California CO2 Requiements -- John McElroy Comment

[rkisler]

I think John McElroy's comments on the potential of adopting California's CO2 requirements are worth a read. They can be found at:

 

John McElroy Comments

 

In particular, I think you're going to love this part:

 

"You'd hear more squawking from the Europeans except that they're exempt. Any automaker selling fewer than 60,000 vehicles in the state doesn't have to meet the standard, even though this gives giant corporations like the VW Group, the BMW Group and Daimler a free ride.

 

....

 

For 2006, the most recent figures available, Mercedes – through its then-parent DaimlerChrysler -- paid a record $30.3 million in CAFE fines, according to data posted recently by the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency.

 

As we reported previously, the record for the highest annual fine had been held by BWW of North America, which paid $27.9 million in 2001 (breaking its own record of $27.3 million set in 2000)."

 

So, the ordinary folk get to do the heavy lifting, while the rich folk salute with a middle finger? ("What's new" is, I guess, the appropriate response).

 

I need some help

• I have been trying to track down the specific proposed implementation for the California CO2 plan. I have found lots of articles about the plan (most didn't know what they were talking about), but I can't find specifics, even on the CARB site. I can't even verify that McElroy's comment on the European exclusion is in the plan.
  
• I have found that the original legislation was proposed by Pavley, was bill 1493, and was passed in July 2002. I've gone through a number of papers that were presented to justify the CO2 reduction, and I've gone through a number of California assessments on the technologies that would be required by the automakers (by the way, did you all know that camless valvetrains would be in high volume production by 2010?? Well California did!)
  
• I have found that some of the points in the bill include "The bill explicitly states that the agency cannot impose taxes or restrict speed limits, vehicle size, or other consumer driving choices. It also gives automakers flexibility in meeting emissions targets". Which simply means that the manufacturers, but not the consumers nor the government are responsible to reduce CO2.
  
• I know that the EPA rejected California's waver in 2007, and the issue has been in the courts.
  
• But....I simply cannot find the specific implementation plan. I'm looking for exact requirements by year, how the fuel economy is calculated, manufacturer exclusions, alternative fuel credits, calculation for PHEV, BEV's , etc.
  

 

I'm hoping someone out there is an expert who can get us to the source data.

 

What I'm really trying to do is to second guess what Ford and other manufacturers might be planning if 1) California requirements get enacted on a state-by-state basis, or (more likely) 2) California requirements are negotiated somewhat and get enacted on a national basis.

 

And I'm trying to veryify the European waver crap so I can start a personal letter campaign if it is true.

[7Mary3]

Since the only feasable way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce the amound of fuel burned, the California 'Green House' gas regulation amounts to a new fuel economy standard. This was the Bush administration's contention, that California wanted to inact their own fuel ecomony standard. California does not have the right to do that, although California can inact it's own emission standards. Since CO2 was not recognized by the EPA as a polutant, you can see what the controversy was. In any event, I don't think this will be too much of an issue as plug-in hybrids become popular. If the Chevy Volt gets a 100 m.p.g. economy rating, think of what it will do to Chevy's CAFE, as an example. And the folks in Califonia will buy them, even if they cost $40K.

[RichardJensen]

Step 1: Find the enabling law

 

AB32 was the name in the legislature

 

Now find the text of the code

 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/manuremgmt/ab32.pdf

 

The bill amends/alters CA code 25.5 beginning with section 38500.

 

You'll note that this falls under the "Health and Safety" section of California's code. The reason for this is because California has no constitutional authority to regulate pollution on the basis of commerce (see US Constitution Art. 1 Sect. 8)

 

The important part is here:

 

PART 4. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

38560. The state board shall adopt rules and regulations in an

open public process to achieve the maximum technologically

feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions

from sources or categories of sources, subject to the criteria and

schedules set forth in this part.

38560.5. (a) On or before June 30, 2007, the state board shall

publish and make available to the public a list of discrete early

action greenhouse gas emission reduction measures that can be

implemented prior to the measures and limits adopted pursuant to

Section 38562.

 

The rest of the legislation, in parts, reads like a wish list or a student council resolution. It is an impressively poor bit of legislation in that it demands a reduction in CO2 emissions that does not take into account changes in population post 2020, and which all but grants CARB the authority to rewrite the deadline.

 

Now, to the actual regulations. They were promulgated in 2007 and will be on file in California's index of administrative law

 

http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/linkedslice/shared/h...;SP=CCR-1000#70

 

The regulations we're looking for are under either Title 13 or Title 17......

 

Found them under Title 13, section 1961.1 (for future reference, and in case this very very long link doesn't work:

 

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Find/Default.w...mp;Cnt=Document

 

Tidbits from the code:

 

(a)Greenhouse Gas Emission Requirements.The greenhouse gas emission levels from new 2009 and subsequent model year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles shall not exceed the following requirements. Light-duty trucks from 3751 lbs. LVW - 8500 lbs. GVW that are certified to the Option 1 LEV II NOx Standard in section 1961(a)(1) are exempt from these greenhouse gas emission requirements, however, passenger cars, light-duty trucks 0-3750 lbs. LVW, and medium-duty passenger vehicles are not eligible for this exemption.

 

So, clean up the pipes on the F150 and it's not subject to the CARB regs.

 

a. Each manufacturer shall calculate both a "city" grams per mile average CO 2 -equivalent value for each GHG vehicle test group and a "highway" grams per mile average CO 2 -equivalent value for each GHG vehicle test group, including vehicles certified in accordance with section 1960.5 and vehicles certified in accordance with section 1961(a)(14), using the following formula. Greenhouse Gas emissions used for the "city" CO 2 -equivalent value calculation shall be measured using the "FTP" test cycle (40 CFR, Part 86, Subpart B). Greenhouse Gas emissions used for the "highway" CO 2 -equivalent value calculation shall be based on emissions measured using the Highway Test Procedures.

 

CO2 emissions will be based on the OLD EPA fuel economy tests, not the new ones. And will not be adjusted. In effect, CAFE fuel economy = CARB CO2 emissions.

 

i. To demonstrate that bi-fuel, fuel-flexible, dual-fuel, or grid-connected hybrid electric vehicles within a GHG vehicle test group will be operated in use in California on the alternative fuel, the manufacturer shall provide data that shows the previous model year sales of such vehicles to fleets that provide the alternative fuel on-site or, for grid-connected hybrid electric vehicles, to end users with the capability to recharge the vehicle on-site. This data shall include both the total number of vehicles sales that were made to such fleets or end users with the capability to recharge the vehicle on-site and as the percentage of total GHG vehicle test group sales. The manufacturer shall also provide data demonstrating the percentage of total vehicle miles traveled by the bi-fuel, fuel-flexible, dual-fuel, or grid-connected hybrid electric vehicles sold to each fleet or to end users with the capability to recharge the vehicle on-site in the previous model year using the alternative fuel and using gasoline.

 

 

ii. For each GHG vehicle test group that receives approval by the Executive Officer under section 1961.1(a)(1)(B)2.a.i., a grams per mile CO 2 - equivalent value shall be calculated as follows:

 

 

CO 2 -equivalent value = [A x E x B x C] + [(1 - (A x E x B)) x D]

 

 

where: A = the percentage of previous model year vehicles within a GHG vehicle test group that were operated in use in California on the alternative fuel during the previous calendar year;

 

 

B = the percentage of miles traveled by "A" during the previous calendar year;

 

 

C = the CO 2 -equivalent value for the GHG vehicle test group, as calculated in section 1961.1(a)(1)(B)1, when tested using the alternative fuel;

 

 

D = the CO 2 -equivalent value for the GHG vehicle test group, as calculated in section 1961.1(a)(1)(B)1, when tested using gasoline; and

 

 

E = 0.9 for grid-connected hybrid electric vehicles or

 

 

E = 1 for bi-fuel, fuel-flexible, and dual-fuel vehicles.

 

These are the requirements for hybrids, plug-ins, and alternative fuel (CNG, E85, BioDiesel) vehicles.

 

( c )Requirements for Intermediate Volume Manufacturers.

 

1. Before the 2016 model year, compliance with this section 1961.1 shall be waived for intermediate volume manufacturers.

 

2. For each intermediate volume manufacturer, the manufacturer's baseline fleet average greenhouse gas value for PCs and LDT1s and baseline fleet average greenhouse gas value for LDT2s and MDPVs shall be calculated, in accordance with section 1961.1(a)(1)(B) using its 2002 model year fleet.

 

3. In 2016 and subsequent model years, an intermediate volume manufacturer shall either:

 

a. not exceed a fleet average greenhouse gas emissions value of 233 g/mi for PCs and LDT1s and 361 g/mi for LDT2s and MDPVs, or

 

 

b. not exceed a fleet average greenhouse gas value of 0.75 times the baseline fleet average greenhouse gas value for PCs and LDT1s and 0.82 times the baseline fleet average greenhouse gas value for LDT2s and MDPVs, as calculated in section 1961.1(a)(1)©2.

 

Essentially, 'intermediate' manufacturers are given a pass until 2016, after which, they will be allowed to coast along at the 2012 levels or 75% of their 2002 levels, whichever is lower.

 

a. not exceed the fleet average greenhouse gas emissions value calculated for each GHG vehicle test group for which a comparable vehicle is sold by a large volume manufacturer, in accordance with section 1961.1(a)(1)(D)2; or

 

 

b. not exceed a fleet average greenhouse gas emissions value of 233 g/mi for PCs and LDT1s and 361 g/mi for LDT2s and MDPVs; or

 

 

c. upon approval of the Executive Officer, if a small volume manufacturer demonstrates a vehicle model uses an engine, transmission, and emission control system that is identical to a configuration certified for sale in California by a large volume manufacturer, those small volume manufacturer vehicle models are exempt from meeting the requirements in paragraphs 3.a. and b. of this section.

 

Small volume regs: What this means----

 

part A is meaningless. There are no comparable mass market cars that compare to Ferarris

 

part B is the kicker. Since there are no vehicles that are comparable to Ferarris, the small volume mfr. is required to meet emissions of 233g/mi. This means, well, Ferrari badged Honda Civics sold in just enough volume to offset those sports cars. Either that or civil penalties.

 

part C is ludicrous. I would venture to guess that it allows limo manufacturers to avoid penalties because limos use factory powertrains, even if they get atrocious gas mileage.

 

-------------------------------

 

Basically, the big winners are Mercedes, VW and BMW.

 

-------------------------------

 

The most infuriating part about this is the assumption that meeting emissions targets would be 'harder' for a medium volume car company.

 

Well, I ask you, if Mercedes & BMW have no problem whatsoever making screaming barn burners, then why should it be presumed 'difficult' for them to produce fuel efficient vehicles?

Edited February 2, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Well, I ask you, if BMW have no problem whatsoever making screaming barn burners, then why should it be presumed 'difficult' for them to produce fuel efficient vehicles?

 

They do Richard BMW 118d is World GREEN Car of the year at the moment the US is the only place that you won't see it because you are one of the only places in the world that don't do diesels, and they have a couple of 100 MPG gasoline cars in the pipeline.

 

BMW brought its not-for-sale-in-America 118d five-door to New York City to claim the 2008 World Green Car award... and that's probably the only time we'll ever see the thing on US soil. Immediately following the event, BMW packed up the car and put it on the boat back to Deutschland.

 

In the 118d, this engine makes 141 horsepower and 221 pound-feet of torque. It will prod the car to 60 mph in about 8.8 seconds, returning 59 mpg on the (foreign) highway and spewing only 118 grams of CO2 per kilometer into the (non-US) atmosphere. Not bad at all.

 

And yet, despite winning the World Green Car award in Manhattan last week, BMW won't sell the car here. WTF ?! What is it about America that makes you think such a car wouldn't be a smash hit here? What, we're not ready for a car that goes 700 miles between fill-ups?

BMW World GREEN car of the year link

Edited February 2, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds

[rkisler]

.....

 

Richard, I know this took some time on your part, so I wanted to thank you for getting the source data. I thought my post had sunk to the bottom....And I guess my search skills need improving...

 

Interesting that in a Detroit Free Press article, the list of exempted manufacturers did not include MB and BMW, but I don't have the California sales or registration data for those two. The article can be found at:

 

Free Press Article

 

The exempted manufacturers can be found on the right hand side.

 

The California legislation is awful, awful, awful.

 

But the auto manufacturers don't have much of a bargaining position left. Seems to me the best hope is to at least make the standards national, and maybe there is some negotiation left on the phase-in plan.

 

Thanks again.

[jpd80]

Thank you Richard, you must have put some serious hours into finding that info.

 

Much appreciated by all of us interested in the machinations of CARB.

[Joe771476]

Wow, sorry but it just hit me. 7Mary3.......Was that Starsky & Hutch's police radio call sign? I knew I'd heard that somewhere. Please confirm if it is.

[Pioneer]

Wow, sorry but it just hit me. 7Mary3.......Was that Starsky & Hutch's police radio call sign? I knew I'd heard that somewhere. Please confirm if it is.

 

 

7 Mary 3 is a call sign on the old CHiPs TV show. It's also a band.

[7Mary3]

Officer Jon Baker, California Hghway Patrol! Actually 'number/Mary/number' would be a call for a motor officer in California.

[7Mary3]

They do Richard BMW 118d is World GREEN Car of the year at the moment the US is the only place that you won't see it because you are one of the only places in the world that don't do diesels, and they have a couple of 100 MPG gasoline cars in the pipeline.

 

BMW brought its not-for-sale-in-America 118d five-door to New York City to claim the 2008 World Green Car award... and that's probably the only time we'll ever see the thing on US soil. Immediately following the event, BMW packed up the car and put it on the boat back to Deutschland.

 

In the 118d, this engine makes 141 horsepower and 221 pound-feet of torque. It will prod the car to 60 mph in about 8.8 seconds, returning 59 mpg on the (foreign) highway and spewing only 118 grams of CO2 per kilometer into the (non-US) atmosphere. Not bad at all.

 

And yet, despite winning the World Green Car award in Manhattan last week, BMW won't sell the car here. WTF ?! What is it about America that makes you think such a car wouldn't be a smash hit here? What, we're not ready for a car that goes 700 miles between fill-ups?

BMW World GREEN car of the year link

 

I would like to see how much particulate and NOX that car emits.

[Pioneer]

Officer Jon Baker, California Hghway Patrol! Actually 'number/Mary/number' would be a call for a motor officer in California.

 

 

I couldn't remember if it was Ponch or John's call sign. Thanks!

[RichardJensen]

Richard, I know this took some time on your part, so I wanted to thank you for getting the source data. I thought my post had sunk to the bottom....And I guess my search skills need improving...

No prob. It didn't take too much time to find either.

 

You just have to know that regulations are always published as part of "administrative law" and that state websites almost always have the full text of their administrative law on their websites.

 

The reason why you check the enabling act is to make sure that it doesn't spell out any restrictions ahead of time.

[MKII]

, but I don't have the California sales or registration data for those two. The article can be found at:

 

[

Here are the numbers for California

 

http://www.cmcda.org/publications/Californ...uarter_2008.pdf

Edited February 3, 2009 by MKII

[battyr]

Essentially, 'intermediate' manufacturers are given a pass until 2016, after which, they will be allowed to coast along at the 2012 levels or 75% of their 2002 levels,

 

I don't see the big deal. Many small cars are already 10% better than 2002. With EcoBoost and all the other FE things that Ford will implement, will give Ford another 20 to 30%. This does not include hybrid and BEV.

 

Ford should be able to meet the regs. with their current plan. If they don't, then they can just sell a few extra BEV into California. The only value I see in BEV is to allow a company to meet the new California Regs.

 

I likely missed it, how do these rules treat E85 vehicles?

Edited February 3, 2009 by battyr

[rkisler]

Here are the numbers for California

 

http://www.cmcda.org/publications/Californ...uarter_2008.pdf

 

Great, thanks a lot.

 

Well, it looks like BMW and Mercedes are on the edge. They dropped below 60k in 2008, but were above 60k in 2007. I'm not 100% sure how California will treat brands, but if we assume that the BMW brand would be combined with MINI, that would put them over. There might be some ability on BMW's part to play games -- like restricting volume below 60k for the BMW brand (just take a bit of pricing and put the money in your pocket), and banking the credits for the MINIs, then combining them later (although credits do expire).

 

So it looks like the list found in the Detroit Free Press is more accurate than John McElroy's comment. The list of companies that can delay the standards is stunning.

 

I can guarantee you that every company is war gaming these rules. And they are not only war gaming how they can meet (or not meet) the requirements, but how they can put the hurt to their competition. In this type of setting, there are going to be a lot of unintended consequences.

 

I wonder how the other states will set their volume hurdles if adopted state-by-state?

[RichardJensen]

What's ludicrous about these regulations is that they carve out exceptions based on volume

 

That, IMO, clearly identifies these rules as deserving closer scrutiny than the emissions regulations which apply to all vehicles.

 

Of course, the funny thing about how these rules shake out is that you get people who generally oppose the concept of state's rights suddenly getting religion on the matter when it comes to CARB.

 

The hypocrisy is interesting, to say the least.

[RichardJensen]

And another matter that marks these regulations as being so arbitrary and out of touch:

 

The means by which an 'intermediate' manufacturer would be reclassified as a large manufacturer. Apparently you get a one year grace period before BLAMMO you have to be in conformity with significantly stricter regulations.

 

That alone is a preposterous and sufficient basis for asserting that these regulations place an unfair burden on manufacturers.

 

----

 

As with the electric vehicle mandate from the early 90s, this is just a bit of fairy tale fluff, it will gradually turn into something far, far, far more reasonable and yet the people who crafted these idiotic 9th grade student council/alternate side of street parking/watering restriction/library fine policy type regulations will still prance around and pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for 'saving the environment' when all they've done is clot up the courts with legal challenges waste thousands of man hours and generally continue to reside in a state that has some of the worst transportation issues in the US of A.

 

I mean, far be it from the state of California that they actually try and DO SOMETHING about LA mass transit. Far be it from anyone to take a look at how much time Californians spend stuck in traffic with their cars running, going NOWHERE. Far be it from them to do something MEANINGFUL about the consumption of gasoline in California.

 

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.................... Let's just grandstand grandstand grandstand grandstand and pretend that we can change the world without anyone every having to change how they live.

 

I mean these rules look like something that would be dismissed as unrealistic and silly by Princess Sugar Plum of the Fairy Kingdom.

Edited February 3, 2009 by RichardJensen

[battyr]

how do these rules treat E85 vehicles?

 

Found it. Ford has to prove that people actually put E-85 in their flex fuel tanks and that E-85 reduces GHG to get credit for it.