1 / 24

Higher Costs, No Environmental Benefit

Higher Costs, No Environmental Benefit. Impact of implementing California’s Low Emission Vehicle Program in Florida. Automobile Industry in Florida. Economic Contributions 182,900 FL jobs are dependent on the automobile industry FL has 19 automotive facilities

ophira
Download Presentation

Higher Costs, No Environmental Benefit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Higher Costs, No Environmental Benefit Impact of implementing California’s Low Emission Vehicle Program in Florida

  2. Automobile Industry in Florida • Economic Contributions • 182,900 FL jobs are dependent on the automobile industry • FL has 19 automotive facilities • Industry contributes ~ $5.7 billion toward the state’s annual economy • Innovation • 592,606 alternative fuel vehicles on the road today • 261,179 diesel • 307,093 flex fuel • 24,334 hybrid

  3. Title 13 CCR PC/LDT Emission Regulation Emissions ZEV CO2 Fuel Economy Smog or Ozone What is CA LEV?

  4. Can Automakers Meet the California Fuel Economy Standards? • What does AB 1493 Mandate? • Average fuel economy: • 33.5 mpg in 2011 • 38.4 mpg in 2012 • 43.7 mpg in 2016 • All large-volume manufacturers have stated under oath that compliance with the regulation is not technically or commercially feasible.

  5. BMW Q. Is there a plan in process in place in order to comply with California's GHG regulations?... A. THE WITNESS: …We have, I think, clearly expressed in our communications to the California Air Resources Board so far that the requirements are so stringent that specifically for BMW's product line we're selling in this country, we cannot meet those requirements.” Deposition of Karl Heinz-Ziwica, 8/2/06, 13:13-14;13:21-14:2

  6. Ford Q. And, despite attempting to do all that Ford can do to improve the fuel economy, would Ford be able to comply with the AB 1493 regulations according to its analysis?... A. THE WITNESS: Based on the analysis, Ford cannot comply with the standards specified in AB 1493.” 6 Deposition of Robert D. Brown, 9/26/06, 341:24-342:2; 342:6-8

  7. Nissan “Q. …I'd like you to focus on the model year 2012 standard for passenger car/light-duty truck. Do you see that? A. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir…. Q. My question is, does that mean that Nissan would have to increase the fleetwide miles per gallon on the passenger car fleet by roughly 9 miles per gallon? A. THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. Could you give me a determination or explanation as to how difficult that would be?... A. THE WITNESS: It would be -- it would be technically infeasible given what we know now.” Deposition of Glenn Choe, 8/31/06, 240:20-23; 242:5-11; 242:13-14

  8. Honda “Q. Does American Honda have any more solid information to answer the question for the years after 2011? A. THE WITNESS: It gets exceedingly difficult…. The 2006 Civic fuel economy is 39.1…. So one of our most fuel-efficient vehicles would be where the average has to be in that year. So without significantly changing the mix, through some kind of market force, it would be – it would be very difficult. It would be a huge, huge challenge…. So moving that entire mix to that level is just very difficult. Don’t see how to do it.” Deposition of Robert Bienenfeld, 2/19/07, 187:22-188:2; 188:7; 188:11-16; 190:19-20

  9. Toyota “Q. My question is, is Toyota capable of meeting those regulatory standards in ____? A. THE WITNESS: …Is Toyota capable of complying? …[T]he answer is, no, by its product plan it doesn't illustrate compliance. So I would say as it exists today Toyota is not capable of complying in ____ as I've described.” Deposition of Michael Love, 8/3/06, 126:14-16; 127:2-3; 127:9-13

  10. Volkswagen “Q. And in terms of product changes, what have discussions been regarding product changes? A. THE WITNESS: Well, our concern with 1493 is feasibility. And we believe that even if we implement these technology changes, that's not enough to comply with the regulation in the long term.” Deposition of Stuart Johnson, 9/20/06, 23:13-18

  11. GM “Q. “So now in your testimony you've told us that there is a projection that [your PC/LDT1 fleet] would be out of compliance by model year 2010, which is actually 2009, correct?” A. “Yes. Calendar year.” Trial Transcript (Al Weverstad), Vol 1-B at 56:18 - 57:2

  12. How will they comply? • Ford: “…there are basically two alternative compliance plans, both of which would force Ford to reduce the number of offerings available to California and states adopting the California standards.” • Nissan: “… we will need to change the Nissan fleet for California, more or less we will restrict -- we will delete models.” • GM: “The next alternative is restricting product.” • VW: Q: “Are changes to the fleet mix being considered?” • A: “Yes, they are.”

  13. CA LEV is Bad Public Policy Fuel Economy or CO2 • Compliance is likely to be realized through a significant reduction in vehicle choice and capability. • Dealers will be adversely impacted by the decline in vehicle availability. • Consumers can expect to see an average increase of $3,000 to the cost of new vehicles purchased in FL. • The result – no quantifiable health or environmental benefit!

  14. Environmental Benefit…? Q. “Did anybody -- have you ever told anyone that there would be actual impact that could be felt by any human being, or any animal or any plant life on this planet even if the entire world were to adopt AB 1493?” A. “No.” Deposition of Thomas Cackette, California Air Resources Board Deputy Executive Officer 259:7-259:12

  15. Steven Flint, New York DEC Q. “You made no effort whatsoever to predict what climatic changes, if any, might result from the regulation?” A. No Q. As you sit here today have you identified any environmental impact from the regulation that could affect any human being in any way? A. We have not identified any specific environmental benefits that would accrue from implementation of this regulation Deposition of Steven Flint 10/17/06 259:13-259:20, 207:17-207:20, and 251:14 -252:2

  16. Charles Shulock, CARB Program Manager Q: “Has the Air Resources Board in any way quantified any impact on the sea level as a result of AB 1493?” A. “No.” Q. “Has the Air Resources Board in any way quantified any potential impact on spring run-off as a result of AB 1493?” A. “No.” Q. “Has the Air Resources Board in any way quantified any potential impact on the snow pack in California or elsewhere as a result of AB 1493?” A. “No.” Q: Has the air Resources Board in any quantified any potential impact on the timetable for spring blooms as a result of AB 1493? A: No Deposition of Charles Shulock 275:12-276:5

  17. Charles Shulock, CARB Program Manager Q: “And has there been any effort by the Air Resources Board using any metric to quantify any impact on the environment in any way, whether it’s from more snowfall, or better beaches, or more maple trees, or more raspberries, or more wildlife, or fewer mosquitoes, or anything else you can think of that could possibly affect humans in California in a real world basis? Has there been any effort by the Air Resources Board to try to quantify what, if any, impact all of that projected direct and indirect emissions reductions will have?” [Objections from CARB lawyer] A: “No.” Deposition of Charles Shulock 294:22-295:14

  18. NRDC, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense* “Defendants are not aware of any credible scientific evidence to support the theory that CO2 emissions reductions resulting from the adoption of the Regulation in all fifty states in the United States would change average ambient temperatures in any place by a measurable amount.” *Response to RFA #111, Green Mountain Chrysler et. al. v. Crombie

  19. Following California will: • Limit vehicle choice • Reduce vehicles’ capability – towing capacity, hauling ability, off-road capability, cargo space, passenger room, and horsepower • Add a $3,000 surcharge to every new vehicle sold in the state • Create an additional tax burden to support the program’s bureaucracy • AND – provide no environmental or health benefit!

  20. What’s the Answer? • Support the development and sale of alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles through incentives. • Allow the federal government to complete their work on devising consistent, nationwide fuel economy standards that are technically feasible for auto manufacturers.

  21. Current Activities • CA-LEV Approval • VT litigation (Fall 2007) • EPA Waiver (Dec 2007) • CA litigation (2008) • Federal GHG action • Legislation (Pending) • Hill-Terry • HR-6 • President’s EO – EPA NPRM • NHTSA CAFE

  22. Governor Crist Executive Order 07-127 “Adoption of the California motor vehicle emission standards in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, effective January 1, 2005”

  23. Motor Vehicle Emission Standards in Title 13 CCR

  24. Passenger Cars/Trucks • Vehicle registration denial • H2 fueling infrastructure • Electric vehicle infrastructure • Regulatory oversight and changes

More Related