CARB ZEV Program Overview

So I am trying to parse that page and found "Type 0" that was not defined in the body. It occurs three times and never defined.

Bob Wilson

 

type 0 is under 50 mile zev that is highway capable (not a nev that isn't highway safe), which makes you really wonder why CARB is making it so complicated. There should be an asterisk that this is not current epa milage requirement. It is the much easier UDDS test
http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/methods/uddsdds.gif


FR changed recently to make sure it favored fuel cells.
Green Car Congress: California ARB posts final modifications for ZEV rule on fast refueling/battery exchange for public comment
[quore]In these latest modifications, staff alters existing language to require manufacturers to submit fast refueling usage data in order to qualify for fast refueling credits. Manufacturers seeking to earn fast refueling credits will be required to submit the miles attributed to fast refueling during 12 consecutive months and the total miles driven for all vehicles of that vehicle model during the same 12 months.

This requirement would not apply to manufacturers of fuel cell electric vehicles.

The original modifications had removed the ability to qualify for fast refueling by battery swapping; that provision is now stricken, but is replaced with the need to demonstrate the utility of the system.[/quote]
In other words, Carb made sure that fuel cell manufacturers would not have to report how many miles they travel for their bonus.

Type

 

So the 10 states is the list of CARB states with the 10-yr 150k miles warranty.
Implication is partial credit for PHEV so Toyota presumably needs to keep a PiP in the line up and more battery is needed to maximize Federal as well as ZEV credits?

What is the CARB logic (for FCV and more ZEV credit for longer EV range)? Seems like they feel the need for public charging is a drag so they are trying to minimize. I know EV fans are upset with FCV credits, but I can see the need to take some of the load off the need for charging stations.

 

The sooner FCVs are CARB mandated, the sooner 'reality will hit home.'

Bob Wilson

 

No, toyota can satisfy zev completely with fcv. They were able to sucessfully lobby carb to increase credits in 2014 from 7 to 9 so they would need even less. Toyota's problem here is extra credits end in 2018, and fcv appear to be a big loss per vehicle (not just R&D loss, but variable loss per vehicle), and can satisfy part of the requirement with phevs which they should be able to sell at a profit.

The larger battery is not to maximize credits, but because as toyota says, customers are asking for it.

Carb acts in a quite undemocratic fashion. When people have asked the board questions the chairman - Mary Nichols - closes the meetings.

I would think 4 credits for a tesla, 3 for a leaf seems fair for development, I can't see the logic of 9 for a fcv, 0 for a 50+ mile phev)tzev in carb speak), as 2 gen II volts, 2 leafs, or 2 teslas will each go more zero emissions miles than that 1 fcv. The first logic was you couldn't build a tesla, and many more people would buy the fcv over a phev or 100 mile (old epa city test) bev, so you give more to the technology that will win. GM and toyota even paid for a study in 2002 that said you would have to pay people to take an electric rav 4. The previous carb chairman, who became head of the fuel cell lobby would not let people question this logic.

fcv is part of the mandate, it has been this way for over a decade.

 

I should have stated that the sooner the 'FCV' show up on parking lots 'gathering dust,' the better. Nothing like having your local TV news showing how many 'FCV' exist just for the CARB credits. Then maybe the politicians in charge will get over it. Like the old joke:

• You've won FIRST PRIZE, a new fuel cell car.
• Second prize, two new fuel cell cars.
• Third prize, a used fuel cell car . . . 200 miles and only 6 years old

Bob Wilson