest of the U.S. You can read more of Johnson's statement after the jump

Reactions have been, to say the least, intense. For instance, California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown dismissed Johnson's arguments as "obfuscating, sabotaging . . . specious, ill-founded. . . . We're going to fight him until he's sent packing by the next president." Environmentalists said that 18 states have either adopted the California rules or announced their intentions to do so, and the resulting curbs on greenhouse gas emissions would have beneficial effects across the nation (and the world). S. William Becker, executive director of the National Assn. of Clean Air Agencies said the EPA position was "a shameful attack on states' rights."

Related:

• CAFE what? California law could require 40-plus miles per gallon by 2020
• Automakers' Rep. John Dingell renews attempt to block state CO₂ regs
• Florida joins California in lawsuit against the EPA over new emissions rules
• EPA says no to California greenhouse gas rules waiver

While the federal government massages the details of the 35-by-2020 CAFE standard into existence and the
EPA and California (along with other states) are in court over state-based CO₂ emissions laws, regulators in California are moving ahead with proposals to force automakers to sell vehicles with a fleet average of over 40 mpg by 2020 in that state based on greenhouse gas emissions. Since at least 15 other states have signed on to California's auto laws, the California rules could mean that almost a third of the states in the U.S. (those that make up about half the U.S. new-vehicle market) would have laws much stricter than the federal CAFE standard. The auto industry - surprise - is vehemently against this proposal but the three remaining major presidential candidates, according to Automotive News, are in favor of allowing states to enforce their own greenhouse gas rules.

[Source: Automotive News]