After being besieged by a small army of greens, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) decided to punt at the end of a two-day meeting March 27-28 to decide the fate of mandated electric cars in the state.

     On the first day, the CARB hearing had to contend with a caravan of electric vehicle fans who glided over to Sacramento from Vacaville — fortunately within their range — and hampered access to the hearing site. And according to news reports, two-thirds of the speakers at the hearing opposed the proposed changes which would have eased off electrics (EVs) in favor of hybrids and fuel-cell powered vehicles.

     Earlier, the Board had been expected to go along with its staff recommendations. Now, even in the face of lawsuits by General Motors, Chrysler and Isuzu — and a resulting Federal court injunction against enforcing impractical EV requirements — the Board said it would reconsider and scheduled another hearing for April 24.

                        Throwing in the electric towel?

      Following some 12 years of wringing its regulatory hands with wishful thinking about electric cars, a technology not significantly improved in 100 years because of battery limitations, CARB seemed to be on the verge of throwing in the towel.

     The CARB staff recommended putting aside EV requirements in favor of demanding car makers sell 22,000 hybrids in the state by 2005, 33,000 by 2006, 56,000 by 2007, 83,000 by 2008 and 117,500 by 2009, according to an Associated Press analysis.  In addition, it wanted 2 million "low emission gas" vehicles by 2009 and 3.4 million by 2012.

      CARB says no hybrids presently on the market qualify, but Honda believes its Civic can be certified — by checkbook, so to speak. See below.

       At the same time CARB's staff wanted to dangle bait for as-yet pie-in-the-sky fuel cell powered vehicles, a vision CARB oddly shares with the Bush Administration's Energy Department.

        The difference is, CARB wanted 250 fuel-cell vehicles on the road in California by 2008 from the principal auto manufacturers, while the Federal DOE wants to support workable fuel-cell research. The two approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

        And by the way, Bush's recent proposal to re-jigger fuel economy (CAFE) regs has no effect on the CARB action.

                             The Grand Experiment

      At present, there are a dozen or so fuel-cell experimental cars under test in California.

      This is a long way from CARB's draconian 1990 mandate for the seven largest marketers of light vehicles in California to have 10 percent of their sales in "Zero Emission Vehicles" (ZEVs), which effectively were defined as electrics.

      That would have meant an aggregate of some 150,000 EVs in a 15-million year, since California sales are about 10 percent of the U.S. If a manufacturer had, say, 20 percent of the California market, then its EV component was mandated to be 30,000 — whether they worked or whether customers wanted them or not.

      Originally the requirements were to be phased in, with 2 percent set for 1998-2000 model years, 5 percent for 2001-2002 and 10 percent for 2003.

      In 1996, 1998 and 2001, the rule was progressively relaxed for interim years while still clinging to the 10 percent for 2003, and allowing credits for either older technologies like LPG and CNG or new ones like the hybrids. In the meantime, ZEV electrics are still OK by CARB but finally their practical limitations seem to have been recognized.

                                   In the name of…

      Of course, it's all in the name of Clean Air. Surgically clean. Idealistically clean. Impractically clean.

      If someone had managed to invent a new storage battery that really worked as envisioned, EVs would have been great. And as a side benefit, it would have made solar power practical, so you could store the juice when the clouds rolled in. Or windmill power when the winds died out. Or even waterfall power when the streams dried up or froze over. But other than the little miracles that run our laptops, wrist watches and cell phones, big batteries are still stuck in the horse-and-buggy age.

      CARB regulations are a model for the maxim, "the devil is in the details." They make IRS instructions look like See Dick and Jane Run for beginning readers. Here's an example from the 12-page Digest "Background" for "2001 Amendments to the ZEV Regulation":

       "A ZEV or AT PZEV having an efficiency at least 50 percent greater than the average for its size class qualified for a new efficiency multiplier. All vehicle efficiencies (gasoline, CNG, electric) were converted into common units of California Miles per Equivalent Gallon (CMPEG). The multiplier earned was the larger of 1.0 or the vehicle CMPEG divided by the baseline. For ZEVs, the efficiency multiplier partially replaced the range multiplier on a phased-in basis beginning in MY 2005, and the combined value of the range and efficiency multipliers was gradually reduced, resulting in larger numbers of vehicles in later years. For AT PZEVs, the efficiency multiplier took effect beginning in MY 2002." (Read the whole Digest yourself, if you are so inclined, at www.arb.ca.gov/regact/zev2003/notice.htm.)

       What's an "AT PZEV"? That's defined as a hybrid or CNG vehicle. It stands for "extremely low emissions" Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV). There's also space in the regs for NEVs —"Neighborhood Electric Vehicles," a.k.a. golf carts. Plus ULEVs, ILEVs, SULEVs, LDT2s and LEV IIs.

                                    Hybrid reality

     Well, the good news in all this palaver is it gave practical recognition of the very real virtues of hybrids, which is REALLY good, since the auto manufacturers seem to think so, too. Hybrids may not be as clinically clean as green zealots would like, but they do work — and in my experience, are a perfect solution for California's combination of air pollution and traffic congestion problems.

      However, hybrids only seem to work at present technology for VERY light vehicles. These include the Toyota Prius which is about the same size as Toyota's smallest U.S. offering, the Echo; Honda's two-place sporty Insight and the new Honda Civic Hybrid, still among Honda's smallest available here, and the forthcoming — supposedly later this year — hybrid Ford Escape small sport-ute.

      It remains to be seen how well hybrid technology will upsize for vehicles needed to tow boats or other trailers and haul lots of stuff, or to power family minivans or other 7/8 passenger carriers.

       The crystal-pure all-electric ZEV never made sense for the bulk of California vehicle operators. It's range was too limited, it took too long to re-charge and if you ran out of juice stuck in a massive traffic jams, there was no way the California Highway Patrol could bring you a gallon of electricity — or even a quick charge.

       CARB tried to accommodate some of the ZEV problems by pushing infrastructure, i.e., charging stations, and granting brownie points for extended range and/or quick recharging technology that never arrived. A Republican legislator in Sacramento introduced a 1999 law permitting single-occupant ZEVs to operate in the state's 250 miles of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, but evidently didn't foresee the trend was going to hybrids, which still are excluded. However, I understand there now is some movement in the Dem-controlled California Legislature to allow solo driver hybrids in the HOVs.

                                     Irony observed

       By the way, when I was stuck in a two-hour traffic jam attempting to reach San Francisco International from Sacramento last December, I noted that about one-third of the vehicles whizzing past me in the HOV lane were illegal. But I dared not venture over in the Honda Civic Hybrid I was wheeling. On the other hand, as I watched the gas gauge trickle down, it was comforting to have the battery fairly well charged from the 100-plus miles behind me that morning.

       Indeed, it was interesting to compare the Toyota and Honda approaches to hybrids. Both the Prius and Civic performed amazingly well with effortless transition between electric and gas. They were so silent except under hard acceleration it was positively eerie. Civic tries hard to make its hybrid invisible while Prius makes a point of its duality in the operation, layout, instrumentation and so forth. Both were luxuriously equipped for small cars and silkily smooth.

       In driving several hundred miles in each over a variety of road conditions over several days, I averaged slightly over 40 mpg in both Prius and Civic. There was no lack of oomph when you needed it for passing and hills — that's when the electric oozed in to augment the squirrels in the seemingly unnaturally tiny gas engine.

       Instrumentation showing charging/discharging was fascinating to follow in different operating modes, but surely would be ignored once you got used to the novelty. At a no-doubt heavily subsidized price of $20K (with Federal and, in some cases, State tax credits reducing that) I think the hybrids are a helluva deal for motorists seeking max fuel economy.

      However, CARB isn't necessarily making it easy for hybrids to qualify for the AT PZEV certification. As proposed, they must test to zero evaporative emissions and provide a 15-year, 150,000-mile warranty of "tailpipe" emissions performance. In effect, this means that if the battery (or any other part of the powertrain) doesn't last for that period of time or mileage, the manufacturer must eat the cost.

     Toyota presently warrants its Prius, which has been on the market for a couple of years, for eight years/80,000 miles. Replacement of the battery costs about $3,000 at present economics but is expected to decline sharply as experience and volume production allow.

      Honda says it will meet the California requirements for 15/150,000 and zero evap with Civic models sold in that state, obviously a financial and marketing commitment.

      That's because no one knows how long any of this hardware will last because, unlike mileage accumulation, it is impossible to simulate time in the lab or in accelerated road testing. Fifteen years is a long, long time. Remember, it wasn't until the 1961 model year that Ford broke the industry mold of three months/3,000 mile warranties, and that's not so long ago as mechanical technology goes.