California has announced a very ambitious plan to reduce pollution by 10 percent from current levels by 2020. If we take the forecasted population increase into account, that means that the state intends to reduce annual emissions to 10 tons of CO₂ per person in 2020 from 14 tons per person currently.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) will present a set of proposals, which could become law in 2012, to help reach this target. The proposals include the creation of a cap-and-trade program on CO₂ emissions that will require buildings and appliances to use less energy, requesting oil companies to provide cleaner fuels, and forcing utilities to provide a third of their energy from renewable sources like wind and solar power. The laws would also have an effect on how Californians live, since the program will encourage development of walkable cities with shorter commutes and high-speed rail as an alternative to air travel (something our readers have been commenting about a lot recently).

It's no surprise that such an ambitious plan calls for more hybrid and hydrogen-fueled vehicles on the road to move both goods and people. I'd also like to see references to plug-in hybrids and EVs in that wish list, as well.

The program is going to cost money, although a full amount hasn't been calculated. It's expected that the CARB rules could push the state's economy up one percent through the creation of the new "green jobs."

[Source: Automotive News (subs. req'd)]

Since the 1970s, automakers selling cars in the United States have published EPA certified fuel efficiency numbers on the window sticker of all new cars. For 2009, new car buyers in California will get a new sticker to contend with on their cars. The California Air Resources Board has mandated a new sticker that gives each car a 1-10 rating for smog related emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. Cars sold in California have already had a smog index label for a decade. The new sticker adds greenhouse gases with both scores being calculated based on data provided by manufacturers to the EPA. Average cars will get a rating of five with cleaner cars such as the Honda Civic hybrid or Prius getting a 9 while thirstier vehicles get lower scores. All new vehicles sold in California after Jan, 1 2009 will need the new label although 2009 models appearing soon are expected to start carrying it.

[Source: MSNBC]

The state of California has made a lot of noise about their attempts to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from cars and effectively increase fuel efficiency requirements. Big carmakers have been fighting the rules because they want a single national standard to deal with. However, there may be another reason that they don't like the California regs that could be even more important. The rules only apply to manufacturers that sell an average of over 60,000 vehicles annually for three years. That means that only the three domestics, Toyota, Nissan and Honda would be affected. Companies like VW, Hyundai, Mercedes and others would only have to meet the federal requirements. That exemption goes through 2016 but even after that time the rules are vague about what happens.

While it makes sense to offer some exemptions to low volume automakers like Ferrari and Lotus, the federal threshold of 10,000 sales makes more sense than 60,000 in California alone. Leaving a hole like that just provides a means for companies that come in just below the limit to game the system by withholding certain models for sale in the state. Then there is the issue of all the other states that want to follow California's lead. Will they set different thresholds or exempt manufacturers based on their sales in California? Given that markets are not uniform across the country, this could get very messy, very quickly. Consumers in certain states might be able to by certain models that neighboring states could not. If Congress wants to support California's standards, they should just adopt it as a federal standard instead of grandstanding by passing legislation forcing the EPA to grant a waiver to the state.

[Source: Detroit Free Press]

Lots of Nissan electric car news today. Shortly after hearing that Nissan intends to be a global leader in affordable electric cars, news comes that the company is looking at a few cities to trial some of their new electric vehicle technology. One such city on the short-list is reportedly London. Carlos Ghosn says, "We have not yet got to the level of talking to the mayor's office. At this stage it is just a feasibility study, but London is definitely among the cities interested." London seems to be a rather obvious choice, considering the cities controversial new congestion charges which would offer zero-emission vehicles a big advantage over their gas or diesel-consuming cousins.

Let's recap the other recent news. Israel and Denmark want in on the electric car craze too. In fact, What Car reports that Israeli authorities have struck a deal with Nissan allowing the automaker exclusive rights to sell electric cars in Israel for a period of ten years. California is slated to be the first stop for an upcoming Nissan electric car in the U.S.

Interestingly, Nissan hopes to get 100 kilometers, or 62 miles, of range from a single battery pack, which could then be swapped out or recharged at an EV station -- sorta like an electrified version of today's gas stations and part of the Project Better Place idea. Ghosn says that Nissan is fully capable of offering an EV, sans battery, for the same cost of a normal gas-powered car. After the initial purchase, the cost of the battery and the amount of money spent keeping it charged will be less than the cost of gasoline. Ghosn also says that Nissan's electric cars will be sexy and attractive. That seems to cover all the bases rather well. Nissan, you've got our attention... we're waiting!

[Source: What Car]

Ford's President of the Americas, Mark Fields, wants the company to build more E85 capable flex-fuel vehicles but he doesn't want to have to deal with state level fuel economy or carbon dioxide regulations. The former should be no surprise as every car and truck so equipped gets a credit of 1.2mpg towards its mileage rating. Fields also wants to see mileage mandates done at a national rather than at the state level. Like other car-makers, Ford's issue is apparently not so much with having to meet whatever mandate is enacted. They just don't want to do the paperwork and testing repeatedly for potentially dozens of states. Fields hasn't said where Ford stands relative to meeting the new CAFE rules but it's a safe bet that new Ford products will probably be coming with wider tracks and longer wheelbases to increase their footprint. As a result they will have a lower mileage standard to meet. Ford's upcoming EcoBoost engines will also be getting flex-fuel capability to help meet the new rules.

[Source: Ward's Auto World]

If you live in California and have a hankerin' for some quality electric maxi-scooter action, it's time to grab your checkbook and head for your nearest Vectrix dealership. The California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) has been busy dishing out rebates for a select few rides and there is only so much cash left in the kettle.

The "Fueling Alternatives" program lists a small number of natural gas-powered vehicles that qualify for the rebate but apparently the money reserved for those has already run out. The only other eligible vehicle manufacturers left are GEM and Vectrix and, unless you live in a gated community or on a golf course, I would go with the 62 mph-capable Vectrix.

If you live in Northern California, there is a San Francisco-based dealer, British Motor Cars Distributors, who would be happy to take your order and, according to their website, they deliver. San Rafael residents might want to give Marin BMW Motorcycles a ring. For the rest of California, hang tight, help may soon be on the way. More info after the jump.

Since the 1970s California has required car owners to get their emissions tested periodically before they can renew their registrations. However, for obvious reasons, cars built before 1976 were exempted from the rules since they could not reasonably expected to meet newer standards. Now, though, California state Senator Dean Florez wants to repeal that exemption at least in the San Joaquin Valley area. Given that the number of pre-1976 cars on the road is shrinking every year, and many of those that remain are restored classics and better maintained than most cars, this seems like pointless posturing on the part of Florez. Perhaps a more effective approach would be to offer some sort of incentive to owners of old beaters to get them off the road and replace them with modern vehicles. This would help to get the real offenders out the population. I mean, the true classics are typically driven relatively few miles each year and aren't really part of the problem. Thanks to Kevin for the tip!

[Source: Bluehornet.com]

Legislators in Minnesota have introduced bills in the State House and Senate that would have the state adopt California's emissions standards. These California rules, which also include limits on carbon dioxide emissions, have been adopted by at least a dozen other states. The limits on greenhouse gas emissions are currently the subject of a lawsuit by California and other states against the EPA, which denied California's waiver request for the regulations.

The odd thing in Minnesota is that corn growers and ethanol producers have jumped into the fray against the proposals. There doesn't actually appear to be anything in the proposed legislation that would specifically harm the E85 market. However, the ethanol lobby is teaming up with the automakers who are obviously opposed to the California rules. It appears that the only way that this actually affects Team Ethanol is if the CO₂ limits hurt sales of larger cars and full-size trucks which comprise the bulk of currently available flex-fuel vehicles. If truck sales are limited by de facto fuel economy requirements, than at least in the short term, E85-capable vehicle sales will suffer. Perhaps the ethanol side should be pushing the auto industry to make more of their vehicles E85 ready instead of fighting clean air rules.

[Source: MinnPost, via The Truth About Cars]

A new study jointly conducted by the American Lung Association of California and TIAX LLC, a consulting firm specializing in transportation and alternative fuels research, suggests that up to $142 billion could be saved by the year 2030 in just the state of California if its fleet were converted to zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs). The study also reports that California alone could "annually avoid 300 cases of premature death, over 260 cases of chronic bronchitis, over 7,000 asthma attacks and more than 18,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms."

This study's results will be discussed on March 27 when the California Air Resources Board (CARB) convenes to consider lowering their ZEV requirements. Obviously, the Lung Association will be pushing hard for no changes to be made, and they are planning to use these rather staggering monetary and health-related statistics to try and convince CARB not to lower their standards. More on the March 27 meeting here.

[Source: American Lung Association of California]

While riding the Shinkansen from Nagoya to Kyoto and back last year, I got a real eye opener. It wasn't just the amazing scenes of sleepy villages and snowy bamboo hillsides that passed by between dark mountain tunnels but rather the vision that had gone into imagining the future. I could picture a group of people excitedly talking about the possibilities of moving people at high speed, smoothly and comfortably, all across the country, freeing up road space and stimulating economic opportunity. I don't know how much resistance their plan met along the way but apparently they were able to convince the right people and made it happen.

This November, the people of California will have the opportunity to vote on a $10 billion bond measure which will show the world they have the vision to put in place the needed infrastructure to meet a crowded future. I know $10 billion is a lot but if you put it into a certain perspective, it's not so bad. Especially if you look at it as an economic investment.

Imagine going from downtown L.A. to San Francisco in under 2 1/2 hours while working on a presentation (or commenting at your favorite blog) or just watching a movie on your laptop. No annoying click clack of rails or encumbering traffic. How about if the train was powered by electricity made with zero greenhouse gas emissions (PDF)? Sounds great to me. Need more information? Check out a video by California High-Speed Rail Authority.

[Source: Carectomy]

California bill SB 1374, if passed and signed into a law, would allow any car to join the HOV sticker program as long as that vehicle is carbon neutral. This would mean someone driving alone in a Hummer could legally be allowed into the HOV lane, if the Hummer's emissions were offset. Senator Jim Battin officially proposed the legislation but his press release - which includes lines like "every owner of a polluting, flashy, fuel sucking car" - makes me think he is not serious. The law is starting to grow on me anyway. Why shouldn't a carbon neutral car - even a Hummer - be allowed in the HOV lane?

[Source: LAist]

• Ford Escape hybrid: sales in California up 10 percent in January 2008 compared to January 2007.
• Ford Focus (with its PZEV rating): up 11 percent.

Those are the highlights of a press release Ford put out yesterday and available after the jump. FoMoCo makes the case that these increases show how Californians "are choosing Ford clean air vehicles." Well, kind of. Ford sold 296 of the 30 mpg hwy/34 mpg city Escape hybrids in California last month. Those 296 made up 39 percent of all Escape hybrids sold in the U.S. in January. Ford didn't announce the quantity of Focuses sold. The 2008 sedans get 35 mpg hwy and 24 mpg city.

Say hello to the newest government lobbying group: car salesmen! The AP is reporting that GM CEO Rick Wagoner asked car dealerships to lobby their state and local governments to not regulate tailpipe emissions. Here is exactly what Rick said in a speech at the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) meeting in San Francisco attended by about 10,000 dealers and their spouses:

We're not going to be able to accomplish everything that we otherwise could. ... We need to work together to educate policymakers at the state and local levels on the importance of tough but national standards. ... Dealers are very effective in the political process because we don't have a plant in every state. ... We have dealers in every state.

Last year, Congress passed a new CAFE standard but California was denied a waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions in its state. California and other states are still fighting to get the waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions and if that happens, Rick says automakers will have to focus on meeting state regulations and won't be able to focus as much on alternative fuel vehicles.

Seems this is not the first time car dealerships might impact policy making. After the speech, Rick said car dealers were a valuable help in the CAFE debate in Congress last year. What's he talking about? Last year, in the middle of the debate on CAFE, NADA launched a website listing the number of light trucks sold sorted by political districts.

Car salesman/government lobbyist? I guess it's not really a stretch ... especially for used car salesmen.

Related:

• Rick Wagoner weighs in on fuel prices and Washington's involvement in alternative fuels
• Washington Auto Show videos: Car makers on senators, state regulators and CAFE
• More and more eco-thoughtful car dealerships coming to America

[Source: Associated Press]

We told you there are concerns Tata Motor's Nano will drive up oil prices. What does Tata chairman Ratan Tata think about this? In the first video below the fold, Ratan laughs it off. We told you Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, former Shell chairman said low MPG cars should be banned. Want to see Mark say that in his Prius? Check out the second video below the fold. We told Mitt Romney said he supported the Governator's right to get a waiver ... then Mitt took it back. Want to see Mitt's first position on the waiver? You can probably guess it's in the third video below the fold.

[Source: YouTube]

California Assemblyman, Ira Ruskin has withdrawn a bill that would have put a one-time fee of $2,500 on the sale price of new gas guzzlers. If it made it into law, it would have been American's first feebate law, which would also provide a rebate of $2,500 for green cars. Ira has tried to enact a similar bill into law with even with considerable industry opposition. He says he will try again but, for now, his California Clean Car Discount Act is dead in the water. California is not alone: very little will be asked of individuals on the national level as well even though studies show feebates work.

Related:

• Drivers will not play a role in carbon law
• Gas guzzler tax coming to the Netherlands
• Israeli government passes "green tax" on cars

[Source: Contra Costa Times]