State of California 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RULEMAKING 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

2008 AMENDMENTS TO THE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE REGULATIONS 

Public Hearing Date: March 27, 2008 

Agenda Item No.: 08-3-5 
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. GENERAL ......................................................................................................... 1

II. SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS TO ORIGINALLY PROPOSED 

AMENDMENTS ....................................................................................................... 3

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES .......................... 16

COMMENTS AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED PRIOR TO, OR AT THE 

MARCH 27, 2008 HEARING.............................................................................. 25

COMMENTS PRESENTED DURING THE FIRST POST-BOARD HEARING 

COMMENT PERIOD ........................................................................................ 124

COMMENTS PRESENTED DURING THE SECOND POST-BOARD HEARING 

COMMENT PERIOD ........................................................................................ 153
iii

Table of Acronyms 

AER ............ All Electric Range 

ARB ............ California Air Resources Board 

AT PZEV .... Advanced Technology Partial ZEV Allowance Vehicle 

CAFE........... Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

CCR ............ California Code of Regulations 

CNG ........... Compressed Natural Gas 

EAER ......... Equivalent All Electric Range 

EMFAC ....... ARB’s mobile emissions inventory modeling program 

EV .............. Electric Vehicle 

FSOR .......... Final Statement of Reasons 

GHG............ Greenhouse Gas 

HEV ............ Hybrid-Electric Vehicle 

HICE............ Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine 

ISOR .......... Initial Statement of Reasons 

IVM.............. Intermediate Volume Manufacturers 

LDT1 .......... Light Duty Truck with a loaded vehicle weight of 0-3750 pounds 

LDT2 .......... Light Duty Truck with a loaded vehicle weight of 3751 pounds to a gross 

vehicle weight of 8500 pounds, or a “LEV I” light-duty truck with a loaded 

vehicle weight of 3751-5750 pounds 

LEV I .......... First generation Low Emission Vehicle program, adopted in a 1990-1991 

rulemaking, and generally applicable in the 1994 to 2003 model years 

LEV II ......... Second generation Low Emission Vehicle program, adopted in a 1998-

1999 rulemaking, and generally applicable in the 2004 and subsequent 

model years 

LEV III ......... A future generation Low Emission Vehicle program

LFCE........... Low Fuel Cycle Emissions 

LVM............. Large Volume Manufacturers 

MY .............. Model Year 

NEV............. Neighborhood Electric Vehicle 

NOx ............ Oxides of Nitrogen 

PHEV ......... Plug-in Hybrid-Electric Vehicle 

PZEV .......... Partial ZEV Allowance Vehicle 

Rcda.............. Charge depletion range actual 

ROG ........... Reactive Organic Gases 

Type 0 ........ Utility EV, less than 50 mile range 

Type I ......... City EV, range of 50 to less than 75 miles 

Type I.5 ....... City EV, range of 75 to less than 100 miles 

Type II ........ Full Function EV, range of 100 or more miles 

Type III ....... ZEV, range of 100 or more miles plus fast refueling 

Type IV........ ZEV, range of 200 or more miles plus fast refueling 

Type V......... ZEV, range of 300 or more miles plus fast refueling 

UDDS ......... Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule 

UF ............... Utility Factor 

US06 .......... US-06 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure 
iv

VMT ............ Vehicle Miles Traveled 

ZEV ............ Zero Emission Vehicle 
 1

State of California

California Environmental Protection Agency 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REGULATORY AMENDMENTS TO THE ZERO 

EMISSION VEHICLE REGULATION 

Public Hearing Date: March 27, 2008 

Agenda Item No.: 08-3-5 

I. GENERAL 

Summary. In this rulemaking Air Resources Board (ARB or the Board) has amended 

its regulation that requires auto manufacturers to develop and commercialize zero 

emission vehicle (ZEV) technologies. The amendments have given manufacturers 

increased flexibility to comply with the ZEV requirements, recognized and given credit to 

the environmental benefits of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and established 

ZEV categories in recognition of new developments in fuel cell and battery electric 

vehicles (EV). The Board has amended the following sections of title 13, in the 

California Code of Regulations (CCR): section 1900 “Definitions” and section 1962 for 

Zero Emission and Hybrid Electric Vehicles and its incorporated test procedures 

"California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2005 through 2008 

Model Zero Emission Vehicles, and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid Electric 

Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes” 

(renamed from “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2005 

and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission Vehicles, and 2001 and Subsequent Model 

Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty 

Vehicle Classes”). The Board has renumbered the section 1962.1 “Electric Vehicle 

Charging Requirements” of title 13, CCR to section 1962.2. The Board has adopted the 

following section of title 13, CCR: section 1962.1 for Zero Emission and Hybrid Electric 

Vehicles for 2009 and Subsequent MY Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and 

Medium-Duty Vehicles, and its incorporated test procedures "California Exhaust 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 and Subsequent Model Zero 

Emission Vehicles, and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the 

Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and Medium duty Vehicle Classes” (renamed from 

“California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 and Subsequent 

Model Zero-Emission Vehicles”). 

The rulemaking was formally initiated on February 8, 2008, with the Board’s publication 

of a notice of public hearing scheduled for March 27, 2008. The Staff Report: Initial 

Statement of Reasons, entitled “2008 Proposed Amendments to the California Zero 

Emission Vehicle Program Regulations” (Staff Report or ISOR) was made available for 
2

public review and comment beginning on February 8, 2008. The Errata to the Staff 

Report corrected a table and a paragraph in the regulatory text contained in the ISOR, 

and was released February 19, 2008, for public review and comment. The Staff Report, 

which is incorporated by reference herein, describes the rationale for the originally 

proposed amendments. The text of the proposed amendments was included as 

Appendix A to the Staff Report. The ISOR and the notice of public hearing were also 

posted on February 8, 2008, and the Errata posted on February 19, 2008, on ARB’s 

Internet site for this rulemaking at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/zev2008/zev2008.htm. 

The Board received written and oral comments at the hearing. At the conclusion of the 

hearing, the Board adopted Resolution 08-24, in which it approved the originally 

proposed amendments along with several modifications, some of which were suggested 

by staff in a document entitled “Proposed Modifications to Staff Proposal”, distributed at 

the hearing. Resolution 08-24 directed the Executive Officer to make the text of the 

modified proposal, with other conforming modifications as might be appropriate, 

available to the public for a supplemental written comment period of at least 15 days. 

The Executive Officer was then directed either to adopt the amendments with such 

additional modifications as might be appropriate in light of the comments received, or to 

present the regulations to the Board for further consideration if warranted. 

The regulatory text with the modifications clearly identified was made available starting 

July 25, 2008, for a 22-day comment period ending August 15, 2007, by issuance of a 

Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and supporting documents. Fifty-nine 

written comments were received. 

In response to comments received during the first post-Board Hearing comment period, 

further modifications to the regulatory text were proposed and made available on 

October 3, 2008, for an 18-day comment period ending October 20, 2008, by issuance 

of a Second Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and supporting documents. 

Eleven additional comments were received. 

This Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking (FSOR) updates the Staff Report by 

identifying and explaining the modifications that were made to the original proposal at 

the Board’s direction and in response to comments, and summarizes and responds to 

written comments and hearing testimony. 

Fiscal Impacts. Pursuant to Government Code sections 11346.5(a)(5) and 

11346.5(a)(6), the Executive Officer determined that the regulatory action would not 

create costs or savings to any state agency or in federal funding to the state, costs or 

mandate to any local agency or school district whether or not reimbursable by the state 

pursuant to part 7 (commencing with section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the 

Government Code, or other nondiscretionary savings to state agencies. 

The total estimated avoided costs to motor vehicle manufacturers are approximately 

$5.8 billion from 2012 to 2017. The total avoided costs are based on estimated costs 
3

over the six-year period to the six large volume manufacturers or LVMs (Toyota, Honda, 

Ford, General Motors, Nissan, and Chrysler) that produce California-certified light-duty 

vehicles and are subject to the ZEV regulation if the existing regulation were fully 

implemented. Four additional intermediate volume manufacturers or IVMs (BMW, 

Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai) may transition into a large volume manufacturer 

status, but the cost associated with their transition is unknown. The only increase in 

cost is for Enhanced advanced technology partial allowance ZEVs (Enhanced AT 

PZEV), as additional vehicles of this type are needed to meet the ZEV requirement if a 

manufacturer chooses to produce fewer ZEVs. However, the proposed amendments 

greatly decrease overall cost due to the reduction in vehicle numbers for the more 

expensive ZEV technologies. 

There is no additional cost to businesses, local government, state government, or 

individuals associated with this regulation. 

Consideration of Alternatives. The Board has determined that no reasonable 

alternative considered by staff or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the 

attention of staff would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the 

regulatory action was proposed, or would be as effective and less burdensome to 

affected private persons or small businesses than the action taken by the Board. 

II. SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS TO ORIGINALLY PROPOSED 

AMENDMENTS 

Summary of Modifications – First 15-Day Comment Period

The following sections summarize the substantive modifications and the rationale for 

making such modifications as released on July 25, 2008, for public comment. 

1. Number of Vehicles Required for the Pure ZEV (Gold) Floor 2012 to 2014 

Annual Requirement Percentage 

The original proposal increased flexibility in the regulation by giving LVMs the option, 

during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe, to meet their pure ZEV obligation or gold 

requirement by producing a minimum number of ZEVs (2,500 Type IV ZEVs) and 

backfilling the rest of the gold requirement with Enhanced AT PZEVs (75,000). 

The Board increased the minimum number of ZEVs a manufacturer is required to 

produce to comply with the regulation. The minimum floor was increased from 2,500 to 

7,500 Type IV ZEVs for the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. Though the number of Enhanced 

AT PZEVs required to backfill the pure ZEV requirement decreases due to this direction, 

the modification furthers ZEV technology development and encourages 

commercialization. The regulatory text in section 1962.1(b)(2)(D) and associated 

percentages in the table in section 1962.1(b)(2)(D)3. reflect the Board’s modifications. 
4

2. New ZEV Type 

The Board directed creation of a new Type V ZEV. This is a vehicle with a 300 mile or 

greater range and 15-minute fast refueling capability. The new Type V earns seven 

credits in MY 2009 through 2017. In 2018 MY and later, a Type V ZEV will earn three 

credits. The Board recognized that a long driving range ZEV would better meet 

consumer needs. Criteria and appropriate credit level for a Type V ZEV has been 

added to tables in 1962.1(d)(5)(A) and (d)(5)(C), and to all sections of the ZEV 

regulation that reference ZEV types. 

3. Transition for IVMs 

The Board did not approve staff’s proposal to lengthen the IVM transition as the IVM 

becomes subject to LVM requirements. The modification to section 1962.1(b)(7)(A) 

reflects this decision. Other minor conforming modifications were also made in this 

section to clarify regulatory intent. 

4. PHEV Multiplier During 2009 to 2011 Timeframe 

At the March 27, 2008 Board Hearing, the Board gave direction on two issues relating to 

Enhanced AT PZEV credits. First, the Board directed consideration of the nine 

loopholes presented by non-governmental organizations (NGO) in their March 26

comment letter. The following loophole relates to Enhanced AT PZEV credits: 

Loophole #2: “Extend carry-forward provision to Enhanced AT-PZEVs to ensure 

that banked credits do not create long “blackout” periods when none of these 

vehicles are produced.” 

ARB does not agree that the carry-forward provision should apply to Enhanced AT 

PZEV credits. ARB does not expect large numbers of Enhanced AT PZEV credits to be 

banked and carried forward during the 2009 to 2011 time frame. These vehicles have 

never been produced in large production volumes, and it is unlikely that a sudden rampup of volumes would occur. Additionally, if a manufacturer were to be successful in its 

production of an Enhanced AT PZEV, it would be unlikely that it would stop production 

during the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. However, ARB does believe that the 

3.0 multiplier offered to PHEVs delivered for sale during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe 

could create an artificial bank of credits that could be used to comply during the 2012 to 

2014 timeframe. This multiplier would allow a manufacturer to earn three times the 

credit for each PHEV delivered for sale, which reduces the number of vehicles and 

increases the number of credits. 

ARB also considered applying a multiplier to battery EV credits earned during the 2009 

to 2011 timeframe for IVMs in order to assure there is not a disincentive to produce gold 

vehicles. ARB concluded that adding an additional multiplier to allow ZEV credits to be 
5

used in place of AT PZEV credits for IVMs was not considered advisable as it would 

increase program complexities. 

ARB chose to approach both issues in the context of credit multipliers and to address 

the overall credit discrepancy between PHEVs and pure ZEVs during the 2009 to 2011 

timeframe. Because a PHEV would earn a 3.0 multiplier if produced and delivered for 

sale in California, a PHEV could earn more than a ZEV during the 2009 to 2011 

timeframe. 

For this reason, ARB instead has decreased the value of the 3.0 multiplier to 1.25 for 

PHEVs in the 2009 through 2011 MYs. The decreased value reflects a value of a 

similar multiplier offered to ZEVs during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe. An additional 

modification requires that in order to qualify for the multiplier, the PHEV must be sold or 

leased for three years, with a lease option for two additional years. Reducing the 3.0 

multiplier to 1.25 limits the potential for an excessive number of banked credits which 

could cause a blackout during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. The modification provides 

additional credit, though less than the vehicle would have received in the original 

proposal, to PHEVs produced and delivered for sale during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe 

while ensuring that pure ZEVs would not be put at a comparative disadvantage. 

Section 1962.1(c)(7)(B) was modified to reflect these changes to the original proposal. 

5. Plug-in Hybrid Allowances 

The Board directed consideration of additional overall credit for PHEVs that can achieve 

10 miles in all-electric mode on the US06 Driving Cycle. As a consequence, ARB made 

several modifications that affect HEV allowances that included (1) making use of a 

corrected Utility Factor (UF) that will also be used in the next version of the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE) Hybrid Test Procedure, (2) revising the zero-emission 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) allowance equation, and (3) adjusting advanced 

componentry allowances for Type F AT PZEVs, and adding a new Type G advanced 

componentry allowance. 

Utility Factor. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) committee working on 

revisions to the HEV test procedures (SAE J1711) discovered mathematical errors in 

the UF derivation described in the March 1999 version of SAE J1711. Subsequent to 

the publication of the original proposal, a revised zero-emission range allowance 

determination method was developed based on the newly revised UF that ARB 

anticipated would be published in SAE J2841. The revised UF affects the blended 

PHEVs by increasing the overall credit earned by this category of vehicles. ARB 

incorporated by reference the draft SAE procedure as SAE J2841 PropDft 2008 in the 

modified regulatory text of section 1962.1(c)(3)(A). 

Zero-Emission VMT Allowance Equation. The former constant of 14.6 has been revised 

downward to 11.028 to compensate for the change in the revised UF as well as yield a 

Type G 40-mile PHEV overall allowance of 2.5, an increase of 0.1 over that proposed in 
6

the ISOR. The credit allowance has also been made constant for PHEVs with actual 

charge depleting ranges greater than 40 miles. As modified, these higher range PHEVs 

will earn the same as a PHEV with exactly 40 miles capability. The equation in section 

1962.1(c)(3)(A) was modified to reflect the new constant and a new equation has been 

added to specify the allowance earned by a HEV with greater than 40-mile charge 

depleting range actual (Rcda). 

Advanced Componentry. An additional high-power Type G category for HEVs was 

added with an increased advanced componentry allowance of 0.95 for this new 

category. This new Type G requirement requires a drive and energy storage system 

that is sufficient to propel a vehicle on the more aggressive US06 driving cycle for 10 

miles. The advanced componentry allowance for Type F HEVs was decreased by 0.08 

from what was presented at the Board Hearing to make overall credit levels consistent, 

as well as account for the modified UF and modified equation. The following table 

shows the advanced componentry allowance earned by Type F and Type G HEVs. 

Proposed HEV Advanced Componentry Allowance Schedule 

Year 

Type C 

10 kW 

Type D 

10 kW 

Type E 

50 kW 

Type F (NEW)

>= 10 mile 

UDDS* Capable

Type G (NEW) 

>= 10 mile US06 

Capable

2005-2011 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.72 0.95

2012-2014 0.15 0.35 0.45 0.67 0.90

2015+ 0.1 0.25 0.35 0.57 0.80

*Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule 

Regulatory language in section 1962.1(c)(4)(B)7. was modified to reflect the increased 

advanced componentry allowance for Type F and Type G HEVs. These changes to 

HEV allowances result in the following changes in overall credit for AT PZEVs: 

Prior Proposal 15-Day Proposal 

AT PZEV Types Credit 

‘09-‘11 

Credit 

‘12-‘14 

Credit 

‘09- ‘11 

Credit 

‘12-‘14 

Other AT PZEV CNG 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 

 H2ICE 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 

Type E Non PHEV 0.70 0.65 0.70 0.65 

 B12.5/0.8 BPHEV 1.24 1.19 1.35 1.30 

 B20 /0.8 BPHEV 1.45 1.40 1.56 1.51 

 B22 /0.8 BPHEV 1.50 1.45 1.60 1.55 

 B40 /0.8 BPHEV 1.78 1.73 1.78 1.73 

Type F P10 AER PHEV 1.62 1.57 1.62 1.57 

 (>=10 mile UDDS P20 AER PHEV 1.99 1.94 2.00 1.95 

 Capable) P40 AER PHEV 2.40 2.35 2.27 2.22 

Type G P10 AER PHEV 1.62 1.57 1.85 1.80 

 (>=10 mile US06 P20 AER PHEV 1.99 1.94 2.23 2.18 

 Capable) P40 AER PHEV 2.40 2.35 2.50 2.45 
7

6. High Pressure Storage System Requirements 

One of the nine “loopholes” in the NGOs’ March 26 comment letter pointed out potential 

ways for manufacturers to flood the market with cheaply made hydrogen internal 

combustion engine (HICE) vehicles. 

Loophole # 1: “Limit hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles to AT-PZEV 

(non-Enhanced) and PZEV credits due to their limited benefit and potential for 

gaming.” 

Although it was not necessary to limit HICEs to the AT PZEV category as these vehicles 

provide large emission benefits and promote tank and infrastructure development, to 

ensure that only the most advanced HICE vehicles are placed, the requirements for the 

hydrogen storage system on HICE vehicles increased from 3600 to 5000 pounds per 

square inch. The increase promotes the use of advanced hydrogen storage systems 

and furthers the development and commercialization of hydrogen tanks that could also 

be used on a fuel cell vehicle. Regulatory language in section 1962.1(c)(4)(A) was 

modified to reflect this change. 

7. Travel Provision 

The Board directed modification of the ZEV regulation to include suggestions from the 

State of New York and other states that asked for a modification to the provision that 

gives credit in California to ZEVs placed in another state (the travel provision) that has 

adopted California’s ZEV program regulations pursuant to Section 177 of the federal 

Clean Air Act (Section 177 states). Because California’s vehicle market is much larger 

than any Section 177 state and because a manufacturer’s production volumes vary 

between Section 177 states, credits generated by California ZEVs could overwhelm the 

other Section 177 states’ ZEV requirements, including the states’ AT PZEV and PZEV 

requirements. Therefore, the travel provision was modified to provide for proportionality 

of California’s credits to the Section 177 states’ credits. This is achieved by multiplying 

the required credits by the ratio of a LVM’s total sales in the state receiving credit to the 

LVM’s total sales in California. This still allows manufacturers to place a vehicle in a 

Section 177 state and receive full ZEV credit in California. This change only affects the 

value of the credit earned in the Section 177 state in which the vehicle is placed or the 

value of the ZEV credit which is being used to comply with a Section 177 state’s 

requirement. The language in section 1962.1(d)(5)(E) was modified to reflect these 

changes. 

8. Advanced Demonstration Credits 

The original proposal was modified to include Enhanced AT PZEVs along with ZEVs as 

eligible for advanced demonstration credit. Since no manufacturer has released an 

Enhanced AT PZEV for commercial sale, it is appropriate to allow these vehicles to earn 

advanced demonstration credit. Also, ARB increased the cap on the allowable number 
8

of advanced demonstration credits from 6 to 25 vehicles, per state, per model, per year. 

This increase responds to a manufacturer comment that the six-vehicle cap was too low 

to adequately demonstrate vehicle technology. All advanced demonstration credit 

continues to be subject to Executive Officer approval. Section 1962.1(g)(4) was 

modified to reflect the additional vehicle category and the revised cap on vehicles 

earning credit. 

9. Credit Transparency 

The Board directed that the ZEV credit bank be fully transparent including trades 

beginning in 2010. Section 1962.1(l)(2) was modified to reflect this change, with 

specific language relating to the transparency of transactions within the ZEV credit 

bank. 

10. Use of Transportation Systems Credits 

Transportation systems credits provide vehicles extra ZEV credit if the vehicle is placed 

in a shared use application, and/or provide linkage to mass transit. ARB modified the 

original proposal to exclude extra credits earned by ZEVs in transportation systems to 

be used in compliance with the portion of the obligation that must be met with ZEVs 

during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. The modification preserves a limitation that has 

been in ZEV requirements for LVMs on the Alternative Path since the 2005 MY. During 

the hearing, the Board clearly indicated concern that the minimum gold floor be met with 

real vehicles rather than banked credits. This change also ensures the Board’s directed 

7,500 minimum ZEV floor will be met with vehicles rather than credits. This provision 

was added to 1962.1(b)(2)(D) as subsection 4. 

11. Inclusion of Enhanced AT PZEVs into ZEV Credits for Transportation 

Systems 

ARB’s modifications include Enhanced AT PZEVs in provisions relating to ZEV credits 

for transportation systems. Like AT PZEVs, Enhanced AT PZEVs will earn four credits, 

through the 2011 MY, if the vehicle is in a project demonstrating shared use and the 

application of intelligent technologies. Also, Enhanced AT PZEVs will earn an additional 

two credits through the 2011 MY, if the vehicle is used in a project that includes linkage 

to transit. 

Enhanced AT PZEVs will continue to qualify for transportation system credits in the 

2012 and subsequent MYs, earning one credit for shared use and application of 

intelligent technologies, and one additional credit for linkage to transit. 

Section 1962.1(g)(5) was modified to reflect these changes. 

 

12. Banking of Gold Credits Until Subject to LVM Requirements 

The Board directed necessary modifications to allow manufacturers who are not subject 

to LVM requirements to bank 2008 and subsequent model-year gold credits without 
9

having the limited carry-forward provision apply until the manufacturer becomes subject 

to LVM requirements. Staff modified section 1962(g)(6) and section 1962.1(g)(6) to 

include a provision that allows a manufacturer other than an LVM, who produces gold 

credits, to bank those gold credits until they are subject to LVM ZEV obligations. The 

limited carry-forward provision in each respective regulation will then apply, beginning 

with the year the manufacturer becomes subject to the stepped up LVM requirements. 

Below is an example of how this provision would work for an IVM who produces a gold 

credit in 2010, but does not become subject to LVM requirements until 2014: 

If a manufacturer other than an LVM chooses to trade their gold credits, then the limited 

carry-forward provision applies to the credits traded and begins in the MY in which the 

credits were earned. Below is an example of a credit earned by an IVM (e.g., 

Manufacturer A) in 2009 that is traded to another manufacturer (e.g., Manufacturer B) in 

2011: 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 and Beyond 

Gold 

Credit 

Produced 

 IVM Subject 

to LVM 

Requirements

 2010 Earned Gold 

Credit only allowed 

in Enhanced or 

lesser credit 

earning categories 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Manufacturer A 

Credit Earned Credit Traded to 

Manufacturer B 

o Limited carryforward 

provision 

applies to the 

traded credit 

 

Manufacturer B 

Credit Earned 

by 

Manufacturer A 

 Traded Credit 

Received 

o May be used to 

meet Gold 

Obligation 

Traded credit 

may only be 

applied to 

Enhanced 

AT PZEV or 

lesser credit 

earning 

categories 

Gold Credit

Gold Credit Carries Forward 2 Years Enhanced AT PZEV or

Gold Credit Retains Full Value
10

13. Use of Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Credits 

Historically, NEV production generated credits that created long blackout periods in the 

ZEV program. This was commented on by NGOs in their March 26 comment letter: 

Loophole #8: “Prevent product blackouts caused by NEV credits for the pure ZEV 

minimum requirement and early introduction of Enhanced AT-PZEVs. This can 

be accomplished by limiting the use of NEV credits earned before 2008 to the 

(non-Enhanced) AT-PZEV or PZEV categories after 2011 and restricting NEV 

credits earned after 2008 from the pure ZEV floor.” 

ARB considered the comment and modified the regulation to clarify the limits and 

allowed use of NEV credits in complying with the ZEV program. The following tables 

were added to section 1962.1(g)(6) as a new subsection (A): 

(2001 through 2005 Banked NEV Credits) 

Years ZEV Obligation that:

Percentage limit for NEVs 

allowed to meet each 

Obligation:

2009 – 2011 Must be met with ZEVs 50 percent

2009 75 percent

2010 – 2011

May be met with AT PZEVs but not 

PZEVs 50 percent

2009 – 2011 May be met with PZEVs No Limit

Must be met with ZEVs 0 percent

May be met with Enhanced AT PZEVs 

and AT PZEVs 2012 – 2014 50 percent

May be met with PZEVs No Limit

(2006 and subsequent MY NEVs) 

Years ZEV Obligation that:

Percentage Limit for NEVs 

allowed to meet each 

Obligation:

May be met through compliance with 

Primary Requirements No Limit

May be met through compliance with 

Alternative Requirements, and must 

be met with ZEVs

0 percent 2009 - 2011

May be met through compliance with 

Alternative Requirements, and may be 

met with AT PZEVs or PZEVs

No Limit

Must be met with ZEVs 0 percent

2012 – 2014 May be met with Enhanced

AT PZEVs, AT PZEVs, or PZEVs No Limit
11

With these modifications, the 2001-through-2005-MY NEV credits are not available to 

meet the portion of the obligation that must be met with ZEVs in 2012 through 2014. 

Also, the 2001-through-2005-MY NEV banked credits are capped at 50 percent usage 

within the obligation that may be fulfilled with Enhanced AT PZEVs or AT PZEVs for the 

2012 to 2014 timeframe. These modifications limit the use of 2006 and beyond NEV 

credits within the minimum ZEV floor during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe while still 

allowing them to be fully used to meet requirements that may be met with Enhanced AT 

PZEVs, AT PZEVs, and PZEVs. 

14. Additional NEV Requirements 

In conjunction with the modifications on the use of 2001-through-2005-MY-NEV credits 

and 2006-and-subsequent-MY-NEV credits, ARB added more stringent requirements 

for 2010 and subsequent MY NEVs. This was also in response to the NGOs previously 

mentioned “Loophole #8.” The requirements include minimum technical specifications 

including acceleration, top speed, and constant speed range requirements. Staff based 

these requirements on the U.S. Department of Energy’s “NEV America Technical 

Specifications” (Version 2) document, released on December 1, 2004. ARB slightly 

altered the NEV America requirements to better fit with the intent of the ZEV program. 

Additionally, ARB added language which points to test procedures developed by the 

U.S. Department of Energy. These can be found at the following links: 

o Acceleration: ETA-NTP002 (revision 3) document, released on December 1, 2004, 

“Implementation of SAE Standard J1666 May93: Electric Vehicle Acceleration, 

Gradeability, and Deceleration Test Procedure” found at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/pdfs/nev/ntp002.pdf

o Constant Speed Range: ETA-NTP004 (revision 3) document, released on February 

1, 2008, “Electric Vehicle Constant Speed Range Tests” found at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/pdfs/nev/ntp004.pdf 

Also, 2010 and subsequent MY NEVs are required to be equipped with sealed, 

maintenance-free batteries, and meet minimum warranty requirements. ARB added 

sections 1962.1(d)(5)(F)(1),(2), (3) and 1962.1(h)(2) to reflect these modifications. 

15. Other Technical and Minor Modifications

Other post-Board Hearing conforming modifications were made to the regulation for 

clarification and simplification: 

1962(c)(5)(A): The provision relating to the fast refueling requirements in the table has 

been modified to reflect the number of miles needed to be replaced rather than the 

percentage maximum rate energy capacity for Type III ZEVs. 
12

1962(c)(5)(B): For clarification, language in this section has been modified to specify 

the calendar year rather than the MY in which the vehicle was placed. The table 

heading in the same section was also modified. 

1962.1(b)(1)(B): The marketing manufacturer provision states that a passenger vehicle 

or light-duty vehicle produced by a manufacturer but marketed by another manufacturer 

under the other manufacturer name place will count towards the marketing 

manufacturer’s production for purposes of determining any manufacturer’s obligation. 

This provision was modified to apply to all manufacturers, rather than to only small 

volume manufacturers. 

1962.1(b)(1)(B): The regulation has been modified to specify the MYs (2003 through 

2005) that a manufacturer will use to determine its ZEV obligation during the 2009 to 

2011 timeframe. 

1962.1(b)(1)(B)1.b.: The percentage ZEV requirement has been corrected for the 

Alternative Path during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe. As released in staff’s notice errata, 

the percentage has been adjusted from .80 to .82. 

1962.1(c)(6)(B)1. The MY affected by the 3.0 cap on the value of an AT PZEV 

allowance has been changed from the 2012 MY to the 2009 MY. The modification in 

the applicable MY makes the cap for the 2009 through 2011 MY vehicles consistent 

with the cap for the 2012 and subsequent MY vehicles. 

1962.1(d)(5)(A) and (B): Fast refueling requirements for Type IV ZEVs has been 

modified to correct the refueling time to 15 minutes instead of 10 minutes. 

1962.1(f): Staff has added extended service multiplier language found in 

section 1962(f) into section 1962.1 as subsection (f) because the provision still applies 

through the 2011 MY. 

1962(j) and 1962.1(j): The abbreviations sections have been updated to accurately 

reflect the abbreviations applicable to each regulation. 

Other minor conforming and harmonizing modifications have been incorporated. 

The substantive and minor conforming and harmonizing modifications were also made 

to corresponding provisions in the incorporated "California Exhaust Emission Standards 

and Test Procedures for 2009 and Subsequent Model Zero Emission Vehicles, and 

2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty 

Truck and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes.” 
13

Summary of Modifications – Second 15-day Comment Period

Travel Provision

In the first 15-day notice, ARB modified the travel provision to provide for proportionality 

of California’s credits to a Section 177 state’s credits. This was accomplished by 

multiplying ZEV credits earned in another state by a ratio of a manufacturer’s Section 

177 state sales to its California sales for a given MY. Auto manufacturers commented 

that this proportionality equation might have unintended consequences if the carryforward and carry-back provisions are used in combination with the travel provision. 

Comment was also received regarding the MY first affected by the proportional travel 

provision. 

Responding to these comments, ARB further modified the text. Proportionality 

continues, but is proposed to begin in the MY 2010. The further modification also 

specifies that a credit earned in a Section 177 state is earned at a proportional value in 

the Section 177 state, while credit is earned in the full amount in California. Lastly, a 

manufacturer complying with the Alternative Path requirements in the 2010 and 2011 

MYs in a Section 177 state will not be affected by proportionality if those credits are 

produced in California. The maximum number of credits allowed for compliance in the 

Section 177 state for the 2010 and 2011 MYs, however, is limited to the Section 177 

state’s Alternative Path minimum ZEV percentage. Any credits earned in California and 

used in a Section 177 state beyond the minimum Alternative Path ZEV percentage are 

subject to proportionality. Section 1962.1(d)(5)(E) has been modified to reflect these 

further changes. 

Minimum ZEV Percentage 

Due to an error in calculating the included percentage of light-duty trucks in the heavier 

weight category (LDT2s), staff released an incorrect percentage for the minimum ZEV 

percentage that must be met during the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. The correct ZEV 

percentage is 0.79 percent. For this reason, both the minimum and maximum 

percentages found in the table in section 1962.1(b)(2)(D)3. have been modified along 

with the maximum percentage allowed for Enhanced AT PZEVs found in section 

1962.1(b)(2)(D)1. 

Transportation Systems Credits 

The first notice’s modified text disallowed the use of additional credits earned by 

transportation systems for the portion of the ZEV requirement that must be met with 

ZEVs (minimum ZEV floor). ARB received comment from auto manufacturers that 

disallowing the use of transportation system credits in the minimum ZEV floor would 

greatly discourage the use of ZEVs in transportation systems. Agreeing that the use of 

ZEVs in transportation systems furthers the Board’s overall ZEV commercialization and 

environmental goals, ARB modified the text to allow use of credits earned by ZEVs 

placed in transportation systems to meet up to one tenth of the portion that must be met 

by ZEVs. Section 1962.1(b)(2)(D)4 has been modified to reflect these changes. 
14

Additional Modifications 

CCR, title 13, Section 1962

1962(b)(1)(C): ARB received comment from auto manufacturers concerning the 

unnecessary inclusion of the LDT2 percentage for the 2007 MY. This was an oversight 

and the provision has been modified to exclude the 2007 MY to be consistent with a 

January 16, 2007 advisory to auto manufacturers. 

CCR, Title 13, Section 1962.1

1962.1(b)(1)(B): In response to auto manufacturers’ comments, ARB modified the 

language in this section to base the 2012 and subsequent MY requirements on a rolling 

average of the fourth, fifth, and sixth year previous to the compliance MY. 

Manufacturers are also allowed to base their annual sales on the same MY in which 

they are complying. Manufacturers are allowed to switch every year between these two 

methods. For example, a manufacturer complying for the 2014 MY would be allowed to 

use the average number of vehicles produced and delivered for sale from the 2008 

through 2010 MYs, or projected sales volumes for the 2014 MY. 

1962.1(b)(2)(B)1.b. and (b)(2)(B)1.b.ii.: Auto manufacturers commented that the 

modifications in the first notice inappropriately allowed manufacturers complying with 

the Alternative Path requirements to switch between applicable sales volume 

determination methods during the 2009 through 2011 MYs. Because the Alternative 

Path requirements have been based on designated periods or time frames, ARB agreed 

with this comment and deleted language that would have allowed manufacturers to 

switch between applicable sales volume determination methods. 

1962.1(b)(2)(D)1., (b)(2)(D)2., and (b)(2)(D)3.: Auto manufacturers commented that the 

allowed use of Type 0 ZEVs needed to be more explicitly stated. ARB concurred and 

modified the regulatory text in each provision and the table to reflect the allowed use of 

Type 0 ZEVs in meeting the ZEV requirements. Section 1962.1(b)(2)(D)3. was 

reworded to improve clarity. 

1962.1(c)(3)(A): An auto manufacturer commented requesting the zero-emission 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) allowance for an Enhanced AT PZEV with a equivalent allelectric range (EAER) of exactly 10 miles. ARB added the allowance to the table in 

section 1962.1(c)(3)(A) shown as: EAER>= 10 miles 

1962.1(c)(4)(A): An auto manufacturer commented requesting allowance of cryogenic 

storage for the high pressure hydrogen storage. Since cryogenic storage of hydrogen 

could be at a lower pressure than allowed by the language released in the first notice, 

ARB modified the language to include storage at cryogenic temperatures as another 

basis for the advance componentry allowance. 

1962.1(c)(4)(B)1.: An auto manufacturer commented requesting ARB to delete a 

provision from section 1962.1(c)(4)(B)1. that only allowed HEVs to receive credit if they 

qualified for a zero-emission VMT allowance. To correct this oversight in the first notice 

modifications, the sentence was deleted. 
15

 

1962.1(d)(5)(B): The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

commented with a proposal that the fast refueling requirements for Type IV and V ZEVs 

be deleted to allow for plug-in fuel cell vehicles within the regulation. Though 

maintaining the fast refueling requirements for Type IV and V ZEVs, ARB modified the 

provision to allow the Executive Officer to waive the requirements if a vehicle utilizes 

more than one ZEV fuel and to base the amount of credit earned on UDDS ZEV range. 

1962.1(d)(5)(F)3.: Auto manufacturers commented regarding the required length of the 

NEV warranty requirements added during the first notice. ARB modified the language 

to clarify the intent of a 24-month warranty. 

1962.1(g)(8): Auto manufacturers commented on the modifications in the first notice 

regarding the penalty for failure to meet the ZEV requirements. ARB has deleted 

“production period” from this provision and reverted back to the original language 

released in the ISOR: specified time period. A cross-reference to section 

1962.1(g)(7)(A) was added to clarify that the ZEV deficit can be made up within the time 

period specified by that section. 

1962.1(j)(2) and 1962.1(j)(9): Due to the changes in sections 1962.1(d)(5)(E) and 

1962.1(g)(8), definitions in section 1962.1(j) were modified: “production period” was 

removed and “Section 177 state” was added. 

Other Modifications:

Modifications that correspond with those described for the regulations were also made 

to the incorporated test procedures. For both the regulations and the test procedures, 

ARB also made other non-substantial modifications for clarification such as correcting 

typographical, grammatical or numbering errors, and correcting references and cross 

references. 

Final Non-Substantial Modifications

The Board has also added or corrected cross-references and made other nonsubstantial or grammatical changes to the text of the final regulation order. These 

include the addition of cross-references to the adopted section 1962.1 in section 1900, 

grammatical changes, and the addition of appropriate punctuation in both the regulation 

and incorporated test procedures. 
16

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSE 

Below is a list of those who submitted comments or testified at the Board Hearing: 

Abe, Kazuo Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) 

Acquaro, Skip private citizen (Acquaro) 

Adams, Noel private citizen (Adams) 

Adcock, James private citizen (Adcock) 

Ahnger, Sally private citizen (Ahnger) 

Alexa, John private citizen (Alexa) 

Allen, Jerry private citizen (Allen) 

Anderson, Lydell private citizen (Anderson) 

Anglin, JoAnn private citizen (Anglin) 

Bakker, Deborah Hyundai Motor Cars (Hyundai) 

Balkmann, Thad* Phoenix Motorcars (Phoenix) 

Ballan, Mikael private citizen (Ballan) 

Baragona, David private citizen (Baragona) 

Barkley, Michael private citizen (Barkley) 

Baxley, Phil* Shell Hydrogen LLC (Shell) 

Bayha, Elizabeth private citizen (Bayha) 

Beedie, James private citizen (Beedie) 

Bird, Gladys private citizen (Bird) 

Borelli, Adam* Google.org (Google) 

Boschert, Sherry* Sierra Club of California (Sierra) 

Bostwick, Christopher Large Volume Manufacturers (Toyota, GM, Honda, Ford, 

Chrysler, Nissan) (submitted by Christopher Bostwick) 

Brenann, David private citizen (Brenann) 

Brickley, Erin private citizen (Brickley) 

Brody, Jeff private citizen (Brody) 

Brown, Benjamin private citizen (Brown) 

Brushaber, Pam private citizen (Brushaber) 

Brysk, Seth Los Angeles Chapter of American Jewish Committee (AJC) 

Bundy, Robert private citizen (Bundy) 

Burgess, Mike private citizen (Burgess) 

Burrus, Greg private citizen (Burrus) 

Burt, Laurie Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Massachusetts) 

Byram, Michael private citizen (Byram) 

Carmichael, Tim Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) 

Cassidy, Robert Nissan (Nissan) 

Chamberlain, Abbey private citizen (Chamberlain) 

Chaudhary, Ashay private citizen (Chaudhary) 

Chen, Allen private citizen (Chen) 

Choquette, Francois* private citizen (Choquette) 

Cimino, Ant private citizen (Cimino) 

Clare, Brian private citizen (Clare) 
17

Clifford, Mark private citizen (Clifford) 

Cochran, Ronald private citizen (Cochran) 

Colburn, Michael private citizen (Colburn) 

Conlyn, Andrew private citizen (Conlyn) 

Cornish, Grant private citizen (Cornish) 

Cree, Ian private citizen (Cree) 

Cross, Chris private citizen (Cross) 

Daltrey, Barrington private citizen (Daltrey) 

Davids, Daniel Seattle Electric Vehicles Association (SEVA) 

Davies, Douglas private citizen (Davies) 

Davis, Jon private citizen (Davis) 

DePaschoal, Roberto private citizen (DePaschoal) 

DeSaulnier, Mark Assemblymember DeSaulnier (Assemblymember 

DeSaulnier) 

Drori, Ze'ev* Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla) 

Duncan, Robert private citizen (Duncan) 

Dunlap, Besir* private citizen (Dunlap) 

Dunn, Richard GreenWheels Sustainable Transportation (GreenWheels) 

Durst, Rick private citizen (Durst) 

Duvall, Mark Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

Eggers, Eddie private citizen (Eggers) 

Ehlmann, James General Motors (GM) 

Ellingson, Jerry private citizen (Ellingson) 

Ellis, Stephen American Honda Motors Co. (Honda) 

Emmett, Daniel Energy Independence Now (EIN) 

England, Christopher Electrochimica Laboratories LLC (Electrochimica) 

Enos, Z. Miles Electric Vehicles (Miles) 

Farinacci, John private citizen (Farinacci) 

Field, Malcolm private citizen (Field) 

Fields, John private citizen (Fields) 

Flanaghan, Dave United Technologies Company Power (UTC) 

Fletcher, Peter private citizen (Fletcher) 

Flint, Steven New York State Department Environmental Conservation 

(New York) 

Flittner, Steven 1 Ample World (Ample) 

Folks, Tom Mightycomm (Mightycomm) 

Ford, Ben private citizen (B. Ford) 

Foster, Jay private citizen (Foster) 

Frank, Andrew* private citizen (Frank) 

Freund, Ron* Electric Auto Association (EAA) 

Friedland, Jay Plug In America (PIA) 

Friedland, Jay private citizen (Friedland) 

Fuddpucker, Fred private citizen (Fuddpucker) 

Fugere, Danielle Friends of the Earth (FOE) 

Gaffney, Anne private citizen (Gaffney) 

Galcher, Leo Private citizen (Galcher) 
18

Galliani, Joe private citizen (Galliani) 

Garabedian, Harold private citizen (Garabedian) 

Garcia, Giselle private citizen (G. Garcia) 

Garcia, Quin private citizen (Q. Garcia) 

Gaydos, Gerry private citizen (Gaydos) 

Geller, Marc San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association (SFEVA) 

Gifford, Warren private citizen (Gifford) 

Gillock, Richard private citizen (Gillock) 

Gilot, Kevin private citizen (Gilot) 

Green, Gordon private citizen (Green) 

Greene, David Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 

Greer, Peter* private citizen (Greer) 

Gronich, Sigmund* Charisma Consulting (Gronich) 

Gysler, Steven private citizen (Gysler) 

Haines, D. Mark Freedom Formula Foundation (FFF) 

Hanson, Robert private citizen (Hanson) 

Harralson, David private citizen (Harralson) 

Harris, Gardner private citizen (Harris) 

Heacock, David private citizen (Heacock) 

Heckeroth, Steve American Solar Energy Society (ASES) 

Henderson, Joseph private citizen (Henderson) 

Hendren, Gilbert private citizen (Hendren) 

Henry, Charles private citizen (Henry) 

Hernandez, Bill private citizen (Hernandez) (50 signatures included) 

Herndon, Jean private citizen (Herndon) 

Hessing, Mark private citizen (Hessing) 

Hoffner, John private citizen (Hoffner) 

Holmes-Gen, Bonnie* American Lung Association of California (ALA) 

Holroyd, John private citizen (Holroyd) 

Hoverson, John private citizen (Hoverson) 

Howland, John private citizen (Howland) 

Ireland, Lisa private citizen (L. Ireland) 

Ireland, Stanton private citizen (S. Ireland) 

Irvine, Star private citizen (Irvine) 

Jahn, Harold Clean Electric, Inc. (Clean Electric) 

Jensen, Mark private citizen (Jensen) 

Johansson, Lars private citizen (Johansson) 

John, Frank private citizen (John) 

Johnson, Stuart Volkswagen Group of America (Volkswagen) 

Jones, Charlton private citizen (Jones) 

Juarez, Tina private citizen (Juarez) 

Kadzielski, Mark private citizen (Kadzielski) 

Kasper, Rick Global Electric Motorcars (GEM) 

Keirns, Ann Catherine private citizen (Keirns) 

Kelly, Kelli private citizen (K. Kelly) 

Kelly, Richard private citizen (R. Kelly) 
19

Kennedy, Clinton private citizen (Kennedy) 

Koenig, Jerald private citizen (Koenig) 

Killian, Earl* private citizen (Killian) 

Knapp, Jamie ZEV Alliance, speaking on behalf of Danielle Fugere 

(Friends of the Earth or FOE) 

Knight, Ben* American Honda Motors Co. (Honda) 

Korthof, Doug* private citizen (D. Korthof) 

Korthof, William private citizen (W. Korthof) 

Krill, Jennifer Rainforest Action Network (RAN) 

Larsen, Mark private citizen (Larsen) 

Lee, Waidy private citizen (Lee) 

Lindholm, Lyle private citizen (Lindholm) 

Lipmen, Eli Los Angeles Chapter of American Jewish Committee (AJC) 

Little, Elizabeth private citizen (Little) 

Lococo, Al private citizen (Lococo) 

Lord, Michael* Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) 

Lowe, Aaron Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) 

Love, Ernest private citizen (Love) 

Lussier, Devin private citizen (Lussier) 

MacMillan, Lou private citizen (MacMillan) 

Magel, Nick Global Exchange (Global Ex) 

Manley, Tom private citizen (Manley) 

Margulis, Michael private citizen (Margulis) 

Marin, Arthur Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management 

(NESCAUM) 

Matula, Edward private citizen (Matula) 

McCarthy, Gina State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental 

Protection (Connecticut) 

McDonough, Brian private citizen (McDonough) 

McLaughlin, Michael private citizen (McLaughlin) 

Medvecky, Joe private citizen (Medvecky) 

Meehan, Tim private citizen (Meehan) 

Melamid, Elan private citizen (Melamid) 

Meyer, Richmond private citizen (Meyer) 

Miller, Rod private citizen (Miller) 

Mills, Rodney private citizen (Mills) 

Minich, Michael private citizen (Minich) 

Mitten, Nathan private citizen (Mitten) 

Miyasato, Matt South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

Modisette, Dave* California Electric Transportation Coalition (CalETC) 

Modlin, Reginald* Chrysler LLC (Chrysler) 

Neff, Fred private citizen (Neff) 

Neil, Chris private citizen (Neil) 

Newlin, Jeremy private citizen (Newlin) 

Newsom, Gavin San Francisco Mayor Newsom (Mayor Newsom) 

Nicholes, Linda Rain Forest Action Network (RAN) 
20

Nicholes, Linda private citizen (Nicholes) 

Olenski, Paul private citizen (Olenski) 

Olson, Paul private citizen (Olson) 

Olum, Ken private citizen (Olum) 

Paine, Chris private citizen (Paine) 

Palmer, David private citizen (D. Palmer) 

Palmer, Michael private citizen (M. Palmer) 

Parent, Sean private citizen (Parent) 

Pascarella, Bill private citizen (Pascarella) 

Patterson, David* Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America (Mitsubishi) 

Patton, Gary Planning and Conservation League (PCL) 

Paul, Alexandra private citizen (Paul) 

Pease, Gerald private citizen (Pease) 

Peirini, Rodney California Automotive Wholesalers Association (CAWA) 

Perry, Oliver Eastern Electric Vehicle Club (EEVC) (13 signatures 

included) 

Perzinski, Edwin private citizen (Perzinski) 

Pew, Stephen private citizen (Pew) 

Pierce, David private citizen (D. Pierce) 

Pierce, James private citizen (J. Pierce) 

Pierce, Nigel private citizen (N. Pierce) 

Plotkin, Norman California Automotive Wholesalers Association/Automotive 

Aftermarket Industry Association (CAWA/AAIA) 

Pohorsky, Jerry private citizen (Pohorsky) 

Pritt, Joshua private citizen (Pritt) 

Pucci, Steven private citizen (Pucci) 

Puetz, William* Daimler AG (Mercedes) 

Quan, Raymond private citizen (Quan) 

Quong, Spencer* Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 

Ralls, Wilma private citizen (Ralls) 

Ramone, Monica Synergy (Synergy) 

Rasmussen, Pat private citizen (Rasmussen) 

Rassweiler, Clifford private citizen (Rassweiler) 

Reese, Symmon private citizen (Reese) 

Reinert, Bill Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) 

Reisinger, Randy Speaking on behalf of Felix Cramer of CalCars (CalCars) 

Rodamaker, Scott private citizen (Rodamaker) 

Rosen, Lisa* private citizen (Rosen) 

Rosson, Terry private citizen (Rosson) 

Rudy, Sara* Ford Motor Company (Ford) 

Ruskin, Ira Assemblymember Ruskin (Assemblymember Ruskin) 

Ryder, Terry private citizen (Ryder) 

Sawyer, Robert private citizen (Sawyer) 

Saxton, Tom private citizen (Saxton) 

Schmiedlin, Mark private citizen (Schmiedlin) 

Schneider, Matt private citizen (Schneider) 
21

Scholz, Sibylle private citizen (Scholz) 

Sclar, Trudy EnVironmental Motors (EnVironmental Motors) 

Scott, Paul private citizen (Scott) 

Scott, Paul Southern California Electric Vehicle Association (SCEVA) 

Seal, Kathy private citizen (Seal) 

Seidler, Mark private citizen (Seidler) 

Seldon, Robert private citizen (Seldon) 

Selleck, Judy private citizen (Selleck) 

Sexton, Bob private citizen (Sexton) 

Sexton, Chelsea* Plug In America (PIA) 

Shanab, Jeff private citizen (Shanab) 

Shears, John Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies 

(CEERT) 

Sheffield, Scott private citizen (Sheffield) 

Shott, Bill private citizen (Shott) 

Siebert, Robert private citizen (Siebert) 

Silva, John private citizen (Silva) 

Silver, David private citizen (Silver) 

Simpson, Andrew Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla) 

Sipp, Brian private citizen (Sipp) 

Skye, Coby Long Beach Greens (Greens) (86 signatures included) 

Smalenberger, Skip private citizen (Smalenberger) 

Smallwood, Edward private citizen (Smallwood) 

Smith, Adam Google.org (Google) 

Smith, Christina private citizen (C. Smith) 

Smith, Fraser private citizen (F. Smith) 

Smith, Jay private citizen (J. Smith) 

Sokolow, Taryn private citizen (Sokolow) 

Soref, Gil private citizen (Soref) 

Spradley, ohn private citizen (Spradley) 

Spruit, Howard private citizen (Spruit) 

Stack, Jim private citizen (Stack) 

Stahmer, Aubyn private citizen (A. Stahmer) 

Stahmer, Carl private citizen (C. Stahmer) 

Stelling, Robert private citizen (Stelling) 

Stewart, Ken United Technologies Corporation (UTC) 

Stobbe, Michael private citizen (Stobbe) 

Strand, Muriel private citizen (Strand) 

Sullivan, Tim private citizen (Sullivan) 

Sun, Randolph private citizen (Sun) 

Swansburg, Bryan private citizen (Swansburg) 

Sydney, Russel Sustainable Transport Club (STC) 

Stewart, Ken United Technologies Company Power (UTC Power) 

Tabascio, Stefano private citizen (Tabascio) 

Tabor-Beck, Linda private citizen (Tabor-Beck) 

Tavill, Mark* private citizen (Tavill) 
22

Terry, Carlton private citizen (Terry) 

Thagard, Elizabeth private citizen (Thagard) 

Thwaite, Michael private citizen (Thwaite) 

Tonachel, Luke Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 

Tramiel, Leonard private citizen (Tramiel) 

Trudeau, Colby private citizen (Trudeau) 

Turock, David private citizen (D. Turock) 

Turock, Joy private citizen (J. Turock) 

Underwood, Dave Plug Power (Plug Power) 

U'Ren, Jeff private citizen (U’Ren) 

Verdugo-Peralta, Cynthia Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) 

Verdugo-Peralta, Cynthia private citizen (Verdugo-Peralta) 

Vieira, Claudia private citizen (Vieira) 

Wakefield, Thomas private citizen (Wakefield) 

Wallerstein, Barry South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

Wang, Yong private citizen (Wang) 

Washburn, Morgan private citizen (Washburn) 

Wedaa, Henry private citizen (Wedaa) 

Weeden, Noreen private citizen (Weeden) 

Weinman, Sherry Los Angeles Chapter of American Jewish Committee (AJC) 

Weitz, Stephan private citizen (Weitz) 

Wells, Timothy private citizen (Wells) 

Weverstad, Alan General Motors (GM) 

Williams, James private citizen (Williams) 

Woolsey, James private citizen (Woolsey) 

Yasuoka, Aki American Honda Motors Co. (Honda) 

Yeung, Candace private citizen (C. Yeung) 

Yeung, Darren private citizen (D. Yeung) 

Yoder, R. Christopher private citizen (Yoder) 

Young, Barbara private citizen (Young) 

Ziwica, Karl Heinz* Bayerische Motoren Werke of North America (BMW) 

Zulauf, Mat private citizen (Zulauf) 

The people listed above with a single asterisks (*) submitted written comments and 

gave oral testimony at the March 27, 2008 Board Hearing. 

The following is a list of form letters received during the 45-day comment period and the 

first 15-day comment period, how they are referred to in ARB’s response to the 

comments, the title of the comment as listed on the Board Meeting Comments Log 

website1

, and the approximate number of form letters received: 

Form Letter # 1 “MSV definition and inclusion in ZEV 2008” 2 

Form Letter # 2 “Plug-In Cars” 280 

Form Letter # 3 “California Zero Emission Vehicles” 345 

 

1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub.comm/beecommlog.php?listnmae=zev2008 
23

Form Letter # 4 “Zero Emission Vehicles Now” 16 

Form Letter # 5 “Please save the electric car” 1487 

Form Letter # 6 “MSV” 41 

Form Letter # 7 “A stronger ZEV Program: more clean vehicles, no 

more loopholes” 

2002 

Form Letter # 8 “Don’t weaken ZEV regulation” 600 

Form Letter # 9 “Plug in Cars, Plug-in-hybrids, all-electric cars” 4 

Form Letter #10 “Strength California’s ZEV instead of weakening it...” 13 

During the first 15-day supplemental comment period, the Board received written 

comments from: 

Aller, Wayne private citizen (Aller) 

Baloga, Thomas BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) 

Bohanon, Randall private citizen (Bohanon) 

Bostwick, Christopher Large Volume Manufacturers (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, 

Nissan, Toyota) (Submitted by Christopher Bostwick) 

Bradley, Mike private citizen (Bradley) 

Carmichael, Tim Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) 

Cimino, Anthony private citizen (Cimino) 

Connor, Paul private citizen (Connor) 

Cox, Earl private citizen (Cox) 

Cree, Ian private citizen (Cree) 

Cummings, Charles private citizen (Cummings) 

Davies, Stephen private citizen (Davies) 

Drori, Ze'ev Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla) 

Ehlmann, James General Motors (GM) 

Elliott, Steve private citizen (Elliott) 

Emmett, Daniel Energy Independence Now (EIN) 

Faulkner, Dennis private citizen (Faulkner) 

Fermi, Steve private citizen (Fermi) 

Foster, Matt private citizen (Foster) 

Friedland, Jay Plug-In America (PIA) 

Fugere, Danielle Friends of the Earth (FOE) 

Gillock, Richard private citizen (Gillock) 

Glatman, Themis private citizen (Glatman) 

Glener, Doug private citizen (Glener) 

Gonder, Jeff National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

Harman, R.M. ‘Auros' private citizen (Harman) 

Hoke, Robert private citizen (Hoke) 

Holmes-Gen, Bonnie American Lung Association of California (ALA) 

Jan, James private citizen (Jan) 

Jungreis, Jason private citizen (Jungreis) 

Korthof, Doug private citizen (D. Korthof) 

Kulongoski, Justin private citizen (Kulongoski) 

Lange, Robert private citizen (Lange) 
24

Larsen, Mark private citizen (Larsen) 

Lord, Michael Signing for Kevin Webber from Toyota Motor North 

America, Inc. (Toyota) 

Magavern, Bill (Sierra Club California) 

Marin, Arthur Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management 

(NESCAUM) 

Marion, Steve private citizen (Marion) 

McCurdy, Ronald private citizen (McCurdy) 

Modisette, David California Electric Transportation Coalition (CalETC) 

Modlin, Reginald Chrysler, LLC (Chrysler) 

Munson, Krystin private citizen (Munson) 

Nater, Pete private citizen (Nater) 

Orndorff, Graham private citizen (Orndorff) 

Patterson, David Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America (Mitsubishi) 

Power, Jeffrey private citizen (Power) 

Pritt, Joshua private citizen (Pritt) 

Quong, Spencer Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 

Rahm, Yoshaany private citizen (Rahm) 

Roche, Matthew private citizen (Roche) 

Ruskin, Ira Assemblymember (Assemblymember Ruskin) 

Saidak, Thomas private citizen (Saidak) 

Shaw, David New York State Department Environmental Conservation 

(New York) 

Shears, John Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Technologies (CEERT) 

Swennes, Robin private citizen (Swennes) 

Tonachel, Luke Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 

Trudeau, Colby private citizen (Trudeau) 

Valentinitetti, Richard Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management 

(NESCAUM) 

Verma, Arjun private citizen (Verma) 

Wallerstein, Barry South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

Ward, Aaron private citizen (Ward) 

Warren, Mark private citizen (Warren) 

Webster, Jason private citizen (J. Webster) 

Webster, Letitia private citizen (L. Webster) 

Yoney, Domenick private citizen (Yoney) 

During the second 15-day supplemental comment period, the Board received written 

comments from: 

Bostwick, Christopher Large Volume Manufacturers (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, 

Nissan, Toyota) (Submitted by Christopher Bostwick) 

Cabrera, John private citizen (Cabrera) 

Elliott, Steve private citizen (Elliott) 

Guldenbrein, Ross private citizen (Guldenbrein) 
25

Haskell, William private citizen (Haskell) 

Kunhardt, Tom private citizen (Kunhardt) 

Larsen, Mark private citizen (Larsen) 

Modlin, Reginald Chrysler, LLC (Chrysler), Business Confidential Comment 

Rosen, Douglas Miles Electric Vehicles (Miles) 

Wallerstein, Barry South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

Yelverton, Bonnie private citizen (Yelverton) 

Set forth below is a summary of each objection or recommendation made regarding the 

specific adoption, amendment, or repeal proposed, together with an explanation of how 

the proposed action has been changed to accommodate each objection or 

recommendation, or the reasons for making no change. Only objections or 

recommendations directed at the agency’s proposed action or the procedures followed 

by the agency in proposing or adopting the action are summarized as permitted by 

CCR, title 2, section 11346.9. Repetitive or irrelevant comments have been aggregated 

and summarized as a group. A comment is “irrelevant” if it is not specifically directed at 

the agency’s proposed action or to the procedures followed by the agency in proposing 

or adopting the action. The comments have been grouped by topic whenever 

applicable. 

COMMENTS AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED PRIOR TO, OR AT THE MARCH 27, 

2008 HEARING 

Part I. Non-Specific Regulatory Comments 

Comments grouped in this section refer generally to the proposal presented in the 

ISOR, but to not specifically speak to the proposed for the ZEV regulation. Other 

comments in this section refer to parts of the regulation which were not modified in this 

rulemaking. 

A. General Support 

1. Comment: Vote for the adoption of the 2008 Amendments to the California Zero 

Emission Vehicle Regulation. (D. Palmer) 

 

 General support for the proposed amendments as articulated in the 45-day 

notice. (Nissan) 

 Agency Response: The Board approved the ZEV regulation as proposed by staff 

along with other modifications. 

2. Comment: Support for amendments to the regulation which encourages auto 

manufacturers to produce ZEVs. (Heacock) 

Support for changes to the ZEV program that allow greater flexibility. (Nissan, 

VW) 
26

Support for the goal of zero emissions from automobiles and the development of 

technologies in support of this goal. (Toyota) 

Support for staff efforts to refine the ZEV program in order to maintain incentives 

for advanced technology implementation while providing manufacturers with 

necessary flexibility to ramp up development, production, and marketing of these 

technologies. (Hyundai) 

 Support for CARB in its efforts to walk a fine line between fostering continued 

zero emission vehicle technology development while recognizing true technology 

limitations. (FOE) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the goal of achieving zero 

emissions, increasing flexibility in the regulation, and considering technology 

development and limitations. The Board’s approval of the proposal with 

modification is in line with these goals. 

3. Comment: I generally agree with you on your decisions to improve air quality. 

(Hendren) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the acknowledgement of its efforts to 

improve California’s air quality. 

4. Comment: The commenter states general support for the New Path. (Killian, 

SCAQMD) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the New Path. The Board 

approved the New Path concept as a part of California Code of Regulations, 

title 13, section 1962.1. 

B. General Opposition 

5. Comment: ARB received several comments urging the Board to reject staff’s 

proposal. (Pucci, SFEVA, Sierra, Tavill, Tesla, Thwaite) 

 

 Agency Response: Though much of staff’s proposal was adopted, the Board 

chose to modify or reject parts of staff’s proposal. These modifications included 

increasing the number of pure ZEV required during the 2012 through 2014 

timeframe, not amending the transition time for IVMs becoming subject to LVM 

ZEV requirements, and modifying the travel provision as proposed by staff. 

Overall, the amended regulation continues to further technology development 

while taking into account technological and cost barriers to ZEV technologies. 
27

6. Comment: The Board should send this proposal back to staff to rework it so that 

it also encourages the long-term phase for fuel cell vehicles and the hydrogen 

infrastructure. (Verdugo-Peralta, Wedaa) 

Agency Response: The focus of this rulemaking is the 2009 through 2011 

timeframe and 2012 through 2014 timeframe. Overall, the amended regulations 

encourage long term ZEV commercialization. Additionally, the Board directed 

staff to return to the Board with another ZEV regulation, focusing the program 

exclusively on the gold requirement, that is battery, fuel cell, and Enhanced AT 

PZEV technologies; ensuring California as the central policy for moving 

advanced, low greenhouse gas (GHG) technology vehicles from the laboratory 

and demonstration phase to commercialization, where they are critical to 

achieving the Governor’s GHG emission reduction goals. 

7. Comment: ARB received comments expressing general opposition to the 

regulation as proposed or the Board’s decision to revisit the regulation. (Adams, 

Gifford, Greer, Hendren, Killian) 

 Agency Response: The Board directed an Expert Panel (the Panel) to conduct 

an assessment of vehicle technology readiness compared to the ZEV regulation. 

After the Panel presented its findings to the Board in May 2007, the Board saw a 

need to modify the numbers required during the 2012 through 2014 timeframe, 

as well as provide more equal treatment of battery EVs. These findings, coupled 

with the current cost and state of ZEV technology development lead to the 

proposed amendments to the ZEV regulation in March 2008. 

 

8. Comment: Terminate any programs that purport to enable or mandate the socalled zero emission vehicle. There is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle. 

The proposed program to subsidize the EV is fatally flawed. I request that you 

do not support EV programs in any form. (Harralson) 

 Now is not the time to manufacture electric cars! When an electric car can be 

made cheaper, more spacious and comfortable, cheaper to operate and give the 

builder and dealer a profit for building and selling it, only then will they become 

practical. This isn’t likely to happen in our lifetime! (Fuddpucker) 

 Vote no to EVs. (Perzinski) 

Agency Response: The Board believes the ZEV program is necessary to 

meeting California’s environmental goals. Zero-emission technologies can greatly 

reduce or even eliminate some of the persistent environmental problems from 

motor vehicle emissions. Both battery EV and fuel cell vehicles can be powered 

by fuels created from 100 percent renewable energy. The ZEV program has 

become even more important for California in meeting goals under the Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill (AB) 32). 
28

9. Comment: The commenter states opposition to the ZEV program because it is 

an emission regulation based on a sales mandate. The best pathway to cleaner 

air is through performance based emission standards that allow auto 

manufacturers to choose the technologies that comply with California’s clean air 

targets. (VW) 

Agency Response: The ZEV program sets a performance standard: a zero 

emission standard. In recognition that this performance standard will not be met 

by all passenger cars and light-duty trucks given available technologies or 

technologies that are anticipated to become available in the future, the standard 

is phased in and capped and may be met, in part, with low-emission technologies 

that are not zero emission technologies but that foster attainment of California’s 

clean air goal for the transportation sector. 

10. Comment: Forcing certain vehicle quantities required within a timeframe can 

have unintended effects and could possibly lead to market failure, which is not an 

option for ARB or industry. (Chrysler) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board has amended the current 

program in recognition of this comment, decreasing the original 25,000 

Alternative Path requirement for the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. The Board 

believes the pure ZEV requirement of 7,500 vehicles is appropriate for the 2009 

through 2014 MYs. It is necessary for the Board to maintain pressure on auto 

manufacturers to produce the cleanest technologies throughout a development 

phase of ZEV technologies until commercialization makes them economically 

beneficial. Also, it is necessary for ARB to require minimum floors for the 

number of ZEVs to provide certainty for ZEV technology providers. 

11. Comment: The ZEV mandate does not align with market demand thereby 

imposing high costs on society, and it diverts manufacturer resources from the 

development of future clean technologies by imposing artificial near term 

obligations. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: The Board does not agree with the premise that ZEV 

requirements do not “align” with market demand and has received substantial 

comments and hearing testimony to the contrary. There are also other auto 

manufacturers with publicly announced product plans to sell ZEV program 

vehicles that exceed ARB’s requirements because they believe there will be 

sufficient market demand. 

12. Comment: ARB must recognize that when forcing technology, it may be 

necessary to make adjustments if technology improvements or market 

acceptance of advance technology vehicles has not met expectations. In light of 

the technological uncertainty, there should be no so-called “no backsliding” rules, 

when such aggressive targets are set. (Ford) 
29

Agency Response: The Board has amended the ZEV regulation based on 

assessment of the current state of ZEV technologies, providing sufficient 

flexibility in the regulation so that if a particular technology does not improve as 

anticipated, there are other technologies that can be substituted. 

13. Comment: The proposal undermines the opportunity for ZEV regulation in the 

State of California to bring the highest standard of pollution and petroleum-free 

vehicles into the marketplace. (RAN) 

Agency Response: ARB must balance technology feasibility with economic 

impacts, while continuing to improve California’s air quality. Overall, the 2008 

modifications will bring an air quality benefit due to the inclusion of Enhanced AT 

PZEVs. The mandated levels of pure ZEVs required are appropriate for the 2009 

through 2014 timeframe given the current state of development for ZEV 

technologies and market needs for vehicle capabilities. 

14. Comment: Some of the provisions being proposed by Staff are overly stringent 

and inconsistent with the findings of the Expert Review Panel commissioned by 

the Board to objectively study and report on the state of ZEV technologies. 

(Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

 

Agency Response: The Board used the Panel’s findings as guidance to staff in 

developing the amendments. The 2008 rulemaking is in line with Resolution 07-

18. Overall, the 2008 rulemaking gives manufacturers more flexibility in meeting 

the ZEV regulation and adequately takes into account the Panel’s findings. 

 

15. Comment: The proposed regulation would limit the vehicles and eliminate 

anyone I know from being able to afford one. This is accomplished by cutting 

back on electric car benefits and replacing them with hydrogen vehicle benefits. 

(Hendren) 

 Agency Response: ARB does not agree with this comment. Forcing ZEV 

technologies, either battery or fuel cell, into the market before commercially 

ready, durable, and fully warranted could result in an increased cost to the 

consumer. The 2008 rulemaking allows manufacturers to fully meet the ZEV 

requirements with battery EVs or fuel cell vehicles, allowing manufacturers to 

choose the technology most appropriate for development. The number of ZEVs 

required represents technological feasibility as well as cost considerations. 

C. General Requests to the Board 

16. Comment: ARB received several comments urging the Board not to amend or 

weaken the ZEV regulation, to hold the auto manufacturers to their promise, 

keep the mandate for ZEVs at a high level, reconsider their decision, continue 

with the ZEV program, or to maintain the current program. (Anderson, Baragona, 

Connecticut, EEVC, Form Letter #8, Gillock, Greer, Gysler, Harris, Johansson, 
30

John, D. Korthof, Lococo, Margulis, Mitten, Paine, PCL, Phoenix, Rosen, Scott, 

Washburn, Weeden, Wells, Young) 

Agency Response: Overall, the Board’s most recent amendments to the ZEV 

regulation strengthen the program and will help with the successful 

commercialization of ZEVs. The Expert Panel concluded that fuel cell and 

battery technology was sufficiently mature to meet the requirements in place for 

the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. The Board’s amendments maintain pressure 

on the auto manufacturers to continue in their research and development (R&D), 

without requiring commercialization before the technology is ready. 

17. Comment: ARB received comments urging the Board for help to put electric cars 

on the road, stimulate production of electric cars, or to require a ZEV mandate. 

(Alexa, Bird, Byram, Cornish, Chamberlain, Conlyn, Davies, Farinacci, Form 

Letter # 2, Galliani, G. Garcia, Q. Garcia, Greer, Hessing, L. Ireland, S. Ireland, 

Kadzielski, D. Korthof, Love, Melamid, Minich, D. Pierce, J. Pierce, N. Pierce, 

Rodamaker, Sun, A. Stahmer, C. Stahmer, Yoder) 

Agency Response: The ZEV program requirements have resulted in over 

4,000 battery electric and fuel cell vehicles on California’s roads over the past 

15 years. The ZEV program has also lead to the development of conventional 

HEVs that use ZEV technologies, now deployed by the tens of thousands on 

California’s roads. The Board’s most recent amendments to the ZEV regulation 

will continue to stimulate the development and production of ZEVs and ZEV 

technologies in hybrids and other ZEV technology vehicles. 

18. Comment: Staff received numerous comments urging the Board to do the right 

thing, to show leadership, to stand up for clean air, to stand up to auto 

manufacturers and oil companies, to save the electric car, to not let auto 

companies off the hook, or to tell the auto companies to produce ZEVs. 

(Acquaro, Adams, Adcock, Allen, Bird, Brickley, Brody, Chamberlain, Chaudhary, 

Clare, Cross, Duncan, Durst, EVASC, Form Letter #8, Gaffney, G. Garcia, 

Gaydos, Gilot, Greer, Heacock, Koenig, D. Korthof, Larsen, Lussier, Manley, 

Mitten, Olenski, Parent, PIA, D. Pierce, J. Pierce, N. Pierce, Pohorsky, Pucci, 

Quan, Rodamaker, Rosson, Saxton, Schneider, Seidler, Seldon, SEVA, SFEVA, 

Shanab, Sheffield, Shell, Siebert, Smallwood, Soref, Stack, A. Stahmer, C. 

Stahmer, Swansburg, Thagard, J. Turock, U’Ren, Weitz) 

Agency Response: The Board made modifications to staff’s proposal to increase 

the minimum pure ZEV requirement from 2,500 to 7,500 in the 2012 through 

2014 timeframe along with other modifications which show the Board’s 

commitment to the ZEV regulation and ZEV technologies. While the auto 

manufacturers wanted fewer ZEVs required, the Board chose to increase the 

overall number required, sending a clear message to the automotive industry. 
31

19. Comment: Staff received numerous comments urging the Board to support 

ZEVs. (Conlyn, Davis, Dunlap, G. Garcia, K. Kelly, Lussier, Matula, Mitten, 

Quan, Weeden) 

Staff received numerous comments in general support of ZEVs and zero 

emission technologies, namely battery technology. Staff also received many 

comments which explained the commenter’s own experience with ZEV 

technology or desire to own an EV. (Ahnger, Alexa, Allen, ASES, Ballan, Barkley, 

Beedie, Chaudhary, Chen, Cimino, Colburn, Conlyn, Dunlap, Durst, EAA, 

Eggers, Ellingson, Field, Fletcher, Galcher, Harris, Herndon, L. Ireland, S. 

Ireland, Jensen, Jones, K. Kelly, W. Korthof, Lussier, Matula, Mills, Nicholes, 

Olum, Paine, Parent, Pohorsky, Rassweiler, Seidler, Selleck, SEVA, SFEVA, 

Shott, Silva, J. Smith, Spradley, Stack, Stelling, Tesla, RAN, Tabor-Beck, 

Thagard, J. Turock, U’Ren, Weitz, Williams, D. Yeung, Yoder) 

 

Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking supports ZEV and Enhanced 

AT PZEV, including PHEV, development and commercialization while taking into 

account technology feasibility and cost. 

20. Comment: ARB received comments urging the Board to strengthen the 

mandate, adopt the strongest possible amendments, or expand the ZEV 

regulation. (ALA, Anglin, Bayha, Cross, Choquette, Foster, GreenWheels, Greer, 

D. Korthof, Lindholm, McDonough, PIA, Seal, SEVA, Sierra, Soref, Stobbe, 

Synergy, Terry, Tesla, Thagard, U'Ren, Young) 

Agency Response: The Board’s modifications to the proposal strengthen the 

ZEV regulation, taking into account current technology feasibility and costs. The 

2008 rulemaking provides more flexibility to automakers in meeting the ZEV 

requirements, creates a new vehicle category, Enhanced AT PZEVs, and gives 

credit to more types of battery EVs. 

 

21. Comment: I implore you to set a high standard for zero emissions vehicles and 

for the amount required to be sold in California. Setting high standards and 

production requirements for ZEV will boost a dying, decrepit industry and spur 

innovation badly needed in the automobile industry’s ranks. (G. Garcia) 

 Agency Response: The 2008 rulemaking allows for the most technologically 

advanced ZEVs to receive ZEV credits that reflect the level of technological 

advancement. It is not in the interest of the program at this time to limit credit too 

stringently, as most ZEV technologies are still in the development stages. The 

Board increased staff’s proposed pure ZEV requirement, which signaled a 

commitment to ZEV commercialization. 

22. Comment: Please don’t kill the electric car a second time! (Brushaber) 
32

Please don’t limit the benefits of electric transportation again. Please don’t 

damage the development of the electric car again! (Hendren) 

Please don’t kill the electric car again! (Larsen) 

Please don’t cut the electric car mandate! (Olum) 

Please don’t roll back the zero emission vehicle program again! (Seldon) 

 Please don’t let this chance slip by us! (Sexton) 

 

Please, give us back the electric car. (Wang) 

Agency Response: The Board’s decision to increase staff’s proposed number of 

pure ZEVs required during the 2012 through 2014 timeframe from 2,500 to 7,500 

shows its commitment to the ZEV regulation and the vehicles it mandates. The 

Board’s 2008 rulemaking will strengthen the overall program, allowing 

manufacturers greater flexibility in meeting their requirements, as well as 

providing for more equal treatment of battery EVs in the program. 

23. Comment: ARB received comment urging the Board to not postpone or delay 

the ZEV requirements! (Adcock, B. Ford) 

The consequences of delaying implementation of ZEVs means more Americans 

will die from pollution. (EVASC) 

Agency Response: No timelines were modified in this rulemaking. 

24. Comment: Why would you weaken a mandate regarding EVs? (Mills) 

 Why weaken the ZEV program now when the Board has the enviable power to 

propel our state and then our country towards a pollution-free future? (RAN) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 7. 

25. Comment: You have an opportunity to make up for the mistake of eliminating 

that zero emission rule. Please don’t make the same mistake again by turning 

your back on this technology that is available now. (Brody) 

Reinstate the zero emission vehicle regulation that was taken off the books in 

2003! (Brickley) 

Reinstate battery EVs. (Jensen) 

Reinstate the mandate. The commenter provided an article titled “GM, Toyota 

Doubtful on Fuel Cells’ Mass Use” to support their argument. (Galcher) 
33

I would like to see a return of mandates for purchasable (not rental) battery cars. 

(Burgess) 

 Agency Response: The Board never eliminated the ZEV regulation. The ZEV 

program has been modified five times since its inception. The 2008 rulemaking 

supports the development of all ZEV enabling and pure ZEV technologies. 

26. Comment: Please take a more active role in protecting our air. (Olson) 

Please take advantage of this huge opportunity to help the US become more 

energy efficient and independent. (Zulauf) 

 I’d like to urge you to be true to your original mission and mandate that is 

ensuring clean air. (Dunlap) 

 Agency Response: The Board continues to lead California into a future with 

clean air, requiring the most stringent air pollution regulations in the nation. The 

2008 rulemaking increases emission benefits over the existing program as well 

as promotes the development and commercialization of ZEVs, which use 

domestically produced fuels such as electricity and hydrogen. 

27. Comment: Please make sure the CARB doesn’t lose sight of their end goal, 

which is to reduce fuel consumption and therefore every form of pollutant and 

contaminant that comes out of an exhaust pipe. (FFF) 

Agency Response: ARB has primary authority to regulate vehicle emissions. 

The goal of the ZEV regulation is to see to the successful development, 

production, and commercialization of ZEVs. The ZEV mandate is not 

inconsistent with other benefits. 

28. Comment: I believe we should challenge the automakers with the original goal. 

(Newlin) 

It is imperative that the California Air Resources Board remain dedicated to 

improving to the original intent of the ZEV Program. (Assemblymember 

DeSaulnier, Assemblymember Ruskin) 

It’s time to return the ZEV program to its original purpose and get ZEVs into 

consumers’ hands ASAP, not 13 or more years from now. (Sierra) 

Restore the ZEV mandate to its original intent. (Spradley) 

Agency Response: The original intent of the program remains unchanged, to 

see to the successful commercialization of ZEVs in California. The 2008 

rulemaking, though requiring fewer pure ZEVs than the 25,000 minimum in the 
34

current ZEV regulation, continues to push technology development and furthers 

commercialization. 

29. Comment: The CARB should do everything in its power to pressure the auto 

companies to resume EV production, resume R&D, and invest in the necessary 

marketing to make EVs a success. (Ellingson) 

 Agency Response: The Board’s understanding is that OEMs never stopped their 

investment into the R&D of ZEVs. The 2008 rulemaking maintain the necessary 

pressure on OEMs to continue and accelerate their ZEV development programs. 

30. Comment: Make the requirement for ZEVs meaningful beginning with the next 

MY, and don’t be distracted by the smoke and mirrors offered by the automotive 

and oil industries. (Colburn) 

 Agency Response: The Board did not alter the requirements for the 2009 or 

2010 MYs, other than to allow for greater flexibility in meeting the requirements. 

The LVMs, depending on the ZEV technologies produced, could make up to 

10,000 ZEVs during the 2009 through 2011 timeframe. This is a significant step, 

considering that currently no LVM has a ZEV available to the public. 

31. Comment: It seems clear that you have been misinformed about the availability 

of pure ZEVs and that the staff has erred in recommending that the Board 

substantially loosen for years to come, requirements that can in fact be met 

today. The ISOR is seriously flawed. Among other erroneous conclusions are 

that “no manufacturers will produce any battery EV prior to 2012.” The facts 

clearly dispelled that finding. (Tesla) 

 Agency Response: The Board disagrees with this comment. No manufacturer, 

small volume nor large volume, has met the pure ZEV requirements solely with 

ZEVs. Additionally, no manufacturer has produced a ZEV in commercially viable 

numbers. The mandates are necessary to maintain pressure on the LVMs to 

develop and produce ZEVs at commercially available levels. The Board adopted 

levels necessary for near-term timeframes to continue the trajectory for 

successful commercialization of ZEVs. 

32. Comment: ARB received comments urging the Board to accelerate the ZEV 

mandate or schedule. (ALA, Brenann, McDonough, Pew, Schmiedlin, Tavill, 

Terry, Tesla) 

Push car companies to do what Tesla is already doing and far earlier than the 

dates proposed in the 2008 amendments. (Pucci) 

Agency Response: The Board adopted the timeline as presented in the ISOR. 

The 2008 MY was largely unaffected by the Board’s rulemaking. The 2009 

through 2011 timeframe remained mostly unchanged, apart from allowing greater 
35

flexibility in meeting the pure ZEV requirements. Also, please see the response 

to Comment 16. 

33. Comment: Set in motion the steps needed to strengthen the ZEV Program. 

(Sierra) 

Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking requires OEMs to be on a path 

towards further ZEV development and eventual commercialization. Additionally, 

Resolution 08-24 directs staff to return with a ZEV program focused on the pure 

ZEV requirement. 

34. Comment: Mass production of zero emission vehicles won’t happen soon unless 

pressure is maintained. (Green) 

Agency Response: ARB concurs with this statement. This is why the Board 

chose to increase staff’s proposed pure ZEV requirement from 2,500 to 7,500 

Type IV ZEVs during the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. 

35. Comment: We lost valuable time in 2003, let’s not fail to produce a practical 

answer in March 2008. (Siebert) 

There was no basis for delays in 2003, and there is no basis today in 2008. 

(Killian) 

 Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking is much different than their 

2003 modifications. The 2008 rulemaking continues to push ZEV technology 

development forward while taking into account the current state of ZEV 

technology and the associated cost. 

36. Comment: CARB needs to mandate that auto manufacturers start to reproduce 

the technology they have already built and proved could work. (Brenann) 

 Agency Response: Though ZEVs have been produced by many of the OEMs, 

ARB sees the benefit in encouraging new technology development and 

innovation. New developments in lithium-ion batteries could lead to better ZEVs 

than were seen in previous years. Additionally, ARB has not mandated the use 

of specific technologies, but has recognized that various technologies present 

various challenges and advantages. 

37. Comment: Please do not delay the production of significant number of Zero 

Emission Vehicles. (Jones) 

 Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking does not delay any production 

of ZEVs. 
36

38. Comment: In order to ensure a trend to zero emissions, automakers must be 

allowed to deliver the right vehicle at the right time. Market failure of a ZEV 

product could have lasting effects on the respective ZEV technology. (Chrysler) 

Agency Response: ARB concurs with this statement. However, the Board sees 

the benefit in maintaining pressure on OEMs to develop ZEV technology and 

move these vehicles from demonstration volumes to pre-commercial and 

commercial volumes. The Board’s 2008 rulemaking allows manufacturers to 

fulfill most of their ZEV requirement with Enhanced AT PZEVs, a ZEV enabling 

technology, while requiring manageable volumes of ZEVs to be produced 

between the 2009 and 2014 timeframe. 

39. Comment: ZEVs should be prioritized above Enhanced AT PZEVs, and our 

recommendations are made in the spirit of getting ZEVs into consumers’ hands 

as soon as possible. (RAN) 

 

 Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking only regulates the production 

of ZEVs. Enhanced AT PZEVs are not required, but are an option for 

manufacturers in meeting the ZEV requirements. Also, see response to 

comment 38. 

40. Comment: Supplying a quantity of ZEVs that is sufficient for market testing to 

monitor consumer trends, usage, durability, etc. will allow the automaker to utilize 

its resources most effectively. (Chrysler) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. As production proceeds under the ZEV 

regulation, it is important to move from demonstration levels to larger production 

fleets. Increased volume production results in reduction in price, and therefore 

more affordable clean vehicles for consumers. The Board adopted appropriate 

pure ZEV mandates for the upcoming timeframes. 

41. Comment: If ZEVs succeed, it will occur outside of California and may have no 

benefit for Californians, costing us a priceless opportunity to lead the way into the 

new generation of transportation technology. (RAN) 

 Agency Response: ARB believes that the success of ZEVs is not a matter of “if”, 

but rather, “when”. Because of the ZEV regulation and a variety of other 

favorable factors, ARB believes California will be one of the key locations for the 

increased deployment of ZEVs in the next few years. 

42. Comment: It is critical that in considering changes to the ZEV regulation, the 

Board needs to hold automakers accountable to the statements they make to the 

public and the press about the status and places for their zero emissions 

vehicles. 
37

The commenter provided many examples of statements from auto manufacturers 

and energy providers regarding product development and commercialization 

plans. (EIN) 

 Agency Response: ARB must balance OEM announcements with the reality of 

ZEV technology development. Due to comments such as these presented by 

EIN, the Board increased the minimum ZEV floor of 2,500 as proposed in the 

ISOR to 7,500 for the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. If a manufacturer were to 

surpass the ZEV regulation requirements, it would mean the manufacturer was 

ready for ZEV commercialization. The Board would see this as a success. 

However, as foreseen by comments and testimony from the automotive industry, 

it seems the 2008 rulemaking remains sufficiently stringent. 

43. Comment: The Board should understand that the ZEV program cannot be 

considered a research program. It was clearly defined as a production quota for 

automakers who wanted to continue to do business in the state. (EAA) 

 Agency Response: ARB concurs with this comment. However, ZEV 

technologies are not ready for full commercialization. The Board’s 2008 

rulemaking moderately ramps up production, accelerating ZEV technology R&D. 

44. Comment: Please follow the resolution of the Board of May 2007. (Rosen) 

 Agency Response: The following was included as directions to staff in 

Resolution 07-18: 

o Adjust the numbers of required ZEVs as appropriate to reflect the current 

state of technology; 

o Adjust credits for more even treatment of battery electric vehicles (EV); 

o Include plug-in hybrid EV (PHEV) as appropriate to encourage 

commercialization; 

o Consider increasing the credit value for neighborhood electric vehicles 

(NEV); 

o Consider extending the “travel provision” post-2011; 

o Encourage the production of vehicles meeting pollutant emissions far 

below PZEV standards; and 

o Take a broad legal view regarding the “disclosure of credits” issues in 

order to achieve a transparent public process; 

The Board’s 2008 rulemaking incorporated all of these directions. Also, see 

response to Comment 10. 
38

45. Comment: The staff report needs to be corrected to the actual number of battery 

EVs on the road, not the sleight-of hand number produced then crushed. (D. 

Korthof) 

 Agency Response: All battery EVs produced as a result of the regulatory 

requirements have provided insights to technology improvements. The current 

number of battery EVs on the road does not reflect the benefits of the regulation. 

46. Comment: Make ZEV regulation simpler, you don’t have to agree with staff 

proposals to complicate and mystify them further. (D. Korthof) 

 

This mandate needs to be simplified. It seems every version is more and more 

complex. Keep things simple. (Choquette) 

Agency Response: In this rulemaking, the Board adopted the New Path, a single 

compliance option for LVMs in meeting the ZEV requirement. This modification 

along with other modifications provides more flexibility and simplicity within the 

program. Additionally, Resolution 08-24 directs staff to revisit the program and 

place PZEV and AT PZEV technologies in other ARB programs. This direction 

encourages simplification of the ZEV regulation. 

47. Comment: The Board should consider taking at least six months, during which 

time a task force can be formed, that includes the stakeholders, to resolve the 

credit issue, which would result in a better, more comprehensive, technology 

encouraging ZEV mandate. (Verdugo-Peralta, Wedaa) 

Agency Response: It was appropriate for the Board to vote on staff’s proposal in 

March 2008. These modifications affected 2009 and subsequent MY vehicles. 

An additional 6 months would not have resulted in a more technology 

encouraging ZEV mandate. Extensive public outreach was conducted during this 

rulemaking, including over 40 meetings and teleconferences with interested 

stakeholders during the rulemaking process, as well as held one workshop 

attended by over 60 people. 

D. Battery EV Technology 

48. Comment: Battery powered vehicles are the best automobiles at storing 

electrons. They are more efficient than hydrogen powered vehicles. A 100 

percent battery powered vehicle can be powered by photovoltaic panels. This 

scenario should be the highest priority for CARB because most externalities are 

eliminated through this type of transportation. (Miller) 

 Agency Response: ARB does not agree that a single technology is the answer 

for successful commercialization of ZEVs. The Board envisions both battery EVs 

and fuel cell vehicles as part of the future vehicles mix in California. 
39

49. Comment: Staff received several comments urging that EV technology, namely 

battery EV technology is currently ready for commercialization, viable, or that 

electric cars currently work. (Acquaro, ASES, Burgess, Choquette, Daltrey, 

Dunlap, Durst, Ellingson, Field, B. Ford, Gysler, L. Ireland, S. Ireland, Jones, 

Killian, W. Korthof, Lussier, Manley, Nicholes, Phoenix, Ralls, RAN, Rasmussen, 

Schmiedlin, Schneider, Soref, Tesla, Vermont, Wang) 

Battery technology is advanced enough to support 100 percent ZEVs. This is a 

fact that your rulemaking record should assert. If you do not assert this fact then 

you are not in compliance with the authorizing statute. (Miller) 

Battery EVs that were produced under the ZEV Program before 2003 and that 

are still on the road prove that the technology is ready, and has been ready for 

some time. (Sierra) 

Battery EVs are becoming cost competitive with gasoline cars and are becoming 

technically feasible for commercialization. (NESCAUM) 

The commenter provided many visual examples and commentary on 

manufacturers’ plans for PHEVs and battery EVs. (Ample) 

Agency Response: Many ZEV types have demonstrated technological feasibility. 

Much was learned from early-introduction battery EVs, and the next generation of 

vehicles will benefit greatly from the resulting improvements so that cost-effective 

battery EVs are now anticipated to be produced in the very near future. ARB 

agrees that battery EVs are ready for limited production and assumes that many 

ZEVs to be built for regulatory compliance in the next decade may be battery 

EVs. However, ARB recognizes that battery EVs still face considerable 

engineering, charging infrastructure, and marketability challenges. Even if 

battery EVs do not become a dominant vehicle technology, they are still 

expected to play a key role in California’s future, and ARB will continue to 

encourage their deployment in every way possible. 

50. Comment: According to your paper, battery tech for autos is not yet available. 

This is not so. The new Lithion [sic] (Li-Ion) batteries are powerful and safe and 

battery companies are ramping up production. (Gysler) 

Agency Response: ARB concurs that limited volumes of lithium-ion batteries in 

formats suitable for automotive applications are now becoming available and will 

be ready for significant volume production within about four years. 

51. Comment: Let’s start with the battery technology as it exists today and work to 

improve it. (Howland) 
40

 Agency Response: ARB concurs with this statement. ARB also recognizes that 

future battery technologies or battery technologies currently in development 

could have merit and a sustainable future in automotive applications. 

52. Comment: The battery EV is the superior way of dealing with the energy/climate 

crises we are now entering. Please consider renewing your previous support for 

the battery EV. (Henderson) 

 Agency Response: The Board’s rulemaking action provides for more equal 

treatment of battery EVs by eliminating caps within the Alternative Compliance 

Path and creating new ZEV types to recognize mid-range battery EVs. 

53. Comment: The comparison by ARB of releasing the ZEV credit data, to that of 

releasing our own tax records is not quite the same. If the government allocated 

large sums of monies to automakers to spur battery EV development, we as the 

general public should be able to see how it was and is being spent. (Acquaro) 

Agency Response: California has not allocated funding to spur battery EV 

development. The credit data being discussed does not involve expenditure of 

public funds. The appropriation for expenditure of government funds for battery 

development would require approval by the California legislature. 

54. Comment: Commenters gave several problems that battery EVs could address 

including, national security, the environment, public health, human rights, social 

justice, and economic hardship. (Keirns, Ralls) 

 Agency Response: The Board’s goal for focus on ZEV technologies meets the 

Board’s clean air goals for California. The 2008 rulemaking allows for more even 

treatment of battery EVs, allowing them to meet all the pure ZEV requirements in 

the regulation. Under the rulemaking, battery EVs can continue in helping to 

meet California’s clean air goals. 

E. Fuel Cell Technology 

55. Comment: Fuel cells and the associated hydrogen highway are simply 

unrealistic and unworkable goals, both in the short and long terms. Fuel cells 

ZEV credits should be dropped altogether. Hydrogen is simply an energy carrier, 

much less efficient than other much simpler choices such as batteries. It takes a 

lot of energy to produce hydrogen (now primarily from fossil fuels) and there is no 

infrastructure to distribute it. Hydrogen, for use in transportation simply makes 

no sense and it is a failure. (Choquette) 

Please do not be distracted by the myth of the FCV! (Colburn) 

Stop spending my money on hydrogen fantasies and start focusing on getting 

proven technology on the road today. (Brenann) 
41

Fuel cells never made any sense. Why? Because fuel cell design is essentially 

a HEV. (Daltrey) 

Why replace one costly distributed fuel with another? Those who lobby for 

hydrogen are not interested in a new fuel technology, they are interested in 

controlling distribution. Hydrogen is not really even a fuel so much as an energy 

storage mechanism, manufactured at low efficiency. Hydrogen fuel cells are still 

a marginal technology, and add another layer of technical challenge to an all EV. 

Internal combustion hydrogen power carries with it all of the inefficiencies of the 

ICE including waste during idling. (Gillock) 

Hydrogen is not the future. (Henderson) 

Rise to the forefront and vote out hydrogen dreams and insist the automakers 

produce the EVs they are capable of producing. (Koenig) 

Fuel cells are the dead end. (D. Korthof) 

California should stop pursuing hydrogen vehicles and put more pressure on car 

makers to develop battery powered cars. (M. Palmer) 

Don’t wait for H2 – Fuel cells have proven themselves technically difficult to be 

economically viable in the next decade. (Schneider) 

As transportation necessarily becomes more electrified, in order for California 

and the nation to comply with international treaties to combat global warming, it is 

essential that we not be burdened by the fuel cell’s inefficient use of electrical 

power, i.e., from hydrogen manufacture to power to the vehicle’s wheels requires 

nearly 4 times the electrical power of EVs. Of course, other practical problems, 

e.g., cost, durability, complexity, lack of infrastructure, also argue against the fuel 

cell approach. (Siebert) 

Reforming natural gas energy into hydrogen is extremely inefficient. Hydrogen is 

impractical for the public. (J. Turock) 

Stop wasting money on the so-called hybrid fuel cell. (Wang) 

Agency Response: ARB supports the use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to meet 

the ZEV regulation because these vehicles produce zero criteria pollutants, GHG 

and toxic emissions during vehicle operation. The full fuel cycle emissions range 

from below average gasoline vehicle down to zero. 

The Board sees promise in both battery EV and fuel cell vehicle technologies, 

and views both as part of the California’s future vehicle fleet. Hydrogen and 

electricity happen to operate with zero emissions; if another fuel could operate a 
42

vehicle this way, then the fuel would also be included into the regulation. Both 

battery EVs and fuel cell vehicles have the potential to have zero upstream 

emissions. Both also have technology and infrastructure challenges that need to 

be overcome before they are commercially viable. 

The Board supports the development of all zero emission vehicle technologies 

and does not view battery EVs or fuel cell vehicles as a myth. 

The battery EV is more efficient than a fuel cell vehicle, but ARB only requires 

emissions reductions, and does not regulate vehicle efficiency. 

56. Comment: CARB is conducting a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle research program 

rather than making a serious attempt at cleaning our air. Imagine if California 

had chosen to wait for hydrogen fusion research to come to fruition instead of 

implementing its Renewable Portfolio Standard (SB 107). Where would we be 

today? And yet, CARB is making exactly this mistake today. (Killian) 

 Agency Response: ARB does not agree with this comment. The rulemaking has 

focused on making changes to the number of vehicles that were required to 

comply with the ZEV regulation. Also, see the response to comment 55. 

57. Comment: The commenter informed the Board about a study conducting of the 

transition to hydrogen in transportation. The commenter provided assumptions 

and scenarios surrounding this study. (ORNL) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the information provided, and took this 

study into account in its final decision making. 

58. Comment: Government cost sharing at a national scale and a program to 

promote the development of infrastructure will be necessary in order to overcome 

the natural barriers of fuel availability, make and model availability scale, and 

learning by doing. (ORNL) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. However, neither cost sharing nor 

infrastructure was considered in this rulemaking. 

59. Comment: While it might be tempting to put a greater emphasis on Enhanced 

AT PZEVs and battery EVs as an interim step, to remain a leader in ZEV 

initiatives, California must not lose focus on hydrogen power transportation. 

(UTC) 

 Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking supports all pure ZEV 

technologies. In support of fuel cell vehicles, the Board created the Type V ZEV 

which will earn 7 credits by providing a range of 300 miles or greater and 15 

minute fast refueling capabilities. Also, the Board directed staff to modify existing 

programs, or create a program to mandate hydrogen infrastructure development. 
43

These modifications demonstrate the Board’s commitment to hydrogen vehicle 

technology. However, the Board’s rulemaking made the ZEV program more 

technology neutral and leveled the playing field for battery EVs. 

60. Comment: We cannot be blind to the actual pace of advancement of this 

technology. And we must not prevent a proven and more affordable technology, 

battery EVs, of making the positive near-term benefit the Board desires. 

(SFEVA) 

 Agency Response: ARB’s rulemaking continues to support battery EV 

production. The credit structure favors those technologies needing further 

development. The Board believes both battery EVs and fuel cell vehicles will 

make up California’s future fleet mix. 

61. Comment: Hydrogen is a R&D program. (Paine, Woolsey) 

 Agency Response: ARB supports all ZEV technologies. The commenter is 

correct that manufacturer’s demonstration efforts continue in pursuit of hydrogen. 

However, the Board’s modification requires a substantial amount of ZEVs during 

the 2009 through 2014 timeframe, and is structured to move all ZEV technologies 

from demonstration to pre-commercialization levels. 

62. Comment: Consider the efficiency of producing hydrogen through electrolysis. If 

you’re doing it through electrolysis, you have to look at it as if you’re pumping the 

water out of the ground. Those cities are treating that water. Then it has to go 

through a treatment plant that has to purify that. That water then has to go 

through a low of different filters and typically a reverse osmosis. And a certain 

part of this goes to the sewer system. (Pascarella) 

 Agency Response: Hydrogen can be produced through electrolysis, steam 

methane reformation, or auto thermal reformation. However, ARB’s rulemaking 

did not mandate production of hydrogen for use in transportation. This comment 

is directed at an issue beyond the scope of the rulemaking. Senate Bill 1505, 

statutes of 2006, ensures that hydrogen used for transportation will meet 

environmental performance standards on a well-to-wheel basis as compared to 

gasoline production. 

F. Enhanced AT PZEVs 

63. Comment: Limit hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles to AT PZEV (nonEnhanced) and PZEV credits due to their limited benefit and potential for gaming. 

At low vehicle volumes, hydrogen internal combustion engine (HICE) vehicles 

are unlikely to significantly push hydrogen infrastructure development. These 

hydrogen fueled vehicles fail to drive ZEV technology because their drive trains 

are not electrified. Another concern was that these vehicles present auto 

manufacturers with a low cost alternative to gain credits with minimal investment 
44

in ZEV vehicles. The authors proposed that HICE be limited to fulfill nonEnhanced AT PZEV or PZEV credits only, because these vehicles do not offer 

the same technology advancement benefits. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, 

NRDC, UCS) 

Silver+ vehicles should be limited to plug-in hybrids (and not hydrogen internal 

combustion engine vehicles, which have no zero-emission capability) that have 

at least enough zero-emission miles to cover the average commute to and from 

work (around 30 miles). (Sierra) 

Agency Response: ARB increased the requirements for the hydrogen storage 

system on HICE vehicles from 3600 to 5000 pounds per square inch to ensure 

that only the most advanced HICE vehicles are placed to meet ZEV 

requirements. This will promote the use of advanced hydrogen storage systems 

and further development and commercialization of hydrogen tanks. Also, see 

response to comment 216. 

64. Comment: We believe that HICE technology is in line with the goals of CARB to 

achieve a sustainable clean environment while at the same time maintaining 

consumers’ choice in propulsion systems. (BMW) 

Agency Response: ARB concurs. The Board’s modifications to the ZEV 

regulation encourage the development of HICE technology through its inclusion 

in the definition of an Enhanced AT PZEV. See response to Comment 63. 

65. Comment: The test procedures for PHEVs are still not defined. (Ford) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees and is developing test procedures for PHEVs in 

a separate rulemaking that will be considered in early 2009.

66. Comment: Support for staff’s assessment that PHEVs are “an even more 

significant technology bridge to ZEVs than conventional AT PZEVs.” (Toyota) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the creation of the 

Enhanced AT PZEV category, and its recognition of PHEVs. 

67. Comment: PHEV batteries must be further developed for durability and 

robustness, including the ability to withstand a large number of deep discharge 

cycles over the life of the vehicle, cold temperature charge acceptance, and 

ability to operate in a large range of operating temperatures. PHEV challenges 

include control of cold start emissions under load, ability to meet evaporative 

emissions with less engine operation, and cost. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: Several years ago, ARB participated in an EPRI working 

group on PHEVs that concluded that PHEVs were viable even with nickel-metal 

hydride (NiMH) battery technology, especially if these were incorporated in 
45

“ground-up” vehicle designs. Lithium ion battery technology is very promising, 

but if necessary, near-term PHEVs can be introduced with proven NiMH battery 

technology instead. 

While extremes in temperature will affect battery performance, these are less 

prevalent in California than elsewhere, and unlike conventional HEVs, PHEVs 

could also make use of grid electricity to maintain battery temperature at a 

narrower range of temperatures than ambient. Since thermal management of 

engine block temperature is already achieved with grid electricity in cold climates, 

it would seem reasonable to consider this option with batteries also. 

68. Comment: Range is directly related to battery size. There is a balance between 

cost, utility charging time, and infrastructure. If we add batteries to extend EV 

driving range, space for passengers and luggage would decrease. We believe 

we need to have some flexibility in finding optimum range. (Toyota) 

 Agency Response: ARB agrees that there is no “correct” range for a PHEV, and 

believes that there may ultimately be PHEVs with a variety of ranges to suit 

particular segments of the vehicle market. The adopted changes to the 

regulation continue to provide manufacturers with flexibility when it comes to 

finding the optimum range for various PHEV models. Vehicle design involves 

finding the optimal compromise between many several competing features. 

69. Comment: There is a lack of lead time to introduce this new technology and the 

volumes required considering the high cost. The enabling technology for PHEVs, 

the Li-Ion battery, is still not ready. (Ford) 

Agency Response: While tremendous progress is being made with lithium-ion 

battery technology, ARB does not consider this a full-developed enabling 

technology for PHEVs. However, ARB considers that PHEVs could also be 

deployed with NiMH battery technology. Furthermore, progress with lithium-ion 

batteries also appears to still be on-track for deployment as outlined by the ARB 

Expert Panel in 2007. 

70. Comment: Make available and promote plug-in vehicles. (Form Letter #7) 

 

 I urge CARB to provide every available stimulus to the market adoption of plug-in 

vehicles. (F. Smith) 

 

 Support the development of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Plug-ins offer the best hope 

for reducing emissions from the transportation sector. Plug-in hybrids in 

California would replace emissions on city streets with emissions from very clean 

natural gas buring [sic] combined cycle power plants. Plug-in hybrids also offer 

the best opportunity for reducing the country’s dependence on oil. (Neil) 

Let’s put PHEVs on the road now. (Howland) 
46

 Agency Response: The Board’s rulemaking promotes and encourages 

manufacturers to produce Enhanced AT PZEVs, including PHEVs, in meeting 

their ZEV requirement. ARB believes many manufacturers will choose to 

produce a mixture of ZEVs and Enhanced AT PZEVs, particularly PHEVs, in 

meeting this requirement. 

71. Comment: I’m afraid CARB may enact regulations that do not encourage the 

type of vehicle (a gas-electric Plug-In Series Hybrid) represented by the Chevy 

Volt; which delivers a new effect of 150 miles per gallon when analyzed against 

the average American’s driving patterns. (FFF) 

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with this comment. The 2008 rulemaking 

provide allowances for all PHEVs, including a series hybrid able to complete 

10 miles AER on the US06 test drive cycle. ARB also adjusted the zero emission 

VMT allowance to award the highest credit to those PHEVs with greater AER or 

EAER. 

72. Comment: Plug-in hybrid vehicles and other technologies still under 

development appear significantly over weighted in the current proposal. Plug-in 

hybrids are also not a silver bullet. There are a number of authoritative studies 

indicating that well-to-wheel cost in terms of CO2 emissions for plug-in hybrids 

can be higher than that of fuel cell vehicles, depending of course on the carbon 

intensity of the grid-supplied electricity versus the carbon intensity of the 

hydrogen source. (Shell) 

 

 Agency Response: ARB considers PHEVs to be an enabling technology for 

manufacturers to develop on their path to ZEV commercialization. However, the 

2008 rulemaking still prioritizes ZEVs above all enabling technologies. PZEVs, 

conventional hybrids and PHEVs are options for manufacturers to produce in lieu 

of a greater number of ZEVs. Also, ARB reduced the early introduction multiplier 

offered for those PZEVs with off-board charge capability, in order to ensure most 

PHEVs would never earn more than a limited range ZEV. 

G. Incentives 

73. Comment: Once these vehicles are on the market they can be subsidized by 

assessing a fee on diesel and gasoline engines that are below average 

efficiency. (Miller) 

Create additional incentives for start-up companies developing battery EVs, 

including streamlines permitting, grants and loans, etc. (Greens) 

Incentivize plug-in hybrids that have the most on-board electricity storage. 

(Burrus, Form Letter #3, Global Ex) 

 
47

I support incentives for hybrid vehicles which have electric-only short range 

capacities, such as 20 miles or more. (Heacock) 

Provide incentives to those individuals who convert gas vehicles to battery 

powered ZEVs. (Byram, Heacock) 

Please continue and/or increase planned incentives for battery EV and PHEV 

production. Incentives should include minimum percentages of vehicles per 

year, tax credits for consumers, and expanding the HOV lane decal program. 

(Meyer) 

 Provide funds to companies that want to create EVs. (Shanab) 

A $5000 tax incentive should be provided for all purchasers of ZEVs and plug-in 

hybrids for a 3-year time frame from the first car availability. (Wakefield) 

ZEVs and plug-in hybrids should be provided with a special sticker for the rear 

window permitting the owner to ride in the carpool lane. (Wakefield) 

 Consider inclusion of incentives for state certified and standardized plug-in 

conversions to achieve additional emission and GHG reduction benefits from the 

large hybrid fleet already on the ground. (ALA, CEERT, CCA, EIN) 

I urge you to promote tax breaks for purchasers of PHEV conversions for existing 

hybrid vehicles as these pioneering citizens will lead the country and auto 

industry in adoption of the only real practical means of incorporating automotive 

electric drive technology. (Quan) 

There is a need for incentives for plug-in hybrids in the early years. (Toyota) 

The commenter expressed general support for tax incentives. (Hoverson) 

You could set innovative programs of direct economic incentives to help buyers 

make more appropriate choices. The commenter provided examples of 

incentives such as higher registration fees for gasoline vehicles, free parking for 

ZEVs, and proportional tolls. (Gifford) 

I also think we should give breaks an in sentives [sic] to converted gas cars to 

electric. (Fletcher) 

Agency Response: Comments noted. ARB cannot provide financial incentives 

without authorization resulting from California Legislative action. Therefore, 

these comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, ARB 

remains committed to working through regulations and programs outside of the 

ZEV regulation to provide consumers with incentives to purchase and use 

PHEVs and ZEVs. 
48

74. Comment: Please discontinue incentives for fuel cell vehicle production. 

(Meyer) 

 Agency Response: Currently, the ZEV regulation provides no financial incentives 

for fuel cell vehicle production. Other incentives offered by the State or Federal 

government are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Also, see the response to 

Comment 55. 

H. Infrastructure 

75. Comment: The Board must develop a plan for fueling infrastructure development 

to assist with future ZEV goals. (ALA, CEERT, CCA, EIN) 

Develop policies to ensure the simultaneous development of both vehicle and 

hydrogen infrastructure in order to gain consumer confidence of fuel cell vehicles. 

Reassurance is required that hydrogen will be easily accessible as the vehicles 

ramp up in market penetration. (Chrysler) 

 There is no real measurable requirement for a hydrogen infrastructure. ARB 

should review its policy development to ensure that the energy groups stay 

engaged to develop an infrastructure that complements vehicle implementation 

timing. The infrastructure must make consistent and successful steps towards 

marketability. (Chrysler) 

Governments and the energy industry need to be as committed to developing a 

hydrogen infrastructure as manufacturers are to developing the vehicle 

technology, and there has not been that commitment thus far. Auto 

manufacturers need the necessary investment by energy companies to make 

sure an adequate hydrogen refueling infrastructure will be in place to support the 

vehicle placements. As auto manufacturers invest in fuel cell vehicle technology, 

there needs to be comparable investment in energy companies in hydrogen 

refueling technology. (GM) 

All we need is a station mandate and the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will follow. 

(Gronich) 

Develop a plan that we can count on to ensure there is a hydrogen infrastructure 

in California. (Mercedes) 

 

We need a strong program to increase hydrogen infrastructure. (Toyota) 

Agency Response: ARB concurs. While these comments are outside of the 

scope of the 2008 rulemaking, the Board directed staff to develop regulations or 

amend current regulations, such as the Clean Fuel Outlet, to encourage the 

production of hydrogen for transportation fuel. 
49

I. Future ZEV Revisions 

76. Comment: Technical and commercial assessments of ZEV technologies should 

be a more regular and ongoing exercise. It is essential to continuously improve 

the ZEV program. (Toyota) 

A review should be conducted in a few years to evaluate the technology 

development and market acceptance of the various ZEV technologies. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: ARB concurs with these statements. Innovations in ZEV 

technology are continuously being achieved, and it is appropriate for ARB to 

review the status as often as possible. The Board directed staff to return to the 

Board as soon as possible with a goal of returning by the end of 2009. 

77. Comment: There is a ten-fold increase in the FCV requirement in the 2015 MY. 

The ability to meet this volume increase will highly depend on improvements in 

fuel cell technology. Because the travel provision expires for battery EVs, there 

is an even greater increase in the battery EV volumes in the 2015 MY; a 30+ fold 

increase. The ability to meet the battery EV volume increase is difficult because 

of the limited market for these vehicles. A technology review should be 

conducted in 2010, to allow enough time to evaluate and plan for the 2015 MY 

requirements. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: The Board directed staff to focus on the pure ZEV 

requirement during its redesign of the ZEV program. The Board directed staff to 

return to the Board as soon as possible with a goal of returning by the end of 

2009 

78. Comment: ARB received comment regarding the future revision of the ZEV 

program, and suggested the following key steps to strengthen the ZEV program: 

1) continue sustained investment in innovation and deployment without loss of 

benefits; 2) restructure the ZEV program to integrate goals of reducing GHGs 

and criteria pollutants; 3) simplify the ZEV program; 4) set overarching 

technology advancement goals: fleet-wide electric drive penetration; 5) maintain 

strong pure ZEV floor to spur technology advancement; 6) link the ZEV program 

and fueling infrastructure requirements; and 7) require transparency in ZEV 

information. Extensive reasoning and specific suggestions were given to support 

each of these steps. (ALA, CEERT, CCA, EIN) 

 Create a New Vision for the ZEV program which places it on the road to a major 

role in reaching California’s long term global warming, air quality, and petroleum 

reduction goals, in conjunction with California’s other greenhouse gas and air 

quality regulations. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, NRDC, UCS) 
50

 Agency Response: ARB concurs with these comments. Board Resolution 08-24 

directs staff to do the following: 

o Review the ZEV, LEV, and Pavley programs from the perspective of 

being able to reduce smog-forming pollution, to address the problem of 

the state’s contribution to global warming, and to reduce California’s 

dependence on petroleum 

o Redesign the 2015 and beyond requirements for the ZEV program, 

strengthening the requirement more than the current program and 

focusing exclusively on the gold requirement, that is battery, fuel-cell, 

and Enhanced AT PZEV technologies, ensuring California as the 

central location for moving advanced, low GHG technology vehicles 

from the laboratory and demonstration phase to commercialization, 

where they are critical to achieving the Governor’s GHG emission 

reduction goals, looking more specifically at blended plug-in hybrid 

credit being based on different parameters such as battery energy 

capacity rather and range, and to return to the Board as soon as 

possible, with a goal to return by the end of 2009 

 

ARB remains committed to this direction and will work with stakeholders in 

redesigning the ZEV program. 

79. Comment: By January, 2010, ARB should adopt a revision of the ZEV program 

that fully integrates air quality and GHG emission reduction goals and requires a 

increasing level of pure ZEV vehicles and electric drive technology across the 

new vehicle fleet to reach the interim goal of 10 percent of new vehicles 

produced that are pure ZEVs and 100 percent of new vehicles with electric drive 

technology by 2020. (ALA, CEERT, CCA, EIN) 

 Agency Response: The Board directed staff to focus on the pure ZEV 

requirement in its redesign of the ZEV regulation. The appropriate number of 

ZEVs required as well as how AT PZEVs and PZEVs fit into other programs will 

be considered over the next two years. 

80. Comment: A positive progress review in 2009 in meeting revised 2010 targets, 

would mean that 2015 is the time to consider hydrogen fuel cell vehicle mass 

production to reduce their pre-commercial costs. (Gronich) 

 Agency Response: All ZEV technologies will be considered in the redesign of 

the ZEV regulation. 

81. Comment: Direct the staff to plan the coordination of the AB 32, AB 1493, 

LEV-III, AB118, the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS), and the ZEV programs to 

accelerate the reduction of GHG emissions, attainment of air quality standards, 

and reduction of dependency upon petroleum in California and to ensure that 
51

ARB’s regulatory programs in the light-duty vehicle sector are complementary 

and cost-effective. (Sawyer) 

 Agency Response: ARB is committed to all programs that reduce criteria air 

pollution, as well as reduce GHG emissions. The Board directed staff to look at 

two of the mentioned programs, LEV-III and AB 1493 (Pavley II), from the 

perspective of being able to reduce smog-forming pollution, reduce California’s 

contribution to global warming, and to California’s dependence on petroleum. 

The Board’s direction was to redesign the ZEV programs in an effort to focus on 

ZEVs. However, the Board sees the ZEV program as being instrumental to 

meeting AB 32 GHG emission goals. 

82. Comment: The commenters expressed general support for the Board’s call for a 

redesign of the ZEV program. (ALA, CalETC, VW) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the Board’s direction. 

J. Technology Parity 

83. Comment: General support for ARB’s proposal to provide more even treatment 

of battery EVs in the regulation, as compared to fuel cell vehicles. (Ford, 

CalETC) 

Support for the elimination of the cap on use of full-function EVs and for the 

changes in the ratio for substitution for battery EVs. (Mitsubishi) 

Support parity between EVs and fuel cell vehicles. (Nissan) 

It appears staff is recommending that the use of battery electrics intended for 

short-range, lower speed use on local roads be given proportionate credit. 

I support this leveling of the playing field. (Strand) 

 Support of the parity for battery EV vehicles. (VW) 

 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support received for its more equal 

treatment of battery EVs and technology neutrality within the ZEV regulation. 

84. Comment: CARB should avoid choosing winners and losers in the technology 

race for future sustainable automotive propulsion systems. We believe the 

ultimate solution may involve multiple technologies, and it would be in CARB’s 

best interest to provide regulatory support and flexibility for our approach. 

(BMW) 

The commenter expressed support for a level playing field. (CalCars) 

The regulation should not pick winners and losers. (Ford) 
52

It is not appropriate for CARB to be deciding on which ZEV technology is best. 

(Killian) 

I ask that you implement a level playing field between all types of ZEVs instead 

of trying to pick winners. (Lee) 

 

 CARB must stop treating ZEV technologies in an unequal manner. (SFEVA) 

 I’d like to see a level playing field for battery electric and hydrogen. (J. Smith) 

 Agency Response: The focus of the ZEV program is on zero emissions from 

vehicles irrespective of the technology. The Board’s 2008 rulemaking promotes 

technology neutrality. Battery EVs are now allowed to fully meet the Alternative 

Compliance Path requirements during the 2009 through 2011 timeframe. The 

Board sees California’s future fleet as having a mix of battery EVs and fuel cell 

vehicles. 

85. Comment: CARB capitulated to the auto companies and their hype regarding 

Fuel Cell technology. The alternative rejected by CARB, battery EVs, worked 

then and works now. CARB missed its chance to really stimulate the R&D and 

the production of real, practical ZEV cars last time around. (Pew) 

 Agency Response: The 2008 rulemaking reflects greater technology neutrality in 

regards to fuel cell and battery EV technologies. Manufacturers can fulfill their 

Alternative Compliance Path requirements, during the 2009 through 2011 MYs, 

with battery EVs. Also, the overall credit structure in the regulation has been 

modified to further ZEV technology neutrality. The Board sees a combination of 

fuel cell and battery EVs in California’s future vehicle fleet. 

86. Comment: Battery electrics should be given favored status in new CARB 

requirements since the technology is ready. Hydrogen has a long way to go, 

please move it to the back burner. (Lindholm) 

 Agency Response: The amendments adopted by the Board reflect the benefits 

attributed to both technologies including range and refueling. Fuel cell 

technology is more expensive to develop and produce at this time. The Board 

does not favor one technology over the other and believes both battery EVs and 

fuel cell vehicles will be found in California’s future vehicle mix. 

87. Comment: The Board’s expressed desire for more even treatment of battery EVs 

should be realized by a 1:1 ratio for Type II and Type III ZEV requirements in the 

Alternative Path after 2008. Any ratio that provides hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles 

greater credits than battery EVs unnecessarily delays mass introduction of ZEVs. 

Please be technology neutral. Any ratio or any system that favors one ZEV 
53

technology over another is only going to delay and possibly even prevent the 

commercialization of ZEVs. (Sierra) 

Agency Response: ARB has considered simplifying the credit structure in the 

past but has been concerned that awarding all vehicles the same credit would 

encourage manufacturers to produce low performance vehicles that would not be 

attractive to consumers. The least costly way to satisfy a “one-ZEV to one-credit” 

requirement would be to build vehicles with the minimum capabilities needed to 

meet the threshold. There would be no incentive to add additional performance 

capability. The Board adopted the credit structure in the 2008 rulemaking that is 

appropriate for this timeframe for technology neutrality. Also, see response to 

Comment 86. 

88. Comment: Staff have recommended to the Board that hydrogen technology, 

again, be treated with more credits and funding for automakers than battery EV 

technology. What this has lead to in the past is investment in hydrogen 

technology, which is less efficient, mostly derived from fossil fuels and, by its 

proponents, labeled as “far off” in even small-scale implementation. (Ralls) 

CARB continues to tailor its ZEV program for fuel cell vehicles. In favoring fuel 

cell vehicles, CARB is choosing a technology that makes it more difficult for 

California to meet its 2050 AB32 GHG emission goals. (Killian) 

Why is CARB’s ISOR document so obviously biased toward this technology? 

Should your position be one of technological neutrality, setting the air quality 

standards and letting the marketplace do the rest? (D. Turock) 

Agency Response: The Board believes battery EVs and fuel cell vehicles will 

both be necessary to meet California’s long term environmental goals. The credit 

structure recognizes the current state of development in fuel cell vehicles 

compared to the state of development of battery EVs by awarding one to four 

more credits. However, the Board’s 2008 modifications promote the regulation 

towards technology neutrality. 

89. Comment: Opposition to ARB’s recommendation to provide more equal 

treatment of battery EVs, because these technologies are not expected to meet 

the range requirements of today’s vehicles, recharge time remains a significant 

obstacle to consumer acceptance, and CO2 emissions are pushed back to the 

electrical power plant. Increased focus on battery EVs will likely add delays to 

fuel cell vehicle commercialization and hinder the build-up of the hydrogen 

infrastructure by diverting some of the investment to battery charging stations. 

Investing in two new infrastructures would be too costly and disruptive. (UTC) 

 Agency Response: While the 2008 rulemaking provides for more equal 

treatment of battery EVs, the Board continues to promote all ZEV technologies. 

There are benefits as well as challenges to both battery EV and fuel cell 
54

technologies, including infrastructure and lifecycle emissions. Because refueling 

time is one of the challenges, the ZEV regulation offers one to four more credits 

to a ZEV with fast-refueling capabilities, such as a fuel cell vehicle. This signals 

ARB’s commitment to fuel cell vehicles as well as battery EVs. 

90. Comment: ARB should reinstate battery EVs and plug-in hybrids as the choice 

to fulfill the ZEV mandate. Electric vehicles are clearly the answer for our future 

transportation needs. (Jensen) 

 Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 modifications provide for more overall 

flexibility, particularly in 2009 and beyond. A manufacturer can meet its full ZEV 

requirement with battery EVs and Enhanced AT PZEVs, including PHEVs. 

K. Overall Regulatory Structure 

91. Comment: Adjust the ZEV point values for additional incentives. Either increase 

Enhanced AT PZEV ZEV credits, reduce Bronze and Silver credits, or both. Let 

me suggest the following percentage changes: 

 Phase III (2012-2014), 

12% of total sales 

Phase IV (2015-2017), 

14% of total sales 

Gold (pure ZEV) 3% (replacing 0.3-3%) 4% (replacing 3-6%) 

Silver+ (Enhanced AT PZEV) 0-3% (replacing 2.7%) 0-4%(replacing 0-3%) 

Silver (AT PZEV) 0-3% (replacing 3%) 0-4% (replacing 2%) 

Bronze (PZEV) 6% (unchanged) 6% (unchanged) 

 (Green) 

We propose that the percentage of the program requirements allowed to be met 

by PZEVs be reduced to 4 percent in Phase III, 2 percent in Phase IV, and phase 

out completely after 2018. In each phase, the reduced PZEV requirement would 

be transferred up to the Enhanced AT PZEV category, creating a stand-alone 

requirement for these vehicles without distracting from commercialization efforts 

of true ZEVs. (Clifford, Greer, Hoffner, Medvecky, Pease, PIA, RAN, SEVA, 

Synergy) 

While mandating is one way to force EV technology, is it the best? It would seem 

that some other initiative, tax credits, fuel/emission quota points similar to the 

Flexfuel quotas would be much preferred. (Minich) 

Agency Response: There were a wide variety of opinions on the appropriate 

percentages or structure for the ZEV program in future timeframes. The overall 

percentages adopted by the Board provide environmental benefit to the program 

and are appropriate for the near-term timeframes. 

92. Comment: ARB received requests to eliminate ZEV credits. (McDonough, Pew, 

Terry) 
55

 

Agency Response: ARB in the past has considered simplifying the credit 

structure but has concluded that awarding all vehicles the same credit or 

eliminating credits altogether would encourage manufacturers to produce low 

performance vehicles that would not be attractive to consumers. There would be 

no incentive to add additional performance capability.

93. Comment: Rather than quotas, the simple thing is to just make proved EVs 

available for sale. (McDonough, Pew, Terry) 

Agency Response: ARB continues to require certain production of a certain 

number of ZEVs annually due to the high cost of the technology and to foster 

commercialization. Manufacturers may eventually produce ZEVs mandates; 

without this regulation, however, mandates accelerate the timeline for the 

production of these vehicles. Also, see the response to Comment 92. 

94. Comment: Instead of reducing the Gold ZEV requirement to such a low level, it 

would be better to take percentages from PZEV or AT PZEVs, not from the 

“Gold” standard. (Green) 

Agency Response: Currently the PZEV and AT PZEV components provide the 

greatest environmental benefit. While vehicles are commercially available in 

California, their availability to consumers is fostered by the ZEV requirement. 

Additionally, PZEVs, AT PZEVs, and Enhanced AT PZEVs are all options in 

fulfilling the ZEV requirement. The ZEV requirement percentages were reduced 

to align with technology readiness and cost. 

95. Comment: Enhanced AT PZEVs should not come at the expense of ZEVs, and 

merit requirements of their own to support their commercialization. There should 

be no use of Enhanced AT PZEVs to backfill for any portion of the ZEV 

requirement and the commenters prefer to see separate, appropriate 

requirements created for ZEVs and Enhanced AT PZEVs. (Clifford, FOE, Greer, 

Hoffner, Medvecky, PIA, RAN, Pease, SEVA, Synergy) 

 

 Create a separate requirement for plug-in hybrids that lets them replace the 

dirtiest vehicles in CARB’s regulations rather than the cleanest ZEVs. (AJC, 

Burrus, EAA, Form Letter #3, Galliani, Global Ex, Heacock, Love, Mayor 

Newsom, Parent, RAN, F. Smith) 

 Create a separate additional requirement for plug-in hybrids. (Ahnger, Durst, 

FOE, Friedland, SFEVA, Sierra, Woolsey) 

 

Plug-in hybrids are another intermediate step, but they should not be used to 

offset pure EVs. Rather they should offset lower power, high mileage, ICE 

vehicles of similar or worse performance. (Gillock) 
56

PHEVs should not reduce pure ZEVs. (Lee) 

If you are going to increase the numbers of pure ZEV vehicles as has been 

talked about this morning, we think you should de-couple the PHEV numbers 

from the ZEV numbers so we don’t have a decrease in the number of PHEV 

numbers below what staff has proposed. (CalETC) 

Agency Response: ARB believes the Enhanced AT PZEV category is an 

intermediate step towards increased pure ZEV production. PZEVs and AT 

PZEVs do not have separate requirements in the ZEV program, but may backfill 

only a portion of the ZEV requirement as an option to fulfilling the ZEV obligation 

with pure ZEVs. A separate category for any one of these enabling technologies 

might distract from the ZEV regulation’s main goal: pure ZEV development and 

commercialization. 

96. Comment: More ZEVs and less backfill with partial gasoline cars. (Paul) 

Agency Response: PZEVs and AT PZEVs provide most of the environmental 

benefits in the ZEV program at this time, as pure ZEV numbers remain in 

demonstration volumes. The Board’s 2008 rulemaking continues the pure ZEV 

requirement in an upward trend. Additionally, the Board directed staff to redesign 

the ZEV regulation, and focus mainly on the pure ZEV requirement for the 2015 

and subsequent MYs. 

97. Comment: It also appears that the existing program may rely too much on 

existing large manufacturers who have a consistent history of sabotaging battery 

EVs. Consumers would be better served by a more open market where smaller 

manufacturers face lower entry costs. (Strand) 

 Agency Response: Even though small volume and independent low volume 

manufacturers are not required to produce ZEVs, nothing in the regulation 

prohibits these manufacturers from producing ZEVs. These ZEVs would earn 

credits just like LVM- and IVM-produced ZEVs and the credits may be sold or 

traded. 

98. Comment: Address the bottom line: The total emissions of all cars you sell in 

California (in terms of gallons of fuel consumed) must drop by 10 percent 

(compared to 2007) in 2012 and drop 5 percent per year after that, until we have 

a net reduction of 75 percent. You can use any technologies, combination of 

hybrids, smaller-lighter cars, all-electric, fuel-cell, hydrogen etc, only the bottom 

line counts. 

Physics dictates how much energy is required to accelerate a car from 0 to V 

mile/hour, so the real question that CARB should regulate is “how much fuel did it 

take to get you to V?” 

 
57

 Ask. "Is it better for the State of California if by 2015 : 

 1. 20 percent of the cars reduce fuel consumption by 50 percent or 

 2. 1 percent of the cars reduce fuel consumption by 100 percent? 

 Answer: Option 1 is ten times better! 

So just focus on the bottom line, keep the formulas simple and keep the end goal 

in sight by reducing fuel consumption and therefore every pollutant associated 

with it. And most of all, keep the potential solutions affordable for a large 

percentage of California's citizens. (FFF) 

Agency Response: ARB’s ZEV regulation focuses on reducing vehicle emissions 

from the vehicle itself to zero. Federal statutes, specifically the Energy 

Conservation and Policy Act, preempt states, including California, from regulating 

the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for motor vehicles. 

99. Comment: Require a portion of the market be 100 percent ZEV. (Miller) 

Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking continues to require a 

percentage of LVM’s production to be pure ZEVs. 

100. Comment: An interim goal for CARB could be to require plug-in hybrids. (Miller) 

Agency Response: Though PHEVs are not required to be produced, the 2008 

rulemaking allows manufacturers to fulfill their ZEV requirement with both pure 

ZEVs and Enhanced AT PZEVs, including PHEVs. ARB believes many 

manufacturers will choose to produce PHEVs to help fulfill their ZEV requirement. 

101. Comment: It is my opinion that if the manufacturers were allowed to meet the 

25,000 car requirement with some combination of battery electric, plug-in hybrid 

and fuel cell vehicle, even including NEVs using a small multiplier as part of the 

ZEV requirement, it would do a lot more to promote ZEVs that letting the six 

largest manufacturers get away with producing as little as 450 fuel cell vehicles. 

(Adams) 

 Automakers should be allowed to meet ZEV targets with battery EVs or fuel cell 

vehicles, or a combination. (Killian) 

 Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking allows LVMs to fulfill their pure 

ZEV requirement, beginning in the 2009 MY with battery EVs, fuel cell vehicles, 

or both. Manufacturers may also choose to produce the minimum number of 

pure ZEVs (7,500 vehicles) as battery EVs and/or fuel cell vehicles, and produce 

a large number of Enhanced AT PZEVs, including PHEVs, or NEVs (dependent 

on MY). 
58

102. Comment: At this time, restore the ZEV program to its original goal of 10 percent 

annual sales of zero emission vehicles, to be attained by 2020, as a major 

contribution to meeting GHG reductions. The successful PZEV and AT PZEV 

programs should become part of the LEV program, where they belong. Other 

than a possible interim credit for PHEVs, based on the actual displacement of 

hydrocarbon fuels, the ZEV program should be returned to a zero means zero, 

simple, easy-to-understand, easy to enforce, program. Continue to promote fuel 

cell vehicles as a promising technology, if combined with a low carbon hydrogen 

technology, for meeting 2050 GHG reduction goals. (Sawyer) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. The 2008 rulemaking focused on adjusting 

the minimum floor, i.e., the minimum number of vehicles, needed under the ZEV 

requirement in light of the Expert Panel’s finding on the status of ZEV technology 

development and cost barriers to technology. While the Board did not view the 

March 2008 rulemaking as the appropriate time to require large numbers of pure 

ZEVs, the Board directed staff to redesign the program, focusing mainly on the 

pure ZEV requirement, returning to the Board with a proposal by the end of 2009. 

At that time, staff will recommend the most appropriate placement of PZEVs and 

AT PZEVs as well as the pure ZEV requirements. 

L. Expert Panel Report 

103. Comment: ARB received comments regarding the Expert Panel Report, 

released April 2007, in opposition to its use. (Vermont) 

The commenter submitted a rebuttal to the Panel’s position on the market 

potential for lithium-ion full-performance battery EVs. The commenter provided 

extensive reasoning for their stance on the report’s findings. (Tesla) 

 Agency Response: Comments noted and considered in the Board’s actions. 

The Panel’s report was used as general guidance for the 2008 rulemaking. The 

Board considered the Panel’s advice, but acted independently of the Panel’s 

specific findings. For example, while the Panel report would suggest that the 

2014 through 2014 MY minimum ZEV requirement be 7,500, the Board ruled that 

7,500 was more appropriate, especially given comments such as these. 

M. Miscellaneous 

104. Comment: I believe there is another easy and readily available solution; scooters 

that take advantage of cheap electricity and reduce the oil consumption. The 

solution is using plug-in electric scooters for the short distance/city speed 

applications. I need your help to work with the local government to create a 

friendlier environment for electric scooter riders. Things like additional traffic 

lanes for electric scooters, free parking spaces in downtown, and heavy shopping 

areas would encourage more riders. (Chen) 
59

Bicycles, the first and best zero-emission vehicles, are unaccountably missing 

from the regulation. ARB should address this oversight by ensuring that this 

regulation provides a truly level playing field so that bicycles and other human 

powered vehicles can get the credit they and their riders deserve for achieving 

some subzero-emission transportation. This is also an opportunity to increase 

environmental justice, as bicycles are economically available to virtually 

everyone. (Strand) 

 Agency Response: The ZEV regulation only affects motor vehicles. These 

comments fall outside the scope of the regulation. 

. 

105. Comment: Design the vehicle-to-grid interface that will help solve another 

problem we suffer from in this state. (Colburn) 

 I like the idea of vehicle-to-grid. Thinking ahead that way down the road would 

help the utilities be able to generate electricity at nighttime when they’re idling 

and be able to pick up the load and prevent peeking utilities starting up in the 

afternoon and putting electric cars I think should be looked at down the road and 

should be a goal that will help increase the utilities efficiency along with the EVs. 

(Pascarella) 

Agency Response: ARB has funded research identifying the potential of vehicleto-grid technology and will continue to participate in research and upcoming 

standardization issues relating to vehicle-to-grid technology and implementation. 

However, ARB believes that it is premature to modify the ZEV regulation with 

regard to the vehicle-to-grid technology and interface. 

106. Comment: Vehicles in the ZEV Program should be defined and credited based 

on their overall energy efficiencies using a well-to-wheel or lifecycle analysis. 

(Clifford, Greer, Hoffner, Medvecky, Pease, PIA, RAN, SEVA, Synergy) 

 CARB should incentivize ZEVs based on their overall energy efficiencies on a 

well-to-wheel basis, and not consider vehicles alone, divorced from energy 

production. Incorporating overall efficiency into considerations today will prepare 

us for the time when both vehicles and some energy sources will be zeroemission, and ZEV choices will be based on efficiency and economies. (Sierra) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment 98. 

107. Comment: The ability to sell ZEV credits would be a big boost to some of the up 

and coming battery EV manufacturers. (Adams) 

Agency Response: The ZEV regulation allows manufacturers to sell or trade 

their ZEV credits. 
60

108. Comment: CARB should consider requiring public fleets to purchase ZEVs and 

Enhanced AT PZEVs when available and where practical for their intended use. 

However, because these vehicles are purchased with public funds, we propose 

that fleets must choose the most economical vehicle technology (lifetime cost) for 

a given air-quality benefit. (RAN) 

Agency Response: This comment is outside the scope of the 2008 rulemaking. 

However, the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires that 75 percent of the 

state’s light duty vehicle purchases must be alternative fueled vehicles. 

Procurement of vehicles for the State fleet is handled by the California 

Department of General Services. Recent legislation amended the Section 104.2 

of the California Streets and Highway Code to require the “best value 

procurement” method for evaluating all fleet bid proposals based on the following 

factors in addition to price: total cost of ownership, including warranty, repair 

costs, maintenance costs, fuel consumption or salvage value; performance and 

productivity; suppliers ability to perform contract requirements; and 

environmental benefits, including reduction of GHG emissions, reduction of air 

pollutant emissions, or reduction of toxic or hazardous materials. 

109. Comment: By March 27, 2008, the Board should investigate the potential for 

near-term use of plug-in conversion battery modules. (ALA, CEERT, CCA, EIN) 

 Agency Response: This comment is outside the scope of the 2008 rulemaking. 

110. Comment: Take out the loophole the auto manufacturers used to their 

advantage in the past in regards to no zero emission requirements if there is no 

public desire to purchase these vehicles. (Brickley) 

 Agency Response: Currently, the ZEV regulation requires specific numbers of 

ZEVs to be placed in service in California within certain timeframes irrespective 

of consumer demand. 

111. Comment: Consider the gold credits for locally produced transportation energy 

such as home solar and wind. (Choquette) 

 Agency Response: The 2008 rulemaking regulates auto manufacturers. It is not 

within the scope of this regulation to award credit for transportation energy 

production. 

112. Comment: A three phase, near-term, mid-term and long-term approach is 

needed to reach our clean air goals and reduce toxic emissions from mobile 

sources throughout the states. Without a third, long-term phase, there is no 

continued vision for the future of zero emission vehicles and the necessary 

refueling infrastructure. We also encourage CARB to keep the goals high to 

ensure a robust suite of options near-term, mid-term and long-term to address 

this critical issue. (Verdugo-Peralta, Wedaa) 
61

 Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking does not alter the 2018 and 

later beyond requirements in the ZEV regulation. Additionally, the Board directed 

staff to redesign the ZEV program for the 2015 and subsequent MYs, refocusing 

on the pure ZEV requirement in a future rulemaking. 

113. Comment: We should define ZEV as that, miles achieved of ZEV. What that 

does is opens the door to hybrids and other new technologies. (Frank) 

 The Board’s decision should be based on a performance standard, and 

environmental benefit standards. (SFEVA) 

The regulation should be founded on performance-based metrics where a 

definition of zero is not up for debate. Any wavering or definition of zero or 

program delays will send a strong signal to stakeholders that are currently 

working on fuel cell vehicles. (UTC) 

 Agency Response: The 2008 rulemaking continues to set a performance based 

standard of zero emissions. The definition of a “zero emission vehicle” was not 

modified in this rulemaking. 

114. Comment: For a plug-in hybrid, we could define ZEV as all-electric range. Allelectric range fits with Tesla and pure electric cars as well. (Frank) 

 

 Agency Response: The 2008 rulemaking did not include a definition of a PHEV. 

However, the rulemaking did include a definition for Enhanced AT PZEVs, which 

includes PHEVs. At this time, ARB believes both PHEVs with EAER and AER 

are valuable to meeting California’s air quality and ZEV regulation goals. 

115. Comment: Consumers in the United States are not ready for some of the 

changes in the ZEV regulation. We need to do three things: develop the 

technology, prepare society, and have established standardized codes and 

regulations that help ease these changes in the marketplace. (Toyota) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB agrees that certain factors need to be 

in place before mass commercialization of ZEVs is realized. However, in light of 

the wide array of public testimony received during the March 27, 2008 Board 

Hearing, ARB believes the marketplace is more ready than ever for ZEV 

technologies, especially with rising gasoline prices and economic decline. 

116. Comment: Start a California EV partnership and maybe even a California EV 

highway. (Friedland) 

 Agency Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the 2008 

rulemaking. 
62

117. Comment: We have a clear insight into the ways the automakers might try to 

game the system. Possibilities include using the banked credits they have 

achieved against either gold or the new Silver+ Enhanced AT PZEVs 

requirements. Skewing the credit amounts for particular vehicles, buying credits 

from other manufacturers, and abusing any of the carry-forward of travel 

provisions, and just by asking for low numbers in the first place. (Friedland) 

 Agency Response: ARB considers that the 2008 rulemaking will help to limit 

historical loopholes and to strengthen the ZEV program. Availability of banked 

credits was considered in establishing ZEV requirements for each phase. 

118. Comment: The first principle we need to get back to is technology-forcing for 

real. Not technology-forcing based on projected costs and estimates that we 

have to come up with to justify the technology. The original principle of the Clean 

Air Act was that technology should be driven by the needs of public health and 

the environment, not based on estimated or projected costs. I think inadvertently 

with the periodic reviews, that we sort of got ourselves boxed into a situation 

where it becomes incumbent on the staff to prove the car companies that they 

can do what we need them to do. We need to restore that balance or that 

burden of proof onto the car companies, and in fact, to assert the principle that 

the public health and the planet’s health, as so well documented in the Lung 

Association report, ought to be what drives a policy. (CCA, CEERT) 

 Agency Response: The Board continues to adopt the most stringent emissions 

regulations in the United States in support of cleaner air for California. There are 

a number of different influences in regards to decisions about the ZEV regulation, 

including air quality, cost, technology readiness and availability, and 

infrastructure. California statues, specifically Government Code, section 

11346.5, require a description of the cost impacts of rulemaking actions. 

119. Comment: We need to eliminate portable credits. That should be phased out as 

quickly as possible. The cars need to be placed in service. There needs to be a 

real commitment to the market by all manufacturers. Putting cars on the road in 

California and then transporting them to New York for secondary credits raises 

questions. (W. Korthof) 

 Agency Response: The ZEV regulation does not include “portable credits”, as 

mentioned above by the commenter. See response to Comment 238. 

N. Comments not specific to this rulemaking 

The following were specific suggestions made to the Board regarding parts of the ZEV 

regulation not addressed in this rulemaking, nor broached by the Board during its March 

27, 2008 Board Hearing. 
63

120. Comment: It’s up to you to enable the provision of these vehicles that will be 

sold, not leased. (Harris) 

ZEV credit must only be granted for vehicle sales, complete change of ownership 

to willing buyers, so that this sort of misleading accounting does not recur. 

CARB must force auto companies to offer oil-free EVs on the free market, for 

sale, not on “boomerang” leases. (D. Korthof) 

We need ZEVs that are for sale, not on boomerang leases. I think the staff 

needs to look at how they can require that the vehicles be sold so that they don’t 

go back to the manufacturer to be crushed after a nominal trial period. (W. 

Korthof) 

Make them make real cars for sale! Don’t allow them to limit the quantities, stop 

producing, or just lease the cars. Make them sell and support the cars and the 

technology. (Pew) 

I noticed when you talk about vehicles in service, you’re talking about placement. 

I guess I take a dim view of placement, because there were vehicles placed with 

us that were certainly displaced from us, taken away, and crushed. 

Manufacturers should not be given credit for any vehicle unless it is sold to the 

public. (Rosen) 

CARB must insist that EVs be offered for sale on the free market without trick or 

artifice, at a fair price and without lengthy delivery delays. (Schmiedlin) 

Manufacturers must be forced to make EVs available for sale. (Terry) 

Please do everything you can to encourage the sale of EVs and plug-in hybrids 

in California. (Thagard) 

Agency Response: The Board continues to support the definition for “Placed in 

service” as meaning having been sold or leased to an end-user and not a dealer 

or other distribution chain entity, and having been individually registered for onroad use by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. (CCR, Title 13, section 

1962.1(i)(7)) Because some ZEV technologies are still in development, the ZEV 

regulation allows for manufacturers to exercise control over contractual 

arrangements with consumers while still requiring the vehicles’ on-road use. 

Additionally, roughly 50 percent of conventional vehicles are leased by 

consumers; to dictate that ZEVs must be sold would limit the consumer base. 

121. Comment: CARB staff continues to act contrary to the intentions of the 

legislature in ensuring competition by supporting extended warranties that act to 

reduce consumer choice and convenience, and threaten the economic viability of 

the independent aftermarket. The aftermarket requests that CARB remove the 

extended warranty provisions from this rulemaking. The commenter provided 
64

three reasons that it disagreed with the AT PZEV warranty: 1) CARB does not 

have the authority to extend the warranty beyond the 3 year/50,000 mile warranty 

currently in the California statute; 2) CARB has no evidence that extending the 

warranty will provide any incentive to car companies to build more durable or 

defect free vehicle parts or that the car owners will be sufficiently aware of the 

extended warranty so that they can obtain replacement of the defective part 

without cost; and 3) studies by both the aftermarket and CARB indicate that 

extended warranties have a negative economic impact on the small businesses 

that compose the independent aftermarket. The commenter provided extensive 

explanation and argument for each of these reasons. The commenter also 

asked the Board to undertake an economic impact study and resolve to 

reexamine the need for an extended warranty provision at a future rulemaking. 

(CAWA/AAIA) 

There should be a temporary reprieve in this requirement for PHEVs using 

lithium batteries only, in order to encourage automakers to commercialize 

vehicles sooner. The following warranty schedule still provides sufficient 

consumer protection and ensures a low emissions profile for a reasonable 

amount of time. 

 Phase II: Five (5) years/ 60,000 miles 

 Phase III: Seven (7)/100,000 miles 

 Phase IV: Ten (10)/150,000 miles 

 (PIA, Clifford, Medvecky, Pease, Hoffner, Synergy, Greer, SEVA) 

We believe that a temporary adjustment of battery warranty for plug-in hybrids is 

justified, especially to the degree that it is limited to the “early adopter” phase. 

(FOE) 

We are concerned about the PHEV battery warranty requirement. This is a new 

battery technology. We are concerned that a battery warranty requirement of 

that magnitude may actually act as an impediment to early introduction of these 

PHEVs. (CalETC) 

Please also ease any unfair restraints on the manufacture of EVs such as the 10-

year battery life requirement. (Reese) 

Requiring that new vehicle manufacturers put their company’s future on the line 

behind this new and experimental technology is unreasonable. The requirement 

means that the manufacturers are at the mercy of the companies that produce 

the batteries, the battery management systems and the chargers. Keeping the 

10-year specification would require the manufacturer to increase prices 

substantially to cover this burdensome requirement. The 10-year requirement is 

going to delay the start of this market more than encourage it. If you want ZEVs 

on the road then let us know by adjusting part of the regulations. It may be 

appropriate to require a disclosure notice of the estimated maintenance cost to 

new consumers over the 10-year period so that they know what to expect. If you 
65

want to push technology then start by exceeding the industry standard of one 

year and require the current industry extreme high end of a 4-year warranty. 

(STC) 

Agency Response: The 2008 rulemaking did not amend to the existing 10-year 

warranty requirement for hybrid batteries, ARB believes that this level of warranty 

is less onerous for the smaller battery packs on PHEVs, and that this warranty is 

a necessity for significant market penetration. 

O. Unrelated Suggestions 

The following comments were specific suggestions made to the Board, but fall outside 

the scope of the rulemaking. 

 

Comment: We need Smart Meter as mandatory law tied to the PHEV options 

now to give it life. (Bundy) 

Comment: The problematic monopoly on the lithium batteries by oil companies 

needs to be addressed so that the ZEVs are more affordable, cost effective and 

improved. (Dunlap) 

Comment: We ask the State to encourage the use of ZEVs in airport and port 

bus transport vehicles. (Electrochimica) 

Comment: If the alternate path is being retained, keep the volume requirements 

at the original higher levels, so automakers will move to the New Path, or deliver 

meaningful volumes under the alternate path. (Green) 

Comment: There should be a federally funded demonstration program as to not 

burden the industry. (Gronich) 

Comment: Don’t loosen up on the present restrictions on gas powered cars. 

(Henry) 

Comment: May I suggest the following activity for your March 27th meeting: To 

test the success of California’s Air Quality board, lets everyone kneel behind our 

vehicles and breathe the “fresh” air. The ones who get up are the winners. The 

ones who get up will be the folks building and driving their own EVs and a couple 

of big corporates standing behind multi-million dollar fuel cell vehicles. (Juarez) 

Comment: The SAE should require all EVs to use the same size 

interchangeable battery pack. One pack for small cars and large trikes [sic]. 

Two packs for large cars and SUVs. More for semi trucks. These packs should 

contain all the battery management systems if necessary. (MacMillan) 
66

Comment: CARB must work with California DMV to expand access to cleanburning CNG vehicles–allow HOV permits for all pure-CNG and hybrid CNG/gas 

vehicles to support faster adoption of CNG, America’s Clean, available here and 

now fuel alternative. (Melamid) 

Comment: Please do the citizens of California the justice of (1) being free of the 

strangle-hold of OPEC and the like. (2) Give the folks in your state a chance to 

breathe some fresh air in their own towns. (3) Review the previous decision your 

board made on this proposal; which seems to have put the nails into the coffin of 

GM’s EV1. (D. Palmer) 

Comment: Stationary fuel cells for emergency backup power are a short-term 

step in building the hydrogen infrastructure and using commercially available fuel 

cells across California now. The commenter provided many benefits of 

stationary fuel cells. (Plug Power) 

Comment: Please add a paragraph to your regulation that says: “GM must 

release its patent on nickel-metal hydride batteries, (since they say this type of 

battery is no good), so that anyone who wishes may uae[sic] it’. (Ryder) 

Comment: Shopping centers, sports venues, multi screen theatres, corporate, 

and government employee parking lots, major retail outlets, such as, Costco, 

Sam’s Club, and Walmart [sic] should be required to provide convenient parking 

spaces with electrical outlets to charge these vehicles while the owner is 

shopping. The electricity should be provided by the local electric company free 

of charge for a period of at least 3 years while the program is being initiated. 

Corporations should then be encouraged to share the cost of the electricity for 

another designated period of time. (Wakefield) 

Comment: The manufacturers should provide a free 5-7 minute audio visual 

presentation on CD or DVD describing the benefits of plug-in hybrid or all-electric 

ZEV vehicles. These DVDs should go to every new owner of these vehicles and 

should be provided to every prospective showroom buyer. Auto dealers should 

share the cost of these DVDs with the manufacturers and send them by mail to a 

qualified dealer prospect list for viewing in the home, with an invitation to visit the 

showroom to receive a small gift and test drive or view these cars. (Wakefield) 

Comment: Dealers could offer prospective customers a free one year lease of a 

ZEV or plug-in hybrid for visiting the showroom and registering for a drawing. 

(Wakefield) 

Agency Response: These comments are either outside the Board’s jurisdiction 

or outside the scope of the 2008 ZEV rulemaking. 
67

Part II. Regulatory Comments 

Comments grouped in this section are specific to Staff’s suggested modifications and 

the regulatory language presented at the March 27, 2008 Board Hearing. 

A. Pure ZEV Requirement 

122. Comment: General support for the 2012 through 2014 pure ZEV requirements. 

(Gronich) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates support for staff’s proposed 2012 through 

2014 timeframe pure ZEV requirements. However, the Board modified staff’s 

proposal for the pure ZEV requirements during this timeframe from 2,500 to 

7,500. The Board believes the modified pure ZEV requirement better maintains 

pressure on the automotive industry to produce ZEVs, while still recognizing 

technological and cost barriers to the technology. 

123. Comment: ARB received comments generally requesting that the Board not 

amend the number of ZEVs required. (Cochran, EAA, John, K. Kelly, Margulis, 

Neil, Smalenberger, UTC) 

ARB received comments specifically requesting that the Board not amend the 

requirements for the 2012 through 2014 timeframe and for the 2015 through 

2017 timeframe. (PIA, Clifford, Medvecky, Fields, Pease, Hoffner, Synergy, 

Green, Parent, Greer, SEVA, Sullivan) 

ARB received comments urging the Board not to change the ZEV requirements 

for the 2012 through 2014 timeframe, or to set 25,000 as the minimum. (Ahnger, 

AJC, Burrus, CalCars, CCA, Cornish, Durst, EIN, Form Letter #3, Friedland, 

Global Ex, Greens, Hanson, Mayor Newsom, SFEVA, Sierra, Tesla, D. Turock) 

Agency Response: The Expert Panel concluded that automakers would not be 

able to meet the production numbers for the 2012 through 2014 MY timeframe. 

The Board concurred. ARB’s 2008 rulemaking maintains the continuing goal of 

pure ZEV commercialization while taking into consideration the current cost and 

technological barriers. The 2008 rulemaking significantly reduces an automaker’s 

cost of compliance, but still provide increased air quality benefits primarily from 

the proven emission benefits of commercially viable and increasingly available 

AT PZEVs. ARB considers that relinquishing a portion of the production volume 

during this R&D timeframe in exchange for reduced costs to automobile 

manufacturers and increased near-term emission benefits is a compromise that 

benefits almost all stakeholders. 

124. Comment: ARB received various suggestions on the appropriate number of 

ZEVs required by 2012, ranging from 10,000 to 25,000, and suggestions on the 
68

appropriate number of ZEVs to be required per year, though no date was 

specified, ranging from 10,000 to 25,000 (Larsen, Lee, Nicholes, Schneider) 

ARB received many suggestions on the appropriate number of ZEVs to be 

required during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe, ranging from 10,000 to 100,000. 

(Galliani, Google, Neff, RAN, Sierra, Sipp, J. Smith, Trudeau, Vieira) 

ARB received suggestions on the appropriate number of ZEVs to be required 

during the 2012 to 2017 timeframe, ranging from 75,000 to 500,000. (Gronich, 

Killian, McLaughlin) 

ARB received suggestions on the appropriate number of ZEVs (up to 379,000) to 

be required during MYs subsequent to 2017, or by 2020. (Form Letter #7, Killian, 

Rosson) 

ARB received comments generally requesting that the Board increase the 

number of ZEVs required or to return to higher numbers. (ALA, Allen, Ample, 

Anglin, Bayha, Brown, CCA, CEERT, Chaudhary, EIN, Form Letter #4, Frank, 

Kennedy, Larsen, Little, MacMillan, Mayor Newsom, Rasmussen, Reese, 

SCAQMD, SEVA, Sierra, Smallwood, C. Smith, Tavill, J. Turock, Weitz,) 

The 2015 numbers must be moved up. (Terry, McDonough, Pew) 

It is imperative that you vote to direct the automakers to make more electric cars 

by 2017, not less! 2010 should be your goal. (Bird, Chamberlain, D. Pierce, J. 

Pierce, N. Pierce, A. Stahmer, C. Stahmer) 

Agency Response: Comments noted. The pure ZEV requirement was one of 

the more contentious issues during this rulemaking process. The Board chose to 

increase staff’s proposed pure ZEV requirement from 2,500 to 7,500 for the 2012 

through 2014 timeframe. The Board adopted staff’s proposed 25,000 pure ZEV 

requirement for the 2015 through 2017 timeframe. The Board’s modifications 

also allow manufacturers flexibility in meeting the requirement, allowing them to 

fully meet their ZEV obligation with pure ZEVs, or with a combination of 

Enhanced AT PZEVs and pure ZEVs. ARB believes the pure number of ZEVs 

required is appropriate in recognition of current technological and cost barriers. 

Additionally, the Board directed staff to redesign the ZEV regulation, focusing 

mainly on the pure ZEV requirements, meaning in a future rulemaking ZEV 

requirements could be modified. 

125. Comment: ARB received numerous comments of opposition to staff’s proposed 

pure ZEV requirement for the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. (Beedie, 

Assemblymember DeSaulnier, FOE, Green, Killian, Larsen, Paul, RAN, Rosson, 

Assemblymember Ruskin, SCAQMD, SEVA, Stobbe) 
69

 ARB received comments of opposition to Staff’s proposed pure ZEV 

requirements, though a specific timeline was not stated. (EEVC, FOE, Form 

Letter # 4, Galliani, Johansson, Little, Lee, Tesla) 

 

 ARB received comments in opposition to changes to the current legislation that 

would dilute or delay the requirement for pure ZEVs and infrastructure. (UTC) 

Agency Response: Comments noted. In response to many stakeholders and 

public comments and testimonies, the Board modified staff’s pure ZEV floor, 

increasing the number from 2,500 to 7,500 during the 2012 through 2014 

timeframe. 

126. Comment: ARB received comment urging the Board to return to the original ZEV 

mandate. (Field, W. Korthof, Meehan) 

 

ZEV goals were one 2 percent in 1998 and 10 percent in 2003...then delayed a 

decade. 10 percent for 2013 should stay a goal! (Olson) 

 Agency Response: The original ZEV mandate required 2 percent of a 

manufacturer’s production be pure ZEVs by 1998, increasing to 10 percent by 

2003. 10 percent of new vehicle production would be close to 140,000 ZEVs per 

year from the LVMs in 2006. Both the Expert Panel and the Board concur that 

current ZEV technology would not be able to successfully meet this volume. The 

Board adopted the most appropriate pure ZEV requirement for the upcoming 

timeframes, taking into account the current state of technology and costs. 

 

127. Comment: Reject the 90 percent reduction in the minimum number of pure ZEV 

required in the period of 2012 to 2014. (Assemblymember DeSaulnier, 

Assemblymember Ruskin) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board decided to increase staff’s 

proposed pure ZEV floor for the 2012 through 2014 timeframe from 2,500 to 

7,500. 

128. Comment: Why is CARB considering a reduction in the number of ZEVs 

required of automakers by 90 percent in such a crucial time? (Parent) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment 7. 

129. Comment: I urge you to make the number of ZEVs required in California as high 

as possible. (Smallwood) 

 Agency Response: The Board views the pure ZEV requirements it adopted for 

the 2009 and subsequent MYs to be the most aggressive requirements feasible 

in light of the status and cost of battery and fuel cell development. 
70

130. Comment: Keep a certain number of fuel cell vehicles mandatory in the revised 

ZEV regulation. (Mercedes) 

 Agency Response: The 2008 rulemaking allows manufacturers to meet the pure 

ZEV requirement (ZEV floor) with battery EVs or fuel cell vehicles. At its May 

2007 Board meeting, the Board directed more equal treatment of battery EVs in 

the ZEV regulation. The Board also directed greater simplicity. For this reason, 

the 2008 rulemaking eliminates the Alternative Compliance Path in the 2012 and 

subsequent MYs, and offers the New Path, a single compliance path allowing 

manufacturers to produce either battery EVs or fuel cells. 

131. Comment: Our overall recommendation is to consider a lower percentage 

multiplier than the percentages proposed in the CARB staff paper. (VW) 

The proposed fuel cell floor remains too high from the perspective of the state of 

the technology, costs and infrastructure. These requirements could divert 

resources away from the task of resolving technical challenges and coordinating 

vehicle development with infrastructure availability. (Toyota) 

The ZEV percentage requirements proposed by the Staff remain a concern in 

light of the lack of infrastructure, projected costs for fuel cell vehicles and the 

Independent Expert Review Panel’s assessment of the technology. (GM) 

Our greatest concern is the volume of Gold vehicles required and the 

disproportionate credit levels for those vehicles relative to the Expert Panel 

findings on the state of ZEV technology. These volumes have increased for all 

Gold vehicles and for the new Silver+ category with the release of Staff’s 

February 8, 2008 45-day Notice. Staff is proposing a 25 percent increase in the 

number of Gold vehicles required from the LVMs relative to the November 2007 

Concept Paper and a 67 percent increase in the number of Silver+ vehicles 

required. The volume of vehicles being proposed in the November Concept 

Paper were inconsistent with the findings of the Expert Panel, yet staff proceeded 

to further increase those volumes and provided no rational explanation or 

justification for doing so. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

 Increasing the ZEV quantities to an unmanageable level increases the possibility 

of launching vehicles that are not ready for the market and may not be sufficiently 

supported. Substantial increases in vehicle quantities in the short term will drive 

automakers to produce and deliver ZEVs that are still in the pre-commercial 

stage and at a very high cost, as opposed to focusing those resources on 

advancing the technology and reducing the cost to produce ZEV products that 

meet customer expectations to assure ZEV mandate success. (Chrysler) 

 Agency Response: The Board took into account the Panel’s findings as well as 

a myriad of other factors in the final decision to increase the pure ZEV 

requirement during the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. The Board’s modifications 
71

to the 2014 through 2014 pure ZEV requirement maintain pressure on auto 

manufacturers to produce ZEVs, increasing the number currently available and 

eventually moving ZEVs from demonstration programs to full commercialization. 

The ZEV program will also need to play a role in meeting the Board’s goals to 

reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. 

132. Comment: Retain the 25,000 vehicles Gold requirement in the 2012 to 2014 

timeframe with staff’s 10 percent/90 percent Enhanced AT PZEV option based 

on a 3-credit Type III ZEV while also providing a 5 credit incentive for the new 

Type IV ZEV. (Chrysler) 

 Agency Response: ARB considered many options for the ZEV requirement in 

developing this rulemaking. The Board did retain the a requirement for 

manufacturers to produce 25,000 ZEVs, with the option of meeting 30 percent of 

the ZEV requirement with pure ZEVs and 70 percent of the requirement with 

Enhanced AT PZEVs. The Board adopted the credit structure, as based on a 

Type IV, five credit earning ZEV, because the Type IV ZEV is more indicative of 

a ZEV able to replace one gasoline vehicle. See the response to Comment 122. 

133. Comment: Increasing the fleet from the 30 vehicles that we have today to the 

hundreds of vehicles required by the proposed ZEV regulations would not further 

the advancement of the technology. Putting large volumes of vehicles on the 

road frustrates the goal of advancing the technology because the resources that 

would have been used to progress the technology are being spent figuring out 

how to integrate the technology into a production vehicle program, and tracking 

and maintaining those vehicles. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: The ZEV regulation’s primary objectives are 1) to encourage 

the development of zero emission technologies, and 2) to deploy them in 

vehicles in order to actually realize emissions reduction benefits. If ZEV 

requirements remain at extremely low volumes, manufacturers will not be as 

strongly incentivized to advance the necessary technologies. ARB also believes 

that there is still substantial benefit to real-life, on-road deployment as it may 

reveal vehicle technology shortcomings that might not otherwise be observed 

with lab testing, and it also provides real-life fueling infrastructure testing that 

cannot occur in the lab. 

134. Comment: The volume requirements mandated by the ZEV regulations detract 

from manufacturer’s ability to overcome these remaining challenges through fuel 

cell R&D because resources must be diverted to building and placing in service 

high volumes of immature technology vehicles. We recommend that the fuel cell 

volume requirement be reduced until there are significant breakthroughs in 

technology and cost. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: Overall, the 2008 rulemaking provides an economic benefit 

to manufacturers, allowing them to meet a significant portion of their pure ZEV 
72

requirements during the 2012 through 2017 MYs with Enhanced AT PZEVs. The 

Board believes its modifications to the pure ZEV requirement reflect the current 

state of technology and are appropriate for the near-term timeframes. 

135. Comment: Reducing the number will reverse the likelihood that ZEVs will 

become commercially available. Lower numbers reduce the likelihood that ZEVs 

will reach mass production and viable economy of scale. (RAN) 

 Agency Response: ARB does not agree with this comment. The ZEV program 

still acts as an incubator for new emerging technologies. Forcing mass 

production of ZEVs before the vehicles have proven durability and are 

economically feasible for consumers could lead to inferior and cheaply produced 

ZEVs. The Board believes its 2008 rulemaking will enable manufacturers to 

direct resources into pre-commercial production of ZEVs, ensuring only the most 

advanced and durable ZEVs are placed into consumers' hands. 

136. Comment: The numbers of ZEVs proposed by staff constitute backsliding, not 

progress. (Sierra) 

 If the CARB reduces the number of ZEVs/PHEVs required of automakers, this is 

a significant step backwards. (Chaudhary) 

 ARB staff’s proposed ZEV numbers required between 2012 and 2014 do not put 

the state on a path to meet its long term global warming goals. (ALA, CCA, 

CEERT, EIN, FOE, NRDC, UCS) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 135. 

137. Comment: The large reduction in pure-ZEVs sends strong signals to battery and 

fuel cell suppliers, along with infrastructure provides, not to invest in ZEV 

technologies. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, NRDC, UCS) 

Agency Response: ARB does not agree with this comment. The Board’s 2008 

rulemaking continue to require more ZEVs than currently being produced by any 

manufacturer. Current battery production capacity would not be able to meet 

demand generated from vehicles produced to meet the ZEV requirements. Auto 

manufacturers have indicated difficulty in purchasing ZEV technologies due to 

the lack of availability. The Board’s 2008 modifications balance consumer 

demand with the realities of current ZEV technology. 

138. Comment: In light of the automotive industry’s investment and progress the 

proposed 2,500 pure ZEVs proposed in the ISOR is not defensible and in fact 

undermines recent progress. (EIN) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. See response to Comment 127. 
73

139. Comment: Rather then recommend an increase in the minimum number of pure 

ZEVs required in the years 2012 to 2014, the ISOR asks for 90 percent reduction 

from 25,000 to a mere 2,500. Is this in line with “maintaining the pressure on the 

commercialization of pure ZEV technologies”? The staff proposal will decrease 

the number of pure ZEVs by two-thirds from 75,000 to 25,000 between the years 

2012 and 2017. How does one reconcile this with the Board’s stated mission 

and directive to “strengthen the overall objective of the program”? (Tesla) 

 Agency Response: See responses to Comments 124 and 127. 

140. Comment: The proposed 2015 to 2017 program is ineffective, expensive and 

does not have a vision of how to commercialize hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. 

(Gronich) 

 Agency Response: While the Board adopted staff’s proposed requirement for 

the 2015 through 2017 timeframe, the Board also directed staff to redesign the 

ZEV regulation, refocusing on the pure ZEV requirement for the 2015 and 

beyond timeframe. During the redesign, ARB invites all stakeholders to share 

their ideas and plans. 

141. Comment: Technical challenges include fuel cell stack and system durability and 

robustness, on-board fuel packaging, and weight. Commercial challenges 

include cost and availability of hydrogen infrastructure. The volume requirements 

mandated by the ZEV regulations detract from manufacturer’s ability to overcome 

these remaining challenges through fuel cell R&D because resources must be 

diverted to building and placing in service high volumes of immature technology 

vehicles. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: While ARB recognizes that fuel cell durability and costs are 

still a near-term challenge to high volume deployment, the ZEV regulation does 

not specify a specific time period for fuel cell vehicle durability when placed in 

service. Furthermore, the costs of fuel cell technology were considered when the 

Board revised the minimum ZEV volume requirements. The ZEV requirement 

can also be met with other zero emission technologies such as battery EVs. 

142. Comment: The staff proposal is missing a ramp. If we really want to achieve any 

of the goals that this program talks about, even in the staff proposal, a ramp is 

just common sense. And that’s missing from the staff proposal, at least a 

realistic and assertive ramp from our perspective. (CCA) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board increased the number of pure 

ZEVs required during the 2012 through 2014 timeframe, creating a more realistic 

ramp to the number of ZEVs required in the 2015 and subsequent MYs. 
74

B. Enhanced AT PZEV Option 

143. Comment: I fully support the staff’s proposal to significantly increase the number 

of plug-in hybrids that must be produced and appreciate staff’s vision in including 

these cars in the ZEV requirement. (Young) 

The commenter expressed support for Enhanced AT PZEVs as a backfill. 

(Nissan, SCAQMD) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the Enhanced AT PZEV 

option to meeting the ZEV requirement. 

144. Comment: Large numbers of PHEVs proposed for Phase III may force 

production before vehicles and the market are ready. (Toyota) 

 Agency Response: Manufacturers are not required to produce Enhanced AT 

PZEVs. Producing Enhanced AT PZEVs is an option for manufacturers. 

145. Comment: ARB’s proposal requires 25,000 PHEVs in the 2012 to 2014 MY 

timeframe in California. ARB should not mandate the production of such large 

volumes of new technology vehicles when it is clear that the market cannot bear 

the costs of such vehicles. There is a lack of lead time to introduce this new 

technology and the volumes required considering the high cost. There should be 

a more gradual ramp-up of the PHEV volumes in recognition of the significant 

costs. The Silver+ PHEV requirement should be implemented in 2014 MY in 

recognizing the huge shift in the ZEV mandate technology requirement and the 

required lead time to introduce this new technology. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: See the response to Comment 144. The options for earning 

credits have been available before the 2008 rulemaking and remain available. 

146. Comment: Do not allow 90 percent of ZEV requirements in 2012 to 2014 to be 

met by non-ZEVs, as proposed by CARB staff. Allowing plug-in hybrids to 

replace some ZEVs puts these two needed technologies in competition with each 

other. (Sierra) 

 Agency Response: Enhanced AT PZEVs are a technology enabling option for 

manufacturers to fulfill their ZEV requirements. Manufacturers have expressed 

to the Board that development, testing, and production of these vehicles are an 

even greater bridging technology to ZEVs over currently available hybrids. The 

Board does not see these technologies as competing with each other. Battery 

EVs will have limited range, and therefore a limited market, while Enhanced AT 

PZEVs will essentially have unlimited range and therefore, a potentially wider 

market. ARB believes both vehicle technologies will provide option for 

California’s fleet. 
75

147. Comment: Limit the backfilling to 50 percent of a 100,000 ZEV requirement for 

2012 to 2014, so that at least 50,000 ZEVs reach the market. (Sierra) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 123. 

148. Comment: The CARB ISOR requirements for Enhanced AT PZEVs are 

insufficient. CARB should strengthen their proposal with significantly larger 

volumes of Enhanced AT PZEVs that continue to grow from 2012 through 2017. 

The commenters based their recommendations on the following reasons: 1) 

manufacturers’ announcements project numbers higher than CARB’s proposal, 

2) the CARB proposal fails to keep up with commercialization stages, 3) historic 

sales trajectories of advanced technology vehicles like the Prius shows that 

CARB proposal should be increased; the CARB requirements are too low as 

compared to national projections in the growth of hybrid vehicles. Each of these 

claims is supported by extensive reasoning, graphics, and figures. CARB should 

strengthen the Enhanced AT PZEV requirement through an annual increase of at 

least 40 percent per year to ensure a rapid commercialization of Enhanced AT 

PZEVs from 2012 and through 2017. A 40 percent/year ramp-up can be viewed 

as only a first step. CARB must continue to ramp up plug-in hybrids beyond the 

40 percent/year penetration rate to meet long term 2050 global warming goals. 

(ALA, CEERT, CCA, EIN, FOE, NRDC, Sierra, UCS) 

Agency Response: ARB believes a more rapid PHEV deployment rate may be 

possible sometime beyond 2015, but not in the earlier time period suggested. 

There are still significant challenges to deployment in larger volumes than what 

the Board chose for the 2012 through 2014 MYs. One of the key challenges is 

the build-up in the necessary large-format battery production capacity necessary 

to support the manufacture of these vehicles. 

149. Comment: Increase the number of PHEVs required to hundreds of thousands. 

(Friedland) 

We recommend a 50 percent increase in the number of Enhanced AT PZEVs 

(e.g., 112,500) in order to accelerate battery technology development, 

manufacturing investment, and further air quality reductions through vehicle 

replacements. (SCAQMD) 

I’d like to see 75,000 plug-in hybrids. (J. Smith) 

The PHEV offsets in the pure ZEV requirement should be 50 percent in 2012 

through 2014 and 25 percent in 2015 through 2017 for those PHEV vehicles that 

run on H2. (UTC) 

 Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking will potentially bring the 

placement of between 50,000 and 70,000 vehicles on the road during the 2012 
76

through 2014 timeframe. These numbers are sufficiently aggressive, considering 

manufacturers still have yet to produce a single PHEV. The redesign of the ZEV 

program will evaluate the appropriate number of Enhanced AT PZEVs as an 

option in future years. 

150. Comment: Only PHEV20s or better can backfill (PHEV10s can still get credit in 

Silver). Enhanced AT PZEVs of any kind would backfill at half the credit they 

would otherwise earn in the Silver category. (PIA, Clifford, Medvecky, Pease, 

Hoffner, Synergy, FOE, Friedland, Greer, SEVA) 

 Agency Response: LVMs have yet to produce any PHEVs. ARB believes it is 

not appropriate to restrict credit for a new vehicle technology that promotes pure 

ZEV technology. The zero emission VMT credit allowance favors those PHEVs 

with greater EAER or Rcda. However, the Board adopted staff’s definition of an 

Enhanced AT PZEV, a PZEV earning more than one-credit per vehicle without 

multipliers and makes use of a ZEV fuel. Also, see response to Comment 216. 

151. Comment: General opposition to the pure ZEV requirement being offset by 

PHEVs, which use gasoline or diesel and have tailpipe emissions, long recharge 

times and can worsen the peaking problems for California’s electric grid. The 

commenter expressed opposition to the pure ZEV requirement being offset by 

HICEs because tailpipe emissions are still present. (UTC) 

 Agency Response: ARB sees Enhanced AT PZEVs, including PHEVs and HICE 

vehicles, as a more advanced zero-emission enabling technology for 

manufacturers to pursue on their path to ZEV commercialization. ARB believes 

Enhanced AT PZEVs, including PHEVs and HICE vehicles, are a reachable 

technology step that provides greater environmental benefits to California. Also, 

manufacturers are not required to offset their pure ZEV requirement with these 

technologies. 

152. Comment: Support for a higher Silver category credit for HICE vehicles that 

incorporate a fuel cell as an auxiliary power unit (APU) or as part of a hybridvehicle traction system. Such vehicles stimulate progress in fuel cell 

development, help to advance on-board hydrogen storage technologies and 

promote the build-up of the hydrogen infrastructure. (UTC) 

 Agency Response: The Board approved the definition of an Enhanced AT PZEV 

as a PZEV earning more than 1.0 allowance and which utilizes a ZEV fuel. A 

PHEV with a fuel cell auxiliary power unit would also fall into this category. 

153. Comment: I don’t think it does the people of the state any great benefit to have a 

number of fuel cell vehicles on the road for some testing that may or may not 

benefit us in the long run if we can’t have them permanently in service if they 

aren’t part of a long term solution. (Rosen) 
77

 Agency Response: The Board 2008 rulemaking allows manufacturers to fulfill 

the portion of their requirement that must be met with ZEVs through placing 

battery EVs or fuel cell vehicles. The Board believes both vehicle technologies 

will be essential in meeting ARB’s long term environmental goals. 

C. Enhanced AT PZEV (General) 

 

154. Comment: General support for the proposed Silver+ or Enhanced AT PZEV 

category. (CalETC, FOE, VW) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the Enhanced AT PZEV 

category. 

155. Comment: Near-zero emission natural gas vehicles promote a pathway to zero 

emission fuel cell vehicles, and rival even battery EVs for well-to-wheel 

emissions. These vehicles should qualify as Enhanced Silver, at least for an 

interim (transitional) period, e.g. through 2014. Natural gas is a dominant clean 

energy source for electricity and hydrogen near term. ZEV policy needs to 

encourage this ZEV-enabling path and option. Qualify the direct use of natural 

gas for a transitional period as a ZEV fuel. Natural gas is a clean energy source 

for ZEV fuels today (electricity and hydrogen). The credit value for the natural 

gas vehicle is not consistent with other Enhanced AT PZEVs proposed, based on 

environmental performance and ZEV enabling component technology as well as 

infrastructure development contribution. (Honda) 

 Agency Response: To receive credit in the Enhanced AT PZEV category, the 

Board has chosen to require these vehicles to use a ZEV fuel. Natural gas is 

relatively clean, but it is not zero emission at the tailpipe. The ZEV regulation 

takes a longer-term perspective and encourages fuels and technologies that play 

a key role in the future for zero emission technologies for tailpipe emissions. 

156. Comment: Should a Type I ‘pure EV’ with more all-electric range receive 3.5 

times less credit than an P40 AT PZEV? It seems directionally wrong that even a 

SULEV should gain more credits than a ZEV. (Mitsubishi) 

 Agency Response: ARB agrees that an Enhanced AT PZEV should not earn 

more than a pure ZEV. In response to this comment, ARB modified the 3.0 

multiplier to a 1.25 multiplier for manufacturers that sell or lease PZEVs with offboard charging capabilities for three years and offer for an extended lease period 

of two years. This credit is the same amount currently earned by ZEVs sold or 

leased for the same amount of time. This still encourages PHEVs to be 

produced and sold, while ensuring these vehicles do not earn more credit than a 

pure ZEV that is produced and sold. 
78

157. Comment: The base credit level for the extended range EV category, i.e., the 

credit level before application of any multipliers, should be higher for the 

extended range EV category than for blended or urban capable PHEVs. (GM) 

 Agency Response: While not adjusting the base credit level for PZEVs in this 

rulemaking, the Board adjusted the advanced componentry allowance for those 

vehicles able to complete 10 miles AER on the US06 drive cycle. Also, the zero 

emission VMT allowance gives the most credit to those PHEVs with the greatest 

Rcda. 

158. Comment: Increasing the volume of Enhanced AT PZEV volumes as compared 

to the ISOR can be accomplished by annually reducing the credits awarded to 

each Enhanced AT PZEV (correspondingly reducing credits for lower technology 

AT PZEVs and PZEVs). This methodology preserves CARB’s ability to increase 

the pure ZEV requirements over time while staying within the current regulatory 

constraints of new vehicle fleet sales allocated to ZEVs and the percentage splits 

between each vehicle category proposed in the ISOR. (ALA, CEERT, CCA, EIN, 

FOE, NRDC, Sierra, UCS) 

 Agency Response: The 2008 ZEV Rulemaking has stricken an appropriate 

balance between aggressive introduction of Enhanced AT PZEVs in the 2012 

through 2014 timeframe and adjusting the pure ZEV requirements to an 

achievable level. As the program is redesigned for the 2015 and subsequent 

MYs, a set of requirements that balances increases in both categories will be 

established. Also, see response to Comment 157. 

159. Comment: PHEVs should be defined and credited by a more straightforward 

metric such as kWh (either on-board or net usable) rather than miles. It is more 

important to encourage maximum electrification of all vehicles more than any one 

particular vehicle. Defining by miles unfairly biases toward small PHEVs, and will 

result in more similar vehicle models competing for the same market share, while 

providing few options to the significant segment of California consumers who 

want a larger vehicle. (Clifford, Greer, Hoffner, Medvecky, Pease, PIA, SEVA) 

The electric range credit structure should be replaced with a useable energy 

approach, e.g., kWh. (SCAQMD) 

CARB policy should encourage plug-in hybrids that have the most on-board 

electricity storage that maximizes vehicle range. (Mayor Newsom) 

The Board should reconsider defining and crediting PHEVs by kWh (either onboard or net usable) rather than miles. Using kWh provides more flexibility to the 

automakers to build PHEVs according to what they think will sell in the 

marketplace and will result in more overall cars on the road. Defining by miles 

biases toward small PHEVs, while defining by kWh will still encourage smaller, 
79

more efficient vehicles because they are more cost-effective to build, but also 

reward manufacturers who choose to electrify larger vehicles. (RAN) 

Base the ZEV credits on energy capacity. Instead of range, just assign a certain 

number of kilowatts for credit. The advantage of this gives a lot of flexibility, a lot 

of freedom to manufacturers. It will spur a lot of innovation, and it’s really also 

valid for any technology. It will work for fuel cells, hydrogen, whatever. It’s just 

the amount of energy that’s stored on the vehicle. (Choquette) 

We are in agreement that kilowatt hours is the most appropriate measurement. 

(GM) 

 Agency Response: ARB believes that assessment of relative PHEV merit based 

on battery capacity instead of range performance is a critically flawed approach 

for a number of reasons. First, there is not an agreed upon approach to test for 

“total capacity” in PHEV batteries, and if there were, ARB does not believe that 

manufacturers would all choose to make “usable capacity” a consistent 

percentage of “total capacity”. This ratio would vary for a variety of reasons, in 

particular, differences in battery technology will necessitate selecting a “usable 

capacity” percentage to meet a lifetime goal. This would mean that a particular 

battery technology that restricts its “usable capacity” to a smaller fraction of “total 

capacity” would be encouraged by a “total capacity” kWhr regulation even if reallife range performance and emissions reduction benefits were far less. Upon 

careful examination of the kWhr approach, ARB believes (1) it is not a simpler 

approach to actually implement in a regulation, (2) it would require the 

development of battery capacity test procedures, and most important of all, (3) it 

is not directly related to vehicle emissions reduction performance. Also, see 

responses to Comments 209 and 210. 

160. Comment: The Enhanced AT PZEVs with the lowest emissions should be 

rewarded with higher credits. For example, several existing AT PZEVs are 

currently certified at 0.01 g/mile NOx, 50 percent below the certification standard 

and such vehicles should be awarded higher credits. (SCAQMD) 

 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. Under the 2008 rulemaking, PHEVs with 

40 mile AER and HICE vehicles receive the highest amount of credit among nonZEVs under the ZEV program, and are the cleanest non-ZEVs currently 

produced by manufacturers. 

161. Comment: Create a more significant credit differential among Enhanced AT 

PZEVs. Currently, there is little incentive to produce higher mileage plug-ins. 

(FOE) 

 It seems to be that it’s very important to have a substantial spread in credit for a 

35 to 40 mile plug-in hybrid that is all-electric for that range and considerably 

lower mileage on a single battery charge PHEV that are blended. (Woolsey) 
80

 Agency Response: The Board directed staff to award PHEVs able to complete 

10 miles AER on the US06 cycle additional credit. Also, the zero emission VMT 

allowance gives the most credit to those PHEVs with the greatest Rcda and 

EAER. 

D. AT PZEVs 

162. Comment: Require hybrid gas/EVs to be plug-in rechargeable. (Smallwood) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. At this time, ARB believes conventional 

non-chargeable hybrids are a good near-term solution to curbing petroleum use 

and promoting electric drive-trains. Additionally, because non-plug-in or 

conventional hybrids are commercially available, the cost to the consumer for a 

conventional hybrid will be substantially less than the cost for a first generation 

PHEV, meaning more consumers may be able to afford to make cleaner car 

choices. 

163. Comment: Increase current natural gas vehicle credit from 0.7 to 1.0 or greater. 

ZEV enabling, and demonstrated emissions performed is similar to battery EVs in 

the South Coast Air Basin. (Honda) 

 Agency Response: ARB agrees that CNG vehicles have ZEV enabling 

characteristics, which is why they earn more credit than many other types of AT 

PZEVs, including HEVs. However, they do not make direct use of, nor do they 

encourage the transition to sustainable, ZEV fuels as do the higher-credit earning 

Enhanced AT PZEVs. 

E. PZEVs 

164. Comment: No credits for PZEVs or hybrids that run exclusively on gasoline. 

(Pohorsky) 

 Agency Response: PZEVs and AT PZEVs, including conventional gasoline 

hybrids provide the greatest current environmental benefit to the ZEV program. 

For this reason, ARB believes PZEVs and AT PZEVs should be able to receive 

credit under the ZEV program. Additionally, because some OEMs have yet to 

produce a commercially viable AT PZEV, and ARB believes the credit for PZEVs 

is still necessary. However, the Board did direct staff to return after looking at the 

Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) and AB 1493 (Pavley) programs, with a new ZEV 

program that focuses exclusively on the pure ZEV requirement. Therefore, a 

future ZEV regulation may no longer give credit to PZEVs or AT PZEVs, 

including conventional gasoline hybrids. 
81

165. Comment: While PZEVs have served as an air-quality victory for the program, 

they no longer need commercialization support, and lend no ZEV-enabling value. 

(RAN) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 164. 

166. Comment: The best pathway to cleaner air in California is through low cost, 

affordable clean technologies that can make a greater impact on the vehicle fleet 

in California. Volkswagen strongly urges the Board to consider the important 

impact of PZEV vehicles and mild hybrid concepts when considering changes to 

the ZEV Program. (VW) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. AT PZEVs, including mild hybrids, have 

acted as ZEV enabling technologies, helping manufacturers to develop electric 

drive trains and gain experience with battery technologies. However, the Board 

finds that Enhanced AT PZEV technologies, including PHEVs, are even more 

promising bridges to ZEV commercialization. Eventually, PZEVs and AT PZEVs 

will be placed into other ARB programs to provide even more air quality benefit to 

California. 

F. Travel Provision 

167. Comment: Limit travel provision for Type III and IV ZEVs to 2014 because 

increased volumes in the pre-commercialization phases after 2015 are necessary 

to encourage expansion and cost reduction in component and infrastructure 

suppliers. The end of the travel provision means that the auto companies must 

meet the ZEV regulations in California and ten other states that have adopted the 

ZEV regulations. This doubles the number of ZEVs the auto companies have to 

produce nationwide. The current regulation requirements in addition to 

eliminating the travel provision means the auto manufacturers have to produce 

100,000 vehicles nationally. Extending the travel provision to 2017 hinders the 

Board’s ability to remove the provision during Phase IV if the Board finds that 

nationwide commercialization of pure ZEVs is feasible. Because of the need to 

support future growth of pure-ZEV technologies, suppliers, and infrastructure, 

plus the advantage of future flexibility in the regulations, the authors proposed 

limiting the extension of the travel provision to 2014. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, 

FOE, NRDC, UCS) 

 The Board should retain the original 2011 sunset date for the fuel cell vehicle 

travel provision due to the following reasons: 1) manufacturers have been able 

to bank credits in the Northeast states, 2) effort has been made to establish a 

Northeast hydrogen highway, and this could delay hydrogen infrastructure 

indefinitely, 3) if manufacturers were to comply with fuel cell vehicles, the 

Northeast would not receive any ZEVs or PHEVs until 2017, and 4) extending the 

travel provision for fuel cells undermines the intent of leveling the playing field for 

EVs. (NESCAUM) 
82

 The current 2011 sunset date for the travel provision for fuel cell vehicles should 

be retained and should not be extended to 2017. (Massachusetts) 

 To extend the travel provision to 2017 would be to significantly delay, if not derail, 

fuel cell progress in the Northeast. (Vermont) 

 Pull forward the sunset of the traveling provisions for Type III and IV ZEVs to 

2014, with the understanding that this segment will need to be closely monitored 

and the date changed if appropriate. (New York) 

Agency Response: The ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, NRDC, and UCS 

comment was submitted in a document titled “2008 Proposed Solutions to 

Potential Loopholes in the Amendments to the California Zero Emission Vehicle 

Program Regulation, Agenda Item 08-3-5”, which staff responded to in 

Attachment C of the 1st post-Board Hearing comment period public notice. For 

ARB, this is an overall policy decision. Staff proposed that the travel provision be 

extended to 2017 during the March 27, 2008 Board Hearing, and the Board 

approved this provision. The principle involved is vehicle types that are precommercial in volume and require new fueling infrastructure are considered to be 

in a demonstration phase, and the benefit of requiring demonstrations from ten 

other states is weakened by the high cost and lack of new information obtained. 

ARB believes that PHEVs will jump directly to commercial volumes, and no new 

infrastructure is required. Thus it did not recommend a travel provision for this 

technology. Fuel cells, on the other hand, are likely to undergo several more 

demonstration phases to validate durability and lower cost designs for new 

fueling infrastructure (several million dollars per station). Thus, ARB believes 

travel through the 2017 MY is appropriate so that demonstrations are limited to 

only a few areas. Likewise, battery EVs may need future demonstrations to 

establish customer acceptance. Based on this assessment, ARB believes the 

travel provision for Type III, Type IV, and Type V ZEVs through 2017 is 

appropriate. 

ARB does not think that the provision will compromise its ability to redesign the 

ZEV program. The redesign will begin with a “clean sheet of paper”, and all 

provisions of the current ZEV program will be up for reconsideration. 

168. Comment: CARB should reconsider the proposed change to the ZEV program, 

which would remove the battery EV and fuel cell vehicle requirements in the 

Section 177 states until as late as 2017. (Connecticut) 

Battery EVs should be removed from the travel provision altogether or have the 

sunset date move to 2010 rather than 2014. If it is not changed, the number of 

vehicles placed in Massachusetts and other Section 177 states will be limited. 

(Massachusetts) 
83

Battery EVs should not be included in the travel provision for the following 

reasons: 1) staff’s proposed travel provision could significantly reduce plug-in 

hybrid vehicle placement in the Northeast region; were manufacturers to comply 

with the ZEV requirements by placing fuel cell vehicles between 2014 and 2017, 

the Northeast states would not receive pure ZEVs or plug-in hybrids for a 

decade, 2) many Section 177 states have established a ramp-up period for full 

compliance with the ZEV requirement, manufacturers have been banking credits 

for many years which will provide them with additional time in complying with the 

full ZEV requirement in the other Section 177 states and some states have 

different MYs in which the requirement becomes effective, and 3) the Northeast 

would not likely receive any pure ZEVs until 2017 because the travel provision 

has been extended through 2017 for fuel cell vehicles. (NESCAUM) 

Limit the traveling provisions for battery EVs to Type II and greater, excluding the 

Type I and I.5 vehicles. (New York) 

Agency Response: Stakeholders expressed that Type I and Type II vehicles be 

eligible for the travel provision. Similar to Type III vehicles, the cost to produce 

and introduce Type I and Type II ZEVs remains high. This modification also 

promotes technology neutrality to encourage all advanced technologies to come 

to market as soon as possible. Much like the successful introduction of AT PZEV 

hybrids, manufacturers began with low volumes in select states; hybrids still 

represent a small percentage of the overall market. ZEV technologies must also 

start with low production volumes until the vehicles are commercially viable. The 

Board modified section 1962.1(d)(5) so that Type I, Type I.5 and Type II vehicles 

will only be eligible for the Section 177 travel provision through the 2014 MY 

when these vehicles are estimated to be commercially viable. 

169. Comment: Do not amend the current Section 177 travel provision. (Google, 

Vieira) 

The Board should decline any extension and expansion of the travel provision. 

Technology and the market have advanced significantly since the Expert Panel, 

and the dilution of the Section 177 State ZEV numbers will result in negative 

impacts on consumer appetite and market development. (Vermont) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment 168. 

170. Comment: ARB received various comments in opposition to the travel provision 

or recommended that the Board eliminate the travel provision. (J. Kelly, Neff, 

Rosen, Sierra, Trudeau) 

 Agency Response: The travel provision enables manufacturers to focus efforts 

and resources on ZEV development into limited locations. The travel provision 

also helps to ease manufacturer concerns surrounding hydrogen infrastructure 

development. Battery EVs and fuel cell vehicles continue to be in pre-
84

commercialization stages of development, and are better served in limited 

placements. 

171. Comment: There should not be any travel provision in combination with 

decreasing the number of ZEVs required in any phase. (Clifford, Greer, Hoffner, 

Medvecky, Pease, PIA, RAN, SEVA, Synergy) 

 Agency Response: The travel provision does not decrease the number of ZEVs 

required in California in any MY. The travel provision allows manufacturers to 

focus ZEV placement efforts and infrastructure in a few locations to better foster 

technology development. 

172. Comment: Sanctioning the idea of building fewer ZEVs not only for one state, 

but 11, will not lead to the market-building volume that we need. (RAN) 

 Agency Response: No ZEV technologies are currently ready for mass 

commercialization in multiple states. Focused placement efforts are still needed 

to test durability and reliability of all types of ZEVs. Requiring too many ZEVs 

before technology is proven will not further the technology, but rather could lead 

to market failure. 

173. Comment: Under staff’s proposal, none of the air quality benefits of ZEVs will 

accrue in Massachusetts and consumer demand for these vehicles will go unmet 

in the future. We want to ensure the availability and introduction of advanced 

technology and ZEVs so that they are available for consumers. (Massachusetts) 

 The proposed changes have the potential to significantly reduce the number of 

PHEVs that will be introduced into the Northeast fleet. (Connecticut) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB modified the travel provision to 

ensure all Section 177 States will receive the most commercially ready vehicles 

in the ZEV program, beginning in the 2010 MY. 

174. Comment: The commenters expressed general support for Staff’s initial 

modifications to the travel provision. (GM, Ford) 

The commenters expressed general support for the extension of the travel 

provision for battery EVs. (Ford, Mitsubishi) 

The commenters expressed general support for the extension of the travel 

provision. (VW, UTC) 

 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the proposed travel 

provision. The travel provision will remain the same for the 2009 MY. However, 

due to extensive comment received during the March 27, 2008 Board Hearing, 

ARB decided to modify the travel provision so that manufacturers would be able 
85

to only satisfy their requirement which must be must with ZEVs in the other 

Section 177 States, beginning in the 2010 MY. This means that non-ZEVs 

receive credit under the ZEV regulation, PZEVs and AT PZEVs, would not have 

their credits “travel” and so would be required to be produced in Section 177 

states. 

175. Comment: The travel provision for battery EVs should be extended through the 

2017 MY to match the travel provision extension recommended by CARB staff 

for fuel cell vehicles. This allows greater assurance that battery technology is 

viable, while Section 177 states will still benefit from large volumes of PZEV, AT 

PZEV and, if adopted, Enhanced AT PZEV vehicles while the zero emission or 

gold technologies continue to be fully demonstrated in the California market. 

(VW) 

 Agency Response: Based on manufacturers’ press releases and trade news, 

ARB believes battery EVs will be closer to commercialization than fuel cell 

vehicles by the 2015 MY. The Board adopted the staff’s proposed schedule for 

ZEV types and applicable MYs for the travel provision. 

176. Comment: ARB proposes to have the travel provision expire for battery EVs 

after the 2014 MY. This results in over a 30 times increase in the battery EV 

requirement between the 2014 and 2015 MYs. This amounts to an 

unprecedented quantum leap in battery EV volume from one MY to the next; it is 

not realistic considering the limited niche market for these vehicles. 

Manufacturers must invest significant resources in advancing zero emission 

technologies. Manufacturers must look forward several years to make sure their 

technology path will achieve compliance with the regulations. The huge increase 

in the battery EV requirement in the 2015 MY may discourage manufacturers 

from choosing this technology option. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: The travel provision allows manufacturers to deploy fewer 

ZEVs throughout ZEV states while this technology is still immature. Since it is an 

option, there is not a step up in the ZEV “requirement” because manufacturers 

are not forced to take this option. Furthermore, manufacturers can plan 

accordingly for this optional increase since they know precisely when it will occur. 

177. Comment: General concern with not allowing Enhanced AT PZEVs to count 

towards other states’ ZEV requirements. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, 

Toyota) 

PHEVs required to be placed in all ZEV states could deem this as costprohibitive and make it a disincentive for manufacturers to introduce these 

products to market. Due to the absence of the provision, the quantity of Silver+ 

vehicles required to supply to all current ZEV states will approximately triple in 

volume. The following example shows the costs incurred by the LVMs due to the 

effect of no travel provision. With a travel provision, the LVMs will be required to 
86

supply approximately 75,000 PHEVs during the 2012 to 2014 phase at an 

incremental cost of $25,000 per vehicle, totaling $1.875 billion to LVMs. Without 

a travel provision, the quantity of vehicles triples, increasing the total cost to 

LVMs to $5.625 billion. (Chrysler) 

A travel provision would provide the needed incentive to encourage the 

implementation of PHEV technology. It allows a company to market-test a 

substantial quantity of vehicles and gain customer feedback on the usage of this 

all-new product, while other resources can be spent on advancing the technology 

and improving the cost for future higher quantities. Manufacturers will most likely 

focus on certain regions to market-test these products while consolidating most 

sales, service and other support in that region, at least during the initial stages of 

this emerging technology. (Chrysler) 

The travel provision should also include Enhanced AT PZEVs, which may be 

used to comply with designated percentages of pure ZEV requirements through 

2017. This approach would help assure customer acceptance and the 

development of necessary infrastructure Enhanced AT PZEVs, and we therefore 

believe that this more flexible approach would be beneficial to the ZEV program. 

(Hyundai) 

 Agency Response: The purpose of the travel provision is to allow manufacturers 

to concentrate efforts and resources on development programs for those vehicles 

in the program that are furthest from commercialization. The travel provision also 

eases pressure on those manufacturers dependent on hydrogen infrastructure 

development. Enhanced AT PZEVs are considered to be closer to 

commercialization than pure ZEVs, and require limited additional infrastructure 

development. Therefore, the Board included the vehicles furthest from 

commercialization in the travel provision, meaning Type I, I.5, II, III, IV, and V 

ZEVs, and not Enhanced AT PZEVs. 

178. Comment: The first 10,000 PHEVs that a manufacturer produces should be 

allowed to travel. This would level the playing field to encourage manufacturers 

to develop this technology. (Chrysler) 

High PHEV volumes could be addressed with a phase-in for the states that have 

adopted California standards. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: The Board determined to allow credit to travel for only pure 

ZEVs under 1962.1(d)(5)(E). Also, see response to Comment 177. 

179. Comment: If it is appropriate to have the travel provision expire for battery EVs, 

there should be a phase-out schedule for states that have adopted California 

standards, so that there is a more gradual, realistic increase in the number of 

battery EVs required. (Ford) 
87

 Agency Response: The Board determined that limiting credit travel to the 2009 

through 2014 MYs for Type I, I.5, and II ZEVs is appropriate in regards to section 

1962.1(d)(5)(E). Type I, I.5, and II ZEVs are expected to be commercially 

available after the 2014 MY, and therefore a phase-out would not be needed. 

180. Comment: HICE vehicles are dependent on a hydrogen infrastructure, which is 

not developed outside of California. If a manufacturer chooses this technology 

path, they must place these vehicles in every state that has adopted California 

standards. The travel provision should be extended to HICE vehicles. The credit 

for HICE vehicles could be reduced while the travel provision is applicable to 

these vehicles such that the total number of vehicles is comparable to the total 

number of other Enhanced AT PZEV vehicles. Once it is clear that the hydrogen 

infrastructure is sufficiently developed in states other than California to support 

the placement of HICE vehicles in those states, the travel provision and the 

accompanying reduced credit provisions could be phased out in tandem. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: Production of Enhanced AT PZEV is an option for 

manufacturers choosing to produce fewer ZEVs. There are options within the 

Enhanced AT PZEV category as well, so it is not required that a manufacturer 

provide HICE in all Section 177 states. The Board limited the travel provision to 

ZEVs because they are the least developed technologies, requiring the most 

effort in commercialization with two-fold concerns: availability of infrastructure 

and technology readiness. The Board adopted the travel provision to avoid 

duplicating demonstrations of prototypes when the technology was not ready to 

go to higher levels of production vehicles. 

181. Comment: The Enhanced AT PZEV obligation in states outside of California 

should be reduced if those states do not offer a comparable incentive because 

PHEVs carry with them a significant cost compared to conventional internal 

combustion vehicles. California could publish their incentive schedule a few 

years in advance to allow other states to plan accordingly. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: This comment is outside of the scope of this 2008 

rulemaking. Incentives in California would require authorization by the 

Legislature. 

182. Comment: It is incumbent upon ARB to design a program that works not only in 

California, but also in the other states that have adopted California standards. 

(Ford) 

 Agency Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the 2008 

rulemaking. Section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act authorizes other states to 

adopt California’s emission standards. The Board adopted the travel feature in 

order to allow developmental ZEV technologies to receive credit in other state 

ZEV programs. For AT PZEVs that do not face the same technology challenges 
88

as ZEVs, a travel provision is not necessary. Ultimately, it is up to the other 

states to decide whether or not the ZEV Regulation “works” elsewhere. 

183. Comment: ARB’s proposal allows ZEVs placed in California to count in all states 

that have adopted the ZEV regulations. The opposite is also true, a ZEV placed 

in a state that has adopted the ZEV regulations counts in California. What is not 

clear is that a vehicle placed in one ZEV state should count in all ZEV states. 

For example, a ZEV placed in Rhode Island should count in Connecticut. ARB 

should revise sections 1962 and 1962.1 to clarify this situation. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: This comment is outside the scope of the 2008 rulemaking. 

ARB modified the language in section 1962.1(d)(5)(E) to specify how this 

regulation works in California relative to the Section 177 states. The Board also 

modified the regulation to state that a ZEV placed in California counts in all 

Section 177 states. Section 177 states are able to determine how this provision 

works in their own states. 

184. Comment: The proposed travel provision adds restrictive provisions to the 

program that will result in vehicle blackouts in Section 177 states. Fuel Cell 

vehicles and battery EV credits from placements in California will be used by 

manufacturers to meet their ZEV obligations in other states. Any vehicle placed 

in one state that counts in all, effectively reduces the incentive to place Silver+ 

PHEVs, which can be used to backfill the Gold ZEV requirements, becomes 

drastically weakened. (Vermont) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board approved the timelines for 

Type I, I.5, II, III, IV, and V ZEVs, as stated in section 1962.1(d)(5)(E)2. 

However, the Board also directed proportionality for credits in section 

1962.1(d)(5)(E). ARB modified the travel provision, beginning in the 2010 MY, to 

only allow manufacturers to meet a Section 177 state’s portion of the regulation 

that must be met with ZEVs with ZEV credits earned in California. With the 

modification, Section 177 states will receive non-ZEV commercially viable 

vehicles in their ZEV programs, including PZEVs, AT PZEVs, and Enhanced AT 

PZEVs as auto manufacturers chose to meet their ZEV requirements in each 

Section 177 state. 

185. Comment: If the travel provision is extended, we recommend a compensatory 

trade-off to ensure the foregone emissions benefits are realized. (SCAQMD) 

 Agency Response: The modifications to section 1962.1(d)(5)(E) do not 

significantly impact emissions. This provision ensures that manufacturers can 

focus effort and resources on much needed ZEV development programs which 

will lead to ZEV commercialization. Credits for non-ZEVs are not subject to the 

travel provision so the emission benefits from these vehicles will accrue in 

California. 
89

186. Comment: Include provisions to limit windfall credits from the traveling provisions 

in Section 177 states. (New York) 

 Agency Response: The Board agreed with this comment, and directed staff to 

modify section 1962.1(d)(5)(E) so that credits would be proportionally allocated 

based on a ratio of California’s sales compared to the Section 177 state sales. 

ARB modified the travel provision to better meet the intent of proportionality in 

the travel provision and to account for timing and implementation. Proportionality 

is provided, but is proposed to begin in the 2010 MY. The Board’s modification 

also specifies that a credit earned in a Section 177 state is earned at a 

proportional value in the Section 177 state, while credit is earned in the full 

amount in California. Lastly, a manufacturer complying with the Alternative Path 

requirements in the 2010 and 2011 MYs in a Section 177 state will not be 

affected by proportionality if those credits are produced in California. The 

maximum number of credits allowed for compliance in the Section 177 state for 

the 2010 and 2011 MYs, however, is limited to the Section 177 state’s Alternative 

Path minimum ZEV percentage. Any credits earned in California and used in a 

Section 177 state beyond the minimum Alternative Path ZEV percentage are 

subject to proportionality. 

G. Transition for Intermediate Volume Manufacturers 

187. Comment: ARB received comments giving general support for the timeline 

extension of the IVM transition to LVM requirements. (BMW, Hyundai, 

Mercedes, Mitsubishi, VW) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for staff’s proposed extension 

of the IVM transition period. However, the Board did not approve this part of 

staff’s proposal. 

188. Comment: Maintain flexibility, considering that the overall market has grown and 

a significant gap continues to exist between large and intermediate volume 

manufacturers. (BMW) 

 Agency Response: Overall, the Board’s modifications increase flexibility within 

the program, allowing manufacturers to meet their ZEV obligations with both pure 

ZEVs and Enhanced AT PZEVs. However, the Board did not approve staff’s 

proposal to extend the transition period for IVMs becoming subject to LVM 

requirements. The Board believes IVMs have had sufficient time to ramp up their 

ZEV production in anticipation of LVM requirements. 

189. Comment: It is more difficult to enter the regulation in later years due to the 

increased percentage requirements. (VW) 
90

 Agency Response: Comment noted. However, ARB believes IVMs transitioning 

to LVMs in later years will have had sufficient time to prepare for ZEV 

requirements for LVMs. Also, see response to Comment 188. 

190. Comment: A six year lead time for companies that become Large Volume 

Manufacturers through aggregation as opposed to increased sales, instead of the 

four year lead time currently required in the regulation for companies that 

aggregate. Volkswagen finds it curious that CARB chooses to punish companies 

that become large through aggregation by reducing the lead time, especially 

when the two companies involved are not currently Large Volume Manufacturers. 

This is especially curious when CARB responded to other industry aggregations 

involving large manufacturers in an earlier hearing by allowing for a ten year lead 

time for companies that aggregated before the 2001 MY. (VW) 

 Agency Response: Staff’s proposal did not include any modifications to the lead 

time that a manufacturer receives when aggregating with another manufacturer. 

Therefore, this comment falls outside the scope of the regulation. 

191. Comment: ARB received comments in opposition to the transition period 

extension proposed for the IVMs. Some indicated opposition because it could 

put some LVMs at a competitive disadvantage. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, 

Nissan, Tavill, Tesla, Toyota, UTC) 

 Agency Response: The Board did not approve staff’s proposed extended time 

period for IVMs transitioning to LVM requirements. 

192. Comment: A company’s California sales are not an accurate indicator of its 

ability to comply with the ZEV regulations, as many of the IVMs transitioning to 

LVM status are large, profitable, multinational companies. (Chrysler) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. This was one factor in the Board’s decision 

to not extend the transition time for IVMs transitioning to LVMs. The regulation 

specifically bases ZEV requirements and manufacturers’ size on annual 

California sales. 

193. Comment: A transitioning manufacturer will only have to provide AT PZEV 

vehicles 6 years after it reaches its 60,000 vehicle/year threshold. AT PZEV 

technology is readily available today. (Chrysler) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board did not approve staff’s 

proposed extended transition period for IVMs. 

194. Comment: Maintain the current phase-in for intermediate volume manufacturers 

transitioning to large volume status to ensure a faster trend to zero emissions. 

Maintaining the current phase-in requirement will not only set a trend to zero 

emissions sooner, it will also help to further advance the state of ZEV technology 
91

and lead to an earlier success of the ZEV program. Having more hightechnology automakers involved in the ZEV program sooner will lead to 

efficiencies; as costs can be driven down through the supply chains, more 

automakers requiring ZEV vehicles equates to increased supply base, 

competition and possible shared costs and common components amongst 

manufacturers. (Chrysler) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 193. 

195. Comment: Support for a modification to the phase-in during which new LVMs 

must begin to introduce pure ZEVs and/or Enhanced AT PZEVs during the 

phase-in period. The commenter’s suggested revised regulatory language is 

provided below: 

“If an intermediate volume manufacturer’s average California production 

volume exceeds 60,000 units of new PCs, LDTs, and MDVs based on the 

average number of vehicle produced and delivered for sale for the tree 

previous consecutive MYs, the manufacturer shall no longer be treated as 

an intermediate volume manufacturers and shall, beginning with the sixth 

MY after the last of the tree consecutive MYs. Beginning with the seventh 

MY after the last of the three consecutive MYs, the manufacturer shall 

meet the ZEV requirements with a maximum of 75-percent percent 

PZEVs, of which at least one fourth would have to be AT PZEVs and shall,

and 25-percent percent AT-PZEVs, whereby at least 0.3-percent of the 

AT-PZEV requirement must be met with ZEVs and/or Enhanced AT 

PZEVs. Beginning with the ninth MY after the last of the three 

consecutive MYs, the manufacturer shall meet the ZEV regulation 

requirements with a maximum of 67-percent PZEVs, of which at least on 

third would have to be AT PZEVs and 33-percent AT PZEVs, whereby at 

least 1.0-percent of the AT-PZEV requirement must be met with ZEVs 

and/or Enhanced AT PZEVs. The manufacturer would comply with all 

ZEV requirements for large volume manufacturers beginning with the 

twelfth MY after the last of the three consecutive MYs.” [§1962.1(b)(7)(A)] 

The suggested revisions to the phase-in schedule will expedite introduction of 

ZEVs and advanced technology vehicles providing additional air quality benefits 

and an opportunity for new LVM to transition more gradually into the ZEV market. 

(Hyundai) 

During the transition period, Volkswagen would support a small gold requirement 

to assure CARB that the company is continuing to develop these technologies. 

(VW) 

Agency Response: The regulation does not prohibit manufacturers from 

producing ZEVs before the vehicles are required. Also, the Board’s 2008 

modifications include provisions extending IVMs’ carry-forward provisions so that 
92

ZEV credits earned prior to LVM transition remain useful. ARB does not believe 

it was necessary to require IVMs to have a gold requirement at this time. 

 

H. Carry Forward/Carry Back Provisions 

196. Comment: Manufacturers invested large amounts of money in early ZEV 

technologies for the purpose of generating credits to meet the ZEV regulation 

requirements. These investment decisions were based on generating ZEV 

credits that could be used toward future ZEV compliance based on the current 

ZEV regulations, without the restrictions that the ARB Staff has proposed. ARB 

should not retroactively change how these credits can be used. In addition, the 

changes proposed will deter manufacturers from placing more ZEVs in service 

sooner than required to generate a compliance margin for protecting against 

unforeseen changes in product plans and market conditions. (GM) 

 LVMs develop long-range compliance plans with a margin of safety to account 

for market and product disruptions; however, the current provision with 

unrestricted Gold credit carry-forward provides the insurance necessary to 

account for unforeseen circumstances. Retroactively, changing the carry-forward 

provision would erase the safety net that LVMs count on in case of emergencies 

to assure compliance and would also de-value investments that manufacturers 

already made. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

 Agency Response: To provide a ramp-up to commercialization in the ZEV 

requirement, ARB would like to see a trend for an increasing numbers of ZEVs 

every year. On the New Path, the carry-forward provision gives value to banked 

credits, and eliminates problems surrounding banked ZEV credits and 

subsequent blackout periods with no ZEV placement. The carry-forward and 

carry-back requirements still allow LVMs to concentrate their development in 

certain years, while still maintaining pressure to produce new ZEVs to fulfill 

current and future requirements. Although ARB recognizes that OEMs built and 

banked significant ZEV credits in early years, it was with significant increased 

requirements in mind. Since the program has been modified several times, 

reducing the requirements for ZEVs, these banked credits that have ended up 

playing a much more significant role in delaying technology impacts were 

necessary moving forward. 

197. Comment: IVMs should be allowed to earn and bank non-expiring gold credits. 

Once an IVM becomes or transfers the credit to a LVM, the credits are treated as 

earned in that year and loose value according to the carry-forward provision. 

(Mitsubishi) 

To incentivize further IVM introduction of ZEVs and/or Enhanced AT PZEVs, 

Hyundai suggests that CARB modify the regulations to begin the depreciation of 

gold credits two years after the first year that the new LVM is required to produce 

pure ZEVs and/or Enhanced AT PZEVs (i.e. gold credits earned prior to Year 7 
93

after becoming a LVM would depreciate in Year 9 after becoming a LVM). 

(Hyundai) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board directed staff to allow 

manufacturers other than LVMs to bank gold credits until subject to LVM 

requirements. The carry-forward provisions will be effective from the MY the IVM 

becomes subject to LVM requirements. 

198. Comment: Extend carry-forward provision to Enhanced AT PZEVs to ensure that 

banked credits do not create long “blackout” periods when none of these vehicles 

are produced. Without the carry-forward limitation being applied to Enhanced AT 

PZEVs, manufacturers could bank credits and avoid production in later years. If 

a manufacturer chose to build low volumes of Enhanced AT PZEVs during Phase 

II when a 3 times multiplier is applicable or over comply in Phase III, the result 

could be few or no Enhanced AT PZEVs placed in Phase IV. The carry-forward 

provision should be extended to Enhanced AT PZEVs through the end of 2017. 

(ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, NRDC, UCS) 

Agency Response: This comment was submitted in a document titled “2008

Proposed Solutions to Potential Loopholes in the Amendments to the California 

Zero Emission Vehicle Program Regulation, Agenda Item 08-3-5”, which staff 

responded to in Attachment C of the 1st Post-Board Hearing comment period 

public notice. Staff does not agree that the carry-forward provision should apply 

to Enhanced AT PZEV credits. Large numbers of Enhanced AT PZEVs, namely 

PHEV, are not expected to be produced during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe. 

These vehicles have never been produced, and it is unlikely that a sudden rampup of volumes would occur in such a limited timeframe. Additionally, if a 

manufacturer were to be successful in its early production of an Enhanced AT 

PZEV, it would be unlikely that the manufacturer would stop production during 

the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. Staff believes that extending the carry-forward 

provision to include Enhanced AT PZEVs would decrease the likelihood of 

vehicle demonstrations prior to 2012. It would penalize manufacturers deploying 

Enhanced AT PZEVs early by not allowing them to bank credits for more than 

three years. Instead, staff chose to address the overall credit discrepancy 

between PHEVs and pure ZEVs during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe. 

I. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) 

199. Comment: ARB received comments urging the Board not to amend the current 

NEV allowance. (Google, Neff, Trudeau, Vieira) 

 Agency Response: The Board views NEVs as a limited niche vehicle with 

significant environmental benefit. The Board accepted staff’s proposal to double 

the amount of credit received by NEVs from 0.15 to 0.30. In addition, ARB 

modified several parts of the regulation to limit the use of NEVs, as well as 

increase the technical requirements for the 2010 and subsequent MY NEVs. 
94

These modifications will ensure that the most technologically advanced NEVs 

receive credit within the program, while realizing their limited application. 

200. Comment: No credits for NEVs. (Pohorsky) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 199. 

201. Comment: The 25 miles per hour (mph) limit set by the National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) for low speed vehicles is 

perceived as too slow to be safe in mixed traffic in California cities and reduces 

the utility of NEVs. Several states (OR, WA, MT) have already adopted medium 

speed vehicle regulations permitting EVs that otherwise conform with NHTSA low 

speed vehicles standard 500 to operate at speeds up to 35 mph. Please allow 

the establishment of a new class of medium speed vehicles that are substantially 

equal to low speed vehicles but with an increased operating speed to 35 mph for 

operation on streets with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. 

Please make ARB’s city ZEV definition more specific as City ZEVs could be a 

cost-effective solution to pollution and CO2 emissions. Also, include the medium 

speed vehicles definition in the proposed ZEV amendments so that further steps 

to include it in the California Vehicle Code and NHTSA can be undertaken. 

Full function EVs, costing from $30,000 to $100,000 are just small niche vehicles 

that will never achieve market volume sufficient to have a measurable impact on 

the California environment. Low cost medium speed vehicles could gain 

substantial popularity and displace small economy cars with grants and/or tax 

credits, resulting in reduced numbers of polluting cold starts and a reduction of 

3,000 to 7,000 gasoline-fueled miles driven annually. They could also prepare 

the public for freeway-capable EVs. 

(Clean Electric, EnVironmental Motors, Form Letter #6, Greens, Irvine, Form 

Letter #1, Miles, Silver, Sokolow, Spruit, Tabascio) 

Agency Response: On September 26, 2008, NHTSA denied a petition for 

establishing a new class of motor vehicles with a maximum speed capability of 

35 MPH. 

ARB would like to see a broad spectrum of EV functionality (including maximum 

speed capabilities) and believes greater vehicle choice will hasten the move 

away from polluting internal combustion engine vehicles, resulting in emission 

reduction benefits. However, ARB has neither the authority nor the traffic safety 

expertise to establish safety standards for vehicles, and therefore defers to 

NHTSA regarding the establishment of a medium speed vehicle class. 

City EVs were described by ARB’s Independent Expert Panel as “battery EVs 

with limited acceleration and top speed (e.g. 50/60 mph) and thus not suitable for 
95

high speed United States urban/suburban freeway driving, although at present 

they must meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 

requirements.” The Panel further stated that a City EV’s “performance limitations 

allow a smaller size battery and lower power electric drive system, so that the 

vehicle can have a lower manufacturing cost and thus be made more affordable 

to the customer.” 

From these two sources, it is clear that the City EV is a de-rated full function EV, 

meeting the same safety standards and not limited to controlled low-speed 

communities. It is not similar in performance or safety features to the proposed 

medium speed vehicle. 

202. Comment: Chrysler LLC and GEM commissioned studies on NEV use. The 

commercial and residential NEVs in the studies traveled 3,000 and 1,200 miles 

per year, respectively and displaced two-thirds of internal combustion engine 

vehicle trips. That translates into a one-third reduction in tailpipe emissions 

(mostly from avoided cold starts). 

Under the ZEV Amendments, a 10-mile all-electric range PHEV plugged in once 

a day and capable of accumulating 3,650 all-electric miles each year has a credit 

value of 1.57 in the 2012 MY. In contrast, a GEM NEV in commercial operation 

and traveling 3,000 miles per year only earns a credit value of 0.30. Additionally, 

the credit basis increase from a Type III ZEV at 3.0 to a Type IV at 5.0 credits in 

the amendments essentially devalues NEVs. 

Based on the air quality benefits and the commitment that Chrysler and GEM 

have made to the success of these vehicles and the ZEV Program, we believe 

that the NEV credit value should be increased to 0.625. This value should also 

apply to the 2006 through 2008 NEVs MY because the environmental benefits of 

NEVs have been accruing since that time period. These NEVs should not be 

penalized solely because the regulation was not opened in 2006 as originally 

planned (the January 10, 2003 Staff Report stated that the credit value for 2006 

and beyond would be reexamined and possibly revised at a later date when more 

detailed NEV customer usage and vehicle durability information was available). 

Mightycomm conducted studies for DaimlerChrysler on NEV use showing that 

NEV were used for three of four trips, two-thirds of which were three miles or 

less. NEV success is based on their numbers (there are 20,000 of them in 

California) and the fact that they are smartly used for small trips where they 

reduce the number of cold starts. (Chrysler) 

Agency Response: ARB has reviewed the Mightycomm study2

 and understands 

the utility and air quality benefits of NEVs. ARB also recognizes that NEVs have 

 

2

GEM. Surveys of NEV Owner Behavior in California. December, 2005 Prepared for GEM by 

Mightycomm and Access Research Group. 
96

some limits that must be acknowledged when determining credit value. NEV 

speed and range capabilities limit them to a niche market. NEVs are low speed 

vehicles that have a maximum speed of 25 mph and are only allowed to be 

driven on roads with a maximum speed limit of 35 mph. Additionally, they 

typically have a limited driving range on the order of 30 miles. 

Even with these limitations, NEVs reduce internal combustion engine vehicle 

trips and provide air quality benefits. In consideration of those benefits, ARB 

determined that a doubling of the credit value from 0.15 to 0.30 is appropriate. 

However, ARB does not believe it is appropriate to grandfather in a greater credit 

value for NEVs placed in 2006 through 2008. Additionally, NEVs must now 

successfully complete a technical assessment performed by the United States 

Department of Energy before being eligible for the 0.30 credit value. 

ARB disagrees with DaimlerChrysler’s comment stating that the new credit 

baseline, a Type IV ZEV with a credit value of 5, essentially devalues NEVs. 

Type IV ZEVs have a range requirement double that of Type III ZEVs, and will be 

more costly to produce. Their establishment as a baseline recognizes the 

advances that have been made in electric drive, battery, and fuel cell 

technologies. The relative difference in cost and credit value between Type III 

ZEVs and NEVs does not change. And automakers may continue to meet their 

ZEV Program requirements without using Type IV ZEVs. 

203. Comment: A credit mechanism needs to be developed that will promote a 

reduction in the carbon content of petroleum based fuels and an increase in the 

short term in the number of plug-in vehicles until we get a fleet of plug-in hybrids 

and/or battery EVs. The 20,000 NEVs that exist today can begin the process of 

credit banking under the low carbon fuel standard. I think the staff-recommended 

ZEV credit of 0.3 for NEVs is a good start, but it ought to be higher - 0.75. 

(Mightycomm) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates Mightycomm’s comments on the need to 

develop a credit program to promote a reduction in the carbon content of 

petroleum-based fuels and bank NEV credits under the low carbon fuel standard. 

However, these activities are outside the scope of the 2008 rulemaking and the 

ZEV Program. 

204. Comment: The commenter expressed general support for staff’s proposed NEV 

credit level. (Chrysler) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates support for staff’s increased proposed NEV 

credit level. The Board adopted the increased NEV credit as part of CCR, 

title 13, section 1962.1. 

205. Comment: The history of earlier NEV credit stockpiling should be sufficient to 

raise concern. We urge the Board to direct Staff to develop precise methodology 
97

to link credits with demonstration of effective and long term NEV deployment. 

(Vermont) 

Prevent product blackouts caused by NEV credits for the pure ZEV minimum 

requirement and early introduction of Enhanced AT PZEVs. This can be 

accomplished by limiting the use of NEV credits earned before 2008 to the (nonEnhanced) AT PZEV or PZEV categories after 2011 and restricting NEV credits 

earned after 2008 from the pure ZEV floor. In the early 2000’s auto 

manufacturers placed low cost, low technology NEV in California for a short 

period of time only to fulfill their pure ZEV requirement. NEVs were then 

abandoned or removed with almost no benefit to air quality and technology 

advancement. Because of this, auto manufacturers have banked over 123,000 

pure ZEV credits from NEVs. Because NEVs have been used as a pure ZEV 

credit loophole, the authors recommended limiting the use of the existing banked 

credits earned before 2008 to the (non-Enhanced) AT PZEV or PZEV categories 

after 2011. NEV credits earned after 2008 could be applied to all categories 

outside of pure ZEV floor. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, NRDC, UCS) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees that the large number of banked NEV credits 

will slow the introduction of new advanced technology ZEVs unless their use is 

restricted. To limit the use of NEV credits, both 2001-through-2005 credits as 

well as the 2006 and subsequent MY NEV credits modifications were approved. 

The 2001-through-2005-MY-NEV credits are not available to meet the portion of 

the obligation that must be met with ZEV in 2012 through 2014. Also, the 2001-

through-2005-MY-NEV banked credits are capped at 50 percent usage within the 

obligation that may be fulfilled with Enhanced AT PZEVs or AT PZEVs for the 

2012 to 2014 timeframe. These modifications limit the use of 2006 and beyond 

NEV credits within the minimum ZEV floor during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe 

while still allowing them to be fully used to meet requirements that may be met 

with Enhanced AT PZEVs, AT PZEVs, and PZEVs. 

206. Comment: The commenter expressed general support for the limit placed on the 

use of old banked NEV credits. (CalETC) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for this modification. Additional 

post-Board Hearing modifications were also made to further limit the use of 

banked historic NEV credits. 

J. Zero Emission VMT Allowance 

207. Comment: Support for staff’s inclusion of blended PHEVs and proposed EAER 

concept. (Toyota, VW, CalETC) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the modifications to the zero 

emission VMT allowance equation that give credit to blended PHEVs with EAER. 
98

208. Comment: The zero-emission VMT allowance is a fairly complicated formula 

which is dependent on test procedures that are yet to be defined. There are 

significant issues that need to be addressed in changes to the test procedures. 

Because of the lack of lead time that the proposal provides to introduce this new 

technology, ARB’s proposal forces manufacturers to accelerate the development 

of PHEVs, requiring design decisions to be made. These design decisions are 

being made without knowing the impact on the credit earned because the test 

procedures are not defined. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: ARB has been working diligently to revise its hybrid exhaust 

and evaporative emissions test procedures, and the Board will consider revisions 

in a separate rulemaking now noticed for the January 22-23, 2009 Board 

meeting. Before the December 5, 2008 release of the notice of rulemaking, all 

major auto manufactures have participated and provided inputs to the process of 

developing the test procedures. While these test procedure modifications have 

not yet been adopted by the Board, there have been no changes to these 

procedures from the early proposals that would affect development or production 

decisions. Furthermore, ARB’s proposed HEV exhaust test procedures are 

significantly similar and sometimes identical to those that are under development 

by the Society of Automotive Engineers that are expected to be released in 2009. 

209. Comment: Utility factors based on the entire population of vehicles driven in the 

United States are not representative of the consumer that will want to purchase a 

PHEV. The people likely to purchase a PHEV are expected to have relatively 

short commutes and highly predictable day-to-day driving patterns that will best 

utilize the plug-in operation of the vehicle. Until there are more data on customer 

usage of PHEVs, Ford recommends that the utility factor provision in the Zero 

Emission VMT allowance be eliminated. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: ARB is taking a longer-term perspective and is making use 

of Utility Factors based on average driving because (1) all other alternatives 

proposed, in particular battery kWhr, have critical flaws, (2) this Utility Factor 

methodology will be the eventual basis of other performance-based assessments 

of PHEV performance, and (3) this methodology will best represent PHEV usage 

as the market grows, and adopting it now avoids having to change our 

methodology in the future. 

210. Comment: Because the battery is the key component to for a PHEV, the ZeroEmission VMT allowance should be based on total battery capacity. Total 

battery capacity is suggested instead of useable energy capacity to avoid the 

need to define test procedures to measure useable energy capacity. Given the 

significant expense of the battery, one can assume that manufacturers will 

maximize the useable capacity of a battery, so that the total capacity would be an 

adequate metric. Although this approach may not be as accurate as the 

approach proposed by ARB, we believe there are benefits to a simple approach 

at this stage of the technology. Once we have test procedures defined, some 
99

experience with this technology, and data from customer usage, it may be 

appropriate to go to a more complicated formula. In the meantime, Ford 

recommends a simple Zero-Emission VMT Allowance based on total battery 

capacity; for example, Zero-Emission VMT allowance + 0.1 x Battery Capacity 

(kWh). (Ford) 

 Agency Response: ARB believes that assessment of relative PHEV merit based 

on battery capacity instead of range performance is a critically flawed approach 

for a number of reasons. There is not an agreed upon approach to test for “total 

capacity” in PHEV batteries, and if there were, ARB does not believe that 

manufacturers should all choose to make “usable capacity” a consistent 

percentage of “total capacity”. This ratio would vary for a variety of reasons, in 

particular, differences in battery technology will necessitate selecting a “usable 

capacity” percentage to meet a lifetime goal. This would mean that a particular 

battery technology that restricts its “usable capacity” to a smaller fraction of “total 

capacity” would be encouraged by a “total capacity” kWhr regulation even if reallife range performance and emissions reduction benefits were far less. Upon 

careful examination of the kWhr approach, ARB believes (1) it is not a simpler 

approach to actually implement in a regulation, (2) it would require the 

development of battery capacity test procedures, and most important of all, (3) it 

is not directly related to vehicle emissions reduction performance. Also see 

response to Comment 208. 

211. Comment: We request clarification regarding whether the current HEV strategy 

of controlling battery state of charge (SOC) within narrowly-defined ranges to 

maximize battery life, has been accounted for in the proposed amendments, as 

the ISOR and proposed regulatory language are subject to varying 

interpretations. Narrowly-controlled SOC, if further applied to PHEVs, could in 

itself serve as a brake on battery development if the range of utilized SOC is not 

expanded through credit mechanisms. (Vermont) 

 

Agency Response: All auto manufacturers and most other users of traction 

batteries are expected to program their vehicles to use less than the full rated 

battery SOC range in order to obtain reasonable lifetimes from them. While it is 

unlikely that PHEVs will operate under the same narrow SOC ranges as 

conventional hybrids do, automakers are working towards a battery lifetime of at 

least ten years and are planning to make use of whatever SOC range allows a 

given battery technology to meet these lifetime goals. ARB eventually chose to 

make use of actual vehicle range test performance results instead of battery 

“rated” kWhr capacity to evaluate PHEVs in the modifications to the regulation, in 

part, to avoid the possibility of “varying interpretations” of what is meant by 

battery capacity. Attempting to define and assess “usable” vs. “rated” kWhr is 

something we expect the Society of Automotive Engineers to address in the 

coming years. 
100

K. Advanced Componentry Allowance 

212. Comment: General support for the 10-mile AER floor. (Toyota) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the 10-mile AER as 

proposed by staff for the Type F and Type G advanced componentry allowance. 

213. Comment: Support for the restoration of silver credit for Type C hybrids. (VW) 

 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the Type C advanced 

componentry allowance. 

214. Comment: Eliminate extension of Type C HEVs because it is an off-the-shelf 

technology that offers limited benefit to advancing technology. Type C HEVs do 

not contribute to technology advancement and the auto companies have a 

financial incentive to use the technology as a loophole to meet their AT PZEV 

requirement. The authors recommended not extending the credits for Type C 

HEV unless they use lithium ion batteries or other advanced energy storage 

systems not currently in commercial production. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, 

NRDC, UCS,) 

ARB received comments requesting that the Board not amend the Type C HEV 

sunset. (Google, Neff, Trudeau, Vieira) 

Agency Response: In the regulation, a Type C HEV is a vehicle with an electric 

motor with greater than or equal to 10 kW of power output and less than 60 volts 

for its traction drive system voltage. Type C HEVs are also required to be 

equipped with an advanced traction energy storage system, such as lithium ion 

batteries, nickel metal-hydride batteries, or ultracapacitors. Staff believes that 

Type C hybrids still provide environmental benefits and should remain an option 

for a manufacturer. Manufacturers need as much flexibility as possible to design 

vehicles for a variety of applications. Additionally, Type C requires a 

manufacturer to utilize advanced batteries, which are not “off the shelf.” Not all 

LVMs have deployed hybrids, so to limit them could be fateful for further hybrid 

deployment. Additionally, an LVM who makes a larger vehicle as a mild hybrid 

provides greater greenhouse benefit to California than a small mild hybrid. 

 

215. Comment: CARB should base evaluations on the US06 test cycle, not UDDS, 

which again favors vehicles “blended” at lower speeds and doesn’t represent 

“real world” driving. (Clifford, Google, Greer, Hoffner, Medvecky, Pease, PIA, 

SEVA, Synergy, Vieira) 

 Add an additional category for even stronger PHEVs. The top category in the 

staff proposal right now is actually relatively easy to meet. Automakers are 

already talking about and proposing stronger PHEVs. We suggest that you add 
101

an additional category, make the regulation more forward looking to even 

stronger PHEVs. The way we would define that is a PHEV that can meet a more 

stringent test known as the federal US06 test on AER alone. The test which is 

proposed in the staff report, it’s a federal driving cycle test proposed, which is 

used to value these vehicles and the credits they get. And it’s the urban driving 

cycle test which is a relatively mild test. There’s consensus in the technical 

community that the driving cycle test ready does not represent the way people 

drive in the real world. And there is a new test that’s been adopted by the federal 

government called the federal US06 test, which is a much more aggressive 

driving schedule test. And automakers have proposed some PHEVs that can 

meet the test. In this new category that credit level should bump up to 2.7 or 2.8. 

(CalETC) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board directed staff to create a new 

Type G advanced componentry allowance or modify the Type F advanced 

componentry allowance to give credit to those vehicles able to achieve 10 miles 

AER on the US 06 test cycle. ARB decided to create a new Type G, giving credit 

for those vehicles able to achieve 10 miles AER on the US06 test cycle, and 

maintain Type F as proposed by staff in the ISOR. 

216. Comment: Strengthen the Enhanced AT PZEV category to require a pure 

electric range of 25 miles, rather than 10. (Neff, Trudeau) 

The criteria for qualifying for Silver+ status should be more rigorous, requiring a 

25 mile EAER. (Google, Vieira) 

ARB receive requests for PHEVs able to drive a minimum distance of 20 miles 

on electric only mode to be included in the program. (Johansson, J. Smith) 

The proposed Silver+ credit for plug-in hybrids should not be implemented as 

recommended. It would not be effective in promoting CARB goals. A vehicle 

that can only run ten miles (at 18 mph) would not provide much in the way of 

clean air benefits. (Rosen) 

 Agency Response: ARB believes there is considerable benefit from 10-mile 

PHEVs and that the minimum should not be set so high as to eliminate incentives 

for automakers to consider offering more affordable PHEVs for those who drive 

below the average or cannot afford larger batteries. ARB also believes that 

workplace charging will be a key element in the electrification of transportation, 

and is working to incentivize the installation of workplace charging facilities. 

These 10-mile PHEVs would then be capable of 20 miles of electric commuting 

each day and would be fully charged well before afternoon power demand begins 

to peak. It may be unwise to require so much range that significant capability is 

left unused with many drivers under normal use. ARB believes that 10 miles will 

be both interesting and cost effective enough for a large number of moreaffordable PHEVs to be sold. PHEVs will become commonplace in the next 10 
102

years, and government incentives may only be available during the first several 

years. After that, PHEVs must show cost-effectiveness in order to sell, and 

retaining the 10-mile minimum will allow manufacturers to offer a variety of 

models to suit a variety of price ranges and capabilities. 

217. Comment: Under the proposed regulations, the extended range EV would be 

classified as Type F urban capable PHEV. This classification falls short, both in 

terms of the environmental benefits that the extended range EV provides and the 

ZEV technologies that the extended range EV requires. A separate category 

within Enhanced AT PZEV needs to be established. This could be done by 

either adding a new Type G or modifying the proposed Type F category. The 

criteria to qualify for this extended range EV category should be that the vehicle 

is able to run the high-speed/high load US06 cycle in all-electric mode. (GM) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 215. 

218. Comment: The credit for a “blended operation” PHEV should be put on equal 

footing with an “all-electric range” PHEV. Blended PHEVs may not provide 

significant all-electric range, but these vehicles achieve the same goals as an 

AER PHEV, e.g., advancing technology, reducing emissions, diversifying energy 

usage, and lowering GHG emissions. If the same zero-emission technology is 

put on a vehicle, one being a large vehicle in a “blended operation” and the other 

being a small vehicle in an “all-electric range” operating, then the same credit 

level should be earned. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: Blended operation PHEVs cannot be put on equal footing 

with AER type PHEVs because Blended PHEVs cannot deplete their battery 

packs at the same rates as AER hybrids since some amount of propulsion 

energy is still provided by gasoline. For example, if a Blended and AER hybrid 

both have the same battery pack, but it takes the Blended PHEV 40 miles 

instead of 20 miles to make use of this stored energy, then many drivers are not 

going to be able to take full advantage of this battery on a daily basis because, 

on average, they don’t drive far enough to fully deplete it. 

219. Comment: The EAER floor should be set no higher than 10 miles so as not to 

overly restrict design choices for PHEVs and to allow automakers to select the 

optimal balance of cost, utility, charge time and other factors. (Toyota) 

 Agency Comment: ARB concurs and also believes 10 miles on AER is an 

appropriate distance for Type F and Type G advanced componentry allowances. 

Also, see response to Comment 215. 

220. Comment: Support for the proposed Type F hybrid. (VW) 
103

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the Type F advanced 

componentry allowance. The Board adopted the Type F advanced componentry 

allowance as proposed by staff in CCR, title 13, Section 1962.1. 

221. Comment: Hyundai believes that differences in performance between 10kW and 

50kW motor output warrant a more refined HEV classification for this range of 

output for three primary reasons: 1) a higher motor output increases the HEV’s 

ability to operate in a zero emission mode, such as moving a vehicle from a 

stopped position with the engine off, providing air quality benefits, 2) this change 

closes the gap between differences in performance capabilities, and 3) a midrange motor output HEV classification would promote the advancement of 

technology necessary to commercialize fuel cell and battery EV technologies. 

Below is the specific addition to the regulation: 

HEV Classifications Beginning MY 09 

HEV C D E E F F G 

Electric Drive System 

Peak Output 

>10 

kW 

>10 

kW 

>30 

kW 

>50 

kW 

Zero Emission VMT allowance; 

>10 miles all-electric range 

Traction Drive System 

Voltage 

<60 

volts 

>60 

volts

>60 

volts

>60 

volts

>60 volts 

Traction Drive Boost Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Regenerative Braking Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Idle Start/Stop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

 (Hyundai) 

 Agency Response: ARB made no power-related modifications to the existing 

HEV Advanced Componentry classifications discussed in this comment other 

than to delete those that had expired. ARB believes that 10 kW is a reasonable 

minimum threshold for significant electric drive, and that systems with power 

levels in between 10 and 50 do not yield sufficient additional technology forcing 

benefits to consider additional credit. Systems with more than 50kW power are 

more significant because this power level is sufficient to provide 100 percent 

electric propulsion power if applied to small ZEVs. These hybrid systems provide 

further benefits because they reach a threshold where they can share actual 

engineering, production-related, and volume discount related costs with drive 

systems installed in ZEVs. 

222. Comment: A plug-in hybrid awarded ZEV credits must have demonstrated range 

on ZEV fuel only of at least 40 miles at highway speeds, capable of being 

augmented with add-on battery packs for those wishing to convert them to 

longer-range battery EVs. (D. Korthof) 

 Agency Response: ARB would like to encourage manufacturers to produce the 

most commercially viable PHEVs. At this time, ARB does not want to set too 

stringent standards that limit the commercialization of PHEVs in early years. 
104

PHEVs with EAER or Rcda of 40 miles or greater receive credit in the ZEV 

regulation. However, ARB still believes there is validity to PHEVs with 10 mile 

EAER or Rcda. Also, see response to comment 215. 

223. Comment: The staff report states Type F HEVs use “10kW” of power, instead of 

talking about how much all-electric range they have (kWh). The proposal creates 

a loophole ZEV credit for HEV that cannot run in normal driving without an 

internal combustion engine (ICE). (D. Korthof) 

Agency Response: The staff report does not state PZEVs qualifying for Type F 

advanced componentry allowance to have an electric drive system peak power 

output. Rather, PZEVs qualifying for Type F advanced componentry allowance 

need to complete the UDDS drive cycle on 10 miles AER. 

L. Credit Multipliers 

224. Comment: No more multipliers. One freeway-capable ZEV gets one credit since 

it displaces just one gasoline or diesel vehicle. One per car – not seven or some 

other multiplied number. (Pohorsky) 

 Agency Response: ZEV multipliers were included into the regulation to 

encourage the selling, rather than leasing, of ZEVs to consumers, and for 

manufacturers to keep ZEVs on the road for longer periods of time. The Board 

believes both these multipliers are valid through the 2011 MY, and do help to 

encourage manufacturers to sell their ZEVs and maintain ZEV placements. 

Additionally, ARB encourages a broad range of vehicle types, especially those 

with the potential to fully replace gasoline vehicles. Also, see the response to 

Comment 60. 

225. Comment: ARB should establish a Gold to Silver/Silver+ multiplier. This would 

allow the conversion of Gold credits to Silver/Silver+ credits. To correct the 

numerical credit disparity, we propose the multiplier should be a minimum of 

3.75. (Mitsubishi) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. Although, the Board directed staff to 

consider Mitsubishi’s suggestion in developing the post-Board Hearing 

modifications upon consideration, ARB did not believe it was necessary to 

establish a gold-to-silver multiplier. It does not make sense for manufacturers 

producing ZEVs to receive more credit if they are not using the ZEV credit to 

meet ZEV obligations. Even the minimum Type 0 ZEV earns 5 times the amount 

of credit that a PZEV earns. Additionally, IVMs continue to have a basic ZEV 

requirement, but are given the option to meet the full requirement with credits 

earned from PZEVs. The regulation does not prevent manufacturers other than 

LVMs from using their credits earned from ZEVs to meet their requirement. ARB 

addressed the credit disparity between ZEV and Enhanced AT PZEVs by 
105

changing the multipliers earned by Enhanced AT PZEVs so that they do not 

exceed the credit earned by gold vehicles. 

226. Comment: The 3X multiplier that applies through the 2011 MY should be 

gradually phased-down for the extended range EV category over the time period 

2012 to 2014, for example, using a linear phase-down schedule. (GM) 

Ramp down the early introduction credits for PHEVs in the years 2012 and 2013. 

It will encourage automakers to make PHEVs in larger volumes in early years. It 

provides an incentive to avoid blackout. (CalETC) 

 Agency Response: ARB did not propose to modify the timeline for the early 

introduction multiplier offered to PZEVs that are off-board charge capable. 

Therefore, these comments fall outside of the scope of this rulemaking. 

227. Comment: Section 1962(f) of the existing ZEV regulations provided an extended 

service multiplier for specified 1997 to 2003 MY ZEV vehicle types for each full 

year the vehicle is registered in California beyond the first three years of service. 

This provision is only applicable thru the 2003 MY because a new provision was 

introduced in Section 1962(d)(5)(C) for 2004 MY that would provide a 1.25 

multiplier up front if a specified ZEV was either sold or leased for three or more 

years to a motorist who is given the option to purchase or re-lease the vehicle for 

two years or more at the end of the first lease term. This later provision is easier 

to account for because the agreements are provided with the initial sales or lease 

agreement. The effect is that if a specified ZEV is registered in California for five 

years, it should earn 1.25 times the original credit. Manufacturers introducing a 

brand new technology may initially want to limit the introduction to a few years 

until there is more experience and data gathered. However, if the vehicle is 

performing well and the manufacturer is comfortable extending the initial period 

to five years, then those vehicles should receive the same credit as if the 

agreement was made up front. This will still be easier than the accounting for 

annual extended service credit, because it will only be requested once after five 

years in service. The existing ZEV regulations should be revised to apply a 1.25 

multiplier to a specified ZEV that has been registered in California for five years, 

even if the agreement to extend the lease was not included in the initial lease 

agreement. This will encourage manufacturers to keep the new advanced 

technology vehicles on California’s roads longer. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: ARB believes that ZEV technologies are now approaching a 

level of durability that no longer require the ZEV Regulation to encourage longerduration demonstrations, and expects that market forces will now begin to 

encourage manufacturers to offer ZEVs for sale or lease for longer than three 

years. If ARB chose to continue to offer extended use multipliers and also 

expected most or all manufacturer’s ZEVs qualified for this multiplier, then the 

Board would likely have chosen to increase the percentage ZEV requirement to 

achieve the same ZEV placement volumes. 
106

228. Comment: Early introduction credits for PHEVs should therefore ideally be 

increased above the staff proposal in the ISOR to accelerate their demonstration 

and early commercialization. (Toyota) 

 Agency Response: ARB does not agree that the early introduction multiplier 

should be increased, but instead modified the multiplier from 3.0 to 1.25. This 

would provide credit, though less than what would have been given in staff’s 

original proposal, to plug-in electric vehicles produced and delivered for sale 

during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe while ensuring that pure ZEVs would not be 

put at a comparative disadvantage. Also, there will be limited potential for an 

excessive number of banked credits that could result in a blackout during the 

2012 to 2014 timeframe, a concern expressed in Comment 225. 

M. ZEV Credits and ZEV Types 

229. Comment: Support for the proposed 1.5 battery EV category. (Mitsubishi, VW) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the addition of Type I.5 

ZEVs. 

230. Comment: Increase the number of gold credits for fuel cell vehicles to reflect 

their current high and long term consumer benefits. (Mercedes) 

 The commenter requested that the Board establish sufficient credits for fuel cell 

vehicles so that companies are not discouraged from continuing their evolution of 

the vehicles. The commenter provided many reasons why fuel cell vehicles are 

valuable. (Honda) 

 Agency Response: In Resolution 06-18 the Board expressed its desires to 

provide for more even treatment of battery EVs. The Board’s amended credit 

structure is in line with Resolution 06-18’s direction. The Board also added Type 

V ZEV category, earning seven credits through the 2017 MY. Type V ZEVs have 

a range 300 or more mile ZEVs with 15-minute fast-refueling capabilities. 

Overall, the credit structure continues to favor those technologies needing more 

development. The reduced credit levels for the 2009 and subsequent MYs 

signify a shift from demonstration ZEVs to more advanced, commercially ready 

ZEVs. 

231. Comment: ZEV credit levels should be increased in 2009 and later, as the tenfold reduction in credit levels is not justified based on the technology 

assessment. (GM) 

 Agency Response: ZEV credit values historically were much higher in light of 

technology development. The 2008 modified credit structure and values better 

account for the state of all ZEV technologies. 
107

232. Comment: A valuation problem exists. This is associated with the fact that most 

major automakers have years of credits going into the future. If credits are 

abundant, very little value is associated with them. The obvious answer is to 

increase ZEV credit requirements to a level that allows a credit to have real 

value, and to decrease the number of credits awarded per vehicle. (ORNL) 

 Agency Response: The Board increased the minimum floor to 7,500 for ZEVs in 

the 2012 through 2014 MYs and adopted a reduced value credit structure in the 

2008 rulemaking. The Board believes the modified values accurately represent 

the state of all ZEV technologies. 

233. Comment: The stipulation of Type IV hydrogen fuel cell vehicles with 200+ mile 

range is a mis-characterization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Type IV hydrogen 

fuel cell vehicles should have 300+ mile range and warrant a minimum factor of 

ten and not five. (Gronich) 

 Agency Response: The Board approved proposed Type IV ZEV. But, the Board 

also added a Type V ZEV, earning seven credits. Type V ZEVs must have a 

300-mile or greater range and 15-minute fast refueling capabilities. 

234. Comment: We are extremely concerned that CARB’s staff proposal, regarding 

the credit levels, does not support the long term true zero emission vehicles such 

as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The current staff proposal greatly reduces the 

incentive for a more significant potential breakthrough solution. The new credit 

structure has the unintended of killing the fuel cell vehicle and hydrogen 

infrastructure investments. Phase III requirements should recognize very high 

near-term costs for this path/option, so it should improve the credits/substitution 

ratios/reduce the number of vehicles appropriately. (Verdugo-Peralta, Wedaa) 

 While fuel cell vehicles are potentially a very promising longer-term solution, 

other more conventional alternatives should also be deployed in the near term. 

This, however, does not mean that CARB should cease its encouragement of 

such major long term solutions such as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Shell sees 

multiple mobility pathways, and CARB should take the approach of “and” instead 

of “or”. It is simply too early now to choose the winning technology; and therefore 

we should keep all reasonable options open. To keep such options open, CARB 

needs to rebalance credits back toward the duel cell vehicles to better reflect the 

long term development costs of this breakthrough technology and the intrinsic 

environmental and energy companies of your sustained long term support and 

determination. (Shell) 

 Agency Response: The Board approved a credit structure that promotes 

technology neutrality and gives the most credit to those vehicles still in early 

development states. The Board also added Type V ZEVs, which earn seven 
108

credits. These Type V ZEVs must have a 300-mile or greater range and 

15-minute fast refueling capabilities. 

235. Comment: A plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicle may be the optimal marriage of 

technologies in the future. Such a vehicle under the proposed changes would be 

considered a Type III due to the long battery recharge time. We recommend that 

this type of architecture be as highly rated as a Type IV fuel cell-only vehicle and 

be given the same number of credits as the Type IV vehicles. (SCAQMD) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB modified the fast refueling 

requirements to allow those ZEVs utilizing more than one ZEV fuel an option in 

meeting the fast refueling requirements, dependent on Executive Officer’s 

discretion. The amount of credit earned by this vehicle will be based on its zero 

emission UDDS range. 

 

236. Comment: There is a ten to one ratio between fuel cell credits and battery EVs. 

That’s insane. Why? (Choquette) 

 Agency Response: The Board approved a credit structure that gives ZEVs 

between one and seven credits dependent on range and fast refueling 

capabilities. The Board also modified the credit structure to include a Type V 

ZEV, which earns seven credits and can travel 300 miles and has 15-minute fast 

refueling capabilities. The difference in credit earned from a battery EV and a 

fuel cell has been reduced. 

237. Comment: Do not reduce the number of pure ZEV credits earned. For the year 

2009 through 2011, keep the credit earned for Type II the same as for 2008 at 

ten ZEV credits for each pure ZEV sold. (Tesla) 

 Agency Response: Past ZEV credit values have been much higher in light of the 

need to spur technology development. The 2008 rulemaking modified the credit 

structure and values to better account for the state of all ZEV technologies. 

Additionally, maintaining or increasing the amount of credit ZEVs receive leads to 

less ZEVs placed to meet the ZEV requirement in any given timeframe. 

N. Advanced Demonstration Credits 

238. Comment: Limiting Advanced Technology Demonstration Programs to six 

vehicles puts a constraint on LVM’s that rely on this pathway to place advanced 

technology vehicles on the road to evaluate the functionality and address vehicle 

integration issues before launching full durability programs. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, 

Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

A regulatory limit should not be placed on the number of vehicles included in a 

demonstration program. (Ford) 
109

 It is our understanding that ARB’s proposed demonstration program limit applies 

to six vehicles per year, per program, per state. There are substantial resources 

needed to support these advanced technology demonstration programs, 

including identifying a customer and signing a contract, setting up a facility to 

service the vehicles, setting up a fueling station to fuel the vehicles, and 

assigning dedicated on site personnel to monitor and service the vehicles. ARB 

should consider the support system needed for advanced technology 

demonstration programs. Limiting the credit earned to only six vehicles may 

discourage a facility to be set up to support such a small fleet. (Ford) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB modified the number of vehicles 

allowed in an advanced demonstration program to 25 per model, per state, per 

year. 

239. Comment: If a PHEV demonstration fleet is able to achieve PZEV emissions 

standards on these vehicles, it would be appropriate to earn credit for these 

vehicles under the ZEV regulations. A full durability program for 10 year/150,000 

miles has not been conducted on these PHEV demonstration vehicles. 

Therefore, it is appropriate to earn credit under the advanced technology 

demonstration program. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB modified the advanced demonstration 

program to allow Enhanced AT PZEVs to also be placed in these programs. 

240. Comment: It appears that ARB has proposed to eliminate the ability to earn 

credits for advanced technology demonstration programs after the 2014 MY. It is 

premature to place a time limit on the ability to earn credit for advanced 

technology demonstration programs. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: ARB limited the ability of ZEVs and Enhanced AT PZEVs 

placed in advanced demonstrations to earn credits in the 2014 MY or earlier, 

because 2014 MY is mostly likely when commercial ZEVs will be available. 

Additionally, the redesign of the ZEV program directed by the Board in a future 

rulemaking will allow ARB to reassess the need for demonstration program 

credits. 

241. Comment: Support for ARB’s proposal to require a minimum of 2 years for a 

demonstration program. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support the advanced demonstration 

minimum two year requirement. 
110

N. Credit Disclosure 

242. Comment: General support for ARB’s proposal to disclose production information 

and ZEV credit balances. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, Ford, Nissan, NRDC, 

PCL, Sierra, UCS) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for public disclosure of 

manufacturers’ production data and ZEV credit balances. Staff proposal, along 

with the Board modification to also disclose all credit trading, was adopted as 

part of CCR, title 13, section 1962.1, which now provides: 

 (l) Public Disclosure. Records in the Board’s possession for the 

vehicles subject to the requirements of section 1962.1 shall be subject to 

disclosure as public records as follows: 

(1) Each manufacturer’s annual production data and the 

corresponding credits per vehicle earned for ZEVs (including ZEV 

type), Enhanced AT PZEVs, AT PZEVs, and PZEVs for the 2009 

and subsequent MYs; and 

(2) Each manufacturer’s annual credit balances for 2010 and 

subsequent years for: 

(A) Each type of vehicle: ZEVs (minus NEVs), NEVs, 

Enhanced AT PZEVs, AT PZEVs, and PZEVs; and 

(B) Advanced technology demonstration programs; and 

(C) Transportation systems; and 

(D) Credits earned under section 1962.1(d)(5)(C), 

including credits acquired from, or transferred to 

another party. 

243. Comment: The ZEV program data is not open to the public, and the program is 

full of loopholes, allowing automakers to earn credits for vehicles that do not 

contribute to the overall goal of the program – more zero-emission vehicles on 

California’s roads. There needs to be an end to loopholes for automakers. 

(Form Letter # 7) 

We ask to mandate full and public disclosure from car companies on how and 

when they meet ZEV regulations, including credit trading. The Public Records 

Act requires no less. (Sierra) 

The benefits of a trading market are gained only when both buyers and sellers 

have full information. Allowing trades to be kept confidential facilities prices fixing 
111

and collusion, hampering the efficient functioning of the market and distorting the 

pollution reduction goals of the ZEV program. Allowing confidential trading also 

prevents the public from overseeing and ensuring a non-fraudulent market. In 

order for the State of California to fully implement the ZEV program, it needs to 

make public all information on credits it currently holds confidential. I urge you to 

disclose fully all information you have as it relates to emission credits you hold for 

automakers. (Scholz) 

Banked ZEV credits are a matter of public record, not trade secret; the CARB 

legal department must be reproved for failing to clarify this issue, and upbraided 

for failing to release the banked ZEV credits. (McDonough) 

Include a strong policy on transparency of ZEV compliance and credit trading 

information to the public. (ALA, CEERT, CCA, EIN) 

We need transparency of all the ZEV credit business. (Choquette) 

 Agency Response: See responses to Comments 242 and 248. 

244. Comment: Opening up the ZEV credit information is a necessary step in order to 

create a marketplace for ZEV credit exchange. A proper marketplace needs 

regular reporting. Public reporting, at least quarterly, should be required. 

Reporting should be by vehicle brand and model. Both ZEV credits and the 

number of vehicles should be included in the public disclosure. (Green) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 242. The Board determined that 

annual reporting would be the appropriate period as annual reporting is the 

requirement for other manufacturer credit reporting. See for example credit 

reporting under CCR, title 13, section 1961 for passenger cars and other vehicles 

in the LEV II program. 

245. Comment: The citizens of California should be given an accounting of the 

effectiveness of this program: the actual number and type of vehicles still on the 

road. (Rosen) 

Agency Response: See the responses to Comments 17 and 242. 

246. Comment: The disclosure requirements are unclear and appear too limited. The 

ISOR appears to exclude from public disclosure detailed information relating to 

demonstration programs, transportation systems, and credit trading by 

automakers. Will credit balances be listed by manufacturer or generically? 

(ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, NRDC, PCL, Sierra, UCS) 

 Agency Response: See the response to Comment 242. 
112

247. Comment: We request the following compliance data be made publicly available: 

1) any document provided to CARB to demonstrate compliance with the 

program, including but not limited to automobile sale, emission information, or 

credit trading data, shall be publicly available, and 2) any document created, or 

action taken by CARB to confirm compliance, award credit, or recognize a 

transfer of credit, shall be publicly available, including tools for calculating and 

verifying such regulatory compliance. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, NRDC, 

PCL, Sierra, UCS) 

 Agency Response: See responses to Comments 242 and 248. 

248. Comment: Credit trading information is not trade secret and should be made 

public. The commenter provided the following reasons: 

A. ZEV Credits Are Records of Compliance, Not Trade Secrets 

In order to demonstrate compliance with ZEV requirements, an automaker must 

submit annual vehicle production data to CARB. After review of such data, 

CARB’s Executive Officer issues credits based on the information submitted. (13 

CCR §1962.1(g)(5)(D)) These government issued ZEV credits are no more a 

trade secret than are a county’s record of issuing a building permit, or self 

monitoring reports filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The act 

of purchasing ZEV credits form other automakers does not create a trade secret 

where none existed before. 

B. Limited Nature of Trade Secret Exemption 

The trade secret exemption of the Public Records Act provides only limited relief 

from the broad constitutional principle that the public is entitled to understand 

what its government is doing and to participate fully in that process. (All laws 

furthering the right of public access shall be “broadly construed and all 

exemptions “narrowly construed.” Cal. Const. Article 1, Section 3(b). 

C. Credit Trading Information Does Not Meet the Requirements of A Trade 

Secret. 

The fundamental purpose of the trade secret exemption is to protect a company’s 

investment of time and resources in developing, producing or selling a product, a 

formula, or a compilation of information. A trade secret is “any formula, plan, 

pattern, process, tool, mechanism, compound procedure, production data, or 

compilation of information which is not patented, which is known only to certain 

individuals within a commercial concern, who are using it to fabricate, produce, or 

compound an article of trade or service having commercial value and which gives 

its user an opportunity to obtain a business advantage over competitors who do 

not know it or use it. Gov. Code §6254.7(d). In order for a piece of information to 

be kept from the public under this limited exception, each of the state elements 

must be met. Meeting one element – for instance claiming that a business 

advantage occurs when information is kept secret – is insufficient to keep such 

information from the public. Critical elements of section 6254.7(d) are not met in 
113

the case of ZEV credit trading information. First, credit information is known to 

many individuals outside a commercial concern. Credits are created and issued 

by CARB, a public agency; by definition, they are known by persons outside a 

company. (Footnote: This is distinct from the scenario where trade secret 

information is created by a regulated entity and then submitted to an agency. In 

that instance, the secrecy element is retained. In contrast, when a public agency 

creates information at issue, there is no secrecy to maintain. By definition, such 

information is not “known only to individuals within a commercial concern.”) The 

mere act of trading those credits does not transform public compliance data into 

secret information. Second, credit trading information is not sued “to fabricate, 

produce, or compound an article of trade or a service having commercial value.” 

Product plans, engineering details, and customer lists are the types of 

information that automakers use to produce and sell automobiles and would 

properly be the subject of trade secret protection. In contrast, credit trading 

information is not used in automakers’ production or sales. Rather, it is used to 

assure that a company is complying with the law. This does not meet the test of 

trade secret. 

D. Trade Secret Protection Should Not Be Turned Into a Catch-All Exemption 

for Preventing Public Review. 

There has been an increasing tendency for companies to try to use the trade 

secret exemption for anything related to conducting their business. The trade 

secret exemption, however, is not so encompassing. To extend trade secret 

protection to all compliance actions by a business, as the December 3, 2007 

Report to the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) doe, not only does beyond the clear 

definition of trade secret, but it subverts the very purpose of the Public Records 

Act, which is to bring sunlight to government regulatory actions. The OLA’s 

argument, which appears to be that anything a company does to “assure they are 

complying” with the law and that provides a “business advantage,” if accepted, 

would work a massive expansion of the trade secret exemption. Pursuant to this 

logic, regulated industry could claim that everything they do to comply with the 

law is trade secret. As just one example, regulated industry could argue that 

submission of required monitoring data revealing violations of the law should be 

considered a trade secret because public disclosure could subject a company to 

hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties. Keeping such data secret would 

provide a company a significant financial advantage. Similarly, divulging spills or 

information about contaminated lands could also be argued to be a competitive 

disadvantage. Such an attempted extension of trade secret law, in fact, has 

already begun. In a recent lawsuit, Union Pacific Railroad claimed that wetlands 

on their property constituted a trade secret that should bar citizen enforcers’ 

request to inspect their land. The railroad’s stated rationale was that allowing the 

public to know where wetlands were located could delay the development of their 

property and cost them significant money. The OLA’s compliance-related theory 

of business activity does not fit within the elements of a trade secret and would 

open up an enormous loophole in trade secret law. 
114

E. Public Interest in Full Disclosure 

Automakers have come to CARB asking for a reduction in the number of zero 

emission vehicles they have to produce. They would certainly like to keep the 

public uninformed and unable to effectively participate in this process and, to a 

large extent, have been successful in doing so. This type of gaming should not 

be allowed in the future. The ZEV program helps ensure clean air, a resource 

that is vital to the public. The public, therefore, has a vital stake in ensuring this 

regulation remains as strong as possible and is adequately enforced. There are 

many points at which enforcement of the ZEV law can go wrong, from incorrect 

information supplied by automakers, to errors in calculations, or lack of 

enforcement due to inadvertence, lack of resources, or lack of will. Public 

oversight and participation helps ensure the proper functioning of the system and 

therefore helps ensure clean air and reduced emissions. Absent public 

accountability, trading systems can go badly wrong and have done so in the past. 

RECLAIM’s Rule 1610 program is a good example. That trading system was 

kept confidential and was plagued by under reporting of emissions, over 

reporting of emissions reductions, and outright fraud. Public participation helps 

curb those tendencies. When the regulated community knows that the public has 

access to compliance data, such as ZEV credits and the sales data on which 

they are based, it has an incentive to produce accurate information. Similarly, 

transparency around credit trading may discourage large automakers from 

trading with low cost, low technology providers. Further, the public should be 

apprised of the entities from which automakers are buying credits so that 

responsibility is clear in instances where such technology creates problems or 

where trading subverts the intent of the regulations such as occurred with NEVs 

in the early 2000s. If the public does not receive the full array of information on 

which compliance decisions are made, it cannot fully participate in the regulatory 

process. This participation has for decades been recognized as important in a 

functioning democracy. We ask that the Board require that all ZEV compliance 

data be made fully accessible to the public. (FOE) 

Agency Response: The auto manufacturers had earlier claimed that their annual 

reports and other documents relating to ZEV production and credits were 

protected from disclosure under the California Public Records Act as trade 

secrets. On December 3, 2007, ARB Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) issued a legal 

opinion discussing whether ZEV credit data is entitled to confidentiality protection 

under California law. This opinion has been withdrawn because it does not 

represent the current position of OLA. The current position of OLA is as follows. 

Historical ZEV credit data (i.e., data generated before the adoption of the 2008 

rulemaking) is entitled to confidentiality protection under California law and will 

not be disclosed because ARB staff represented to motor vehicle manufacturers 

that credit data would be treated as confidential under the California Public 

Records Act. The manufacturers relied on these representations in making 

business decisions, and the disclosure of the historic data now could harm their 

competitive positions vis à vis other manufacturers. Under these circumstances 
115

it would be inequitable to disclose the historic data and, therefore, ARB will not 

do so. 

The same considerations do not apply for ZEV production and credit data “going 

forward.” Section 1962.1(l) specifies the categories of information that the Board 

will disclose to the public. The manufacturers now have no expectation of 

confidentiality for the production data and corresponding credits specified in the 

regulation. It would not now be reasonable for the manufacturers to rely on an 

expectation of confidentiality in making business decisions. 

O. Miscellaneous 

249. Comment: Are alternate path car makers required to take the New Path? If they 

are, there is no reason to amend the 25,000 to 2,500 since no one will be on the 

alternate path in 2012 to 2014. (Green) 

 Agency Response: All manufacturers in the 2012 MY and beyond will be under 

the New Path that is, required to produce the same amount of pure ZEVs for 

compliance. There shall be no Alternative Path beyond the 2011 MY. 

250. Comment: ARB’s proposal did not appropriately handle the elimination of the 

LFCE allowance. In an effort to simplify the regulation, ARB incorporated the 

PHEV LFCE allowance into the advanced componentry allowing for a Type F 

hybrid, which is set at 0.85. ARB did not make a similar adjustment for a Type E 

hybrid. Therefore, a “blended operation” Type E PHEV gets no credit for using 

low fuel cycle emissions energy from the grid. The purpose of the LFCE 

allowance was to account for the low fuel cycle energy from the grid, which is 

similar to the purpose of the Zero Emission VMT allowance, which accounts for 

the equivalent all-electric range delivered from the low fuel cycle energy from the 

grid. Thus, the LFCE allowance of 0.15 should be incorporated into the ZeroEmission VMT allowance, rather than the Type F advanced componentry 

Allowance. The Type F advanced componentry allowance could be reduced 

such that the effective total PHEV credit would be the same as ARB’s proposed 

total credit. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: ARB made its best effort to simplify the regulation when 

possible. ARB considered the proposal to incorporate the LFCE allowance into 

the VMT allowance alone, but chose instead to increase credit for both VMT and 

advanced componentry. The net result is a substantial increase – as much as a 

2X the former value for Type E blended hybrids. ARB believes that Type F and 

G hybrids will offer significant additional reduction in carbon-fuel use due to their 

higher power capability because they will avoid engine starts altogether with very 

short trips, and that the proposed allowances reflect this significant 

environmental benefit. 
116

251. Comment: The elimination of the fuel-fired heater provision may lead to a 

program that cannot be adopted for other states. Climates in the Northeast can 

be very cold. Because battery EVs are an option to meet the ZEV regulations, 

and because the “travel provision” is eliminated for battery EVs in the 2014 MY, it 

is important to consider the climatic conditions in these states before eliminating 

the fuel-fired heater provisions. To the extent that ARB wants these rules to be 

workable elsewhere, ARB should retain the fuel-fired heater provisions in the 

existing regulations. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: Alternatives to fuel-fired heaters for colder climates are 

available. For example, grid electricity may be used to maintain battery 

temperature or to pre-heat a vehicle while it is still on-tether. This is already 

done in a similar manner with engine block heaters in the coldest parts of the 

United States. ARB eliminated the fuel-fired heater provision because current 

demonstration ZEVs, particularly fuel cell vehicles, do not utilize a fuel-fired 

heater and it promotes better air quality. 

252. Comment: Expanding the use of zero emission technology into different 

applications helps in the commercialization of the technology. Therefore the 

existing regulation on specialty ZEVs should be retained. (Ford) 

 Agency Response: The ZEV regulation continues to encourage broad 

application of ZEV technology by giving credits to medium duty ZEVs, although 

this category is not in calculating the manufacturer’s obligations. The addition of 

an intermediate range ZEV category also helps to encourage commercialization 

of some former “specialty” EVs by providing them with additional credit than they 

would have received prior to the 2008 rulemaking. 

253. Comment: Toyota strongly supports the staff’s proposal to extend the availability 

of transportation system credits, but also to continue to include other advanced 

technologies in the “mix” beyond ZEVs alone. These integrated systems could 

also serve as an excellent avenue for other ZEV technologies, particularly 

PHEVs. (Toyota) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the extension of 

transportation system credits. ARB also made modifications that allow Enhanced 

AT PZEVs to earn credit in transportation system programs. 

254. Comment: The ZEV regulations account for credit in g/mi NMOG. Because 

PC/LDT1s and LDT2s have a different fleet average, a different g/mi NMOG 

credit should be earned for a PC/LDT1 versus an LDT2. If a manufacturer 

introduces an LDT2 that qualifies for ZEV credit, that vehicle should earn credit 

based on the LDT2 fleet average NMOG regardless of where it is before or after 

2009 MY. (Ford) 
117

 Agency Response: ARB promotes vehicles up to 8,500 gross vehicle weight 

(GVW) meeting a single NMOG emission standard. ARB believes the abovesuggested change is not in line with this direction. For the purposes of the ZEV 

regulation, it is appropriate for a single NMOG average to be used in determining 

a manufacturer’s credit earned. 

Part III. Regulatory Impact Comments 

Comments grouped in this section refer to the impacts of Staff’s suggested 

modifications to the ZEV regulation. 

A. Economic Impacts 

255. Comment: The citation and reference to the EPRI research report entitled 

“Comparing the Benefits and Impacts of Hybrid Electric Options for Compact 

Sedan and Sport Utility Vehicles” should be deleted from the analysis contained 

in the ISOR. The numbers presented in the ISOR do not line up with EPRI 

report, nor do the referenced parameters (production year, annual volume or 

vehicle class). (EPRI) 

Agency Response: The estimates for hybrid costs found in Table 6.1 were not 

intended to be consistent with the EPRI report due to differences in production 

volume and timing. Rather, the EPRI report was used to better understand the 

technical and cost issues surrounding hybridization of motor vehicles. Staff 

realized that the volumes identified in the EPRI report were for a higher 

production volume than required by the proposed regulatory changes but used 

those estimates as a starting point for estimating lower volumes. As indicated in 

the staff report, projecting future costs for new vehicle types and technologies is 

subject to great uncertainty. Using the EPRI report allowed staff to make more 

informed projections. 

256. Comment: The staff recommendation is disturbing since in essence, not only 

would it substantially weaken the ZEV program, but it will also bestow a financial 

windfall on rich foreign automakers and domestic giants while at once penalizing 

a California based ZEV manufacturer. This untenable proposition is not only 

illogical but in fact contravenes both the letter and the spirit of the State’s own 

code (sections 11346.3 and 11346.5 of the Government Code). (Tavill, Tesla) 

 Agency Response: The Board agreed with the commenter and directed the staff 

to modify the minimum floor for zero emission vehicle production from 2,500 

vehicles to 7,500 vehicles. 

257. Comment: The economic analysis described in the staff report does not appear 

to address the economic concerns of vehicle owners. A dual power train (both 

battery and ICE) will require somewhat more maintenance and thus more 
118

expense for myself. While economic effects on business are important, the fact 

remains that business exists only to meet customers’ needs. (Strand) 

 Agency Response: Overall, ARB believes vehicle maintenance costs will 

decrease, because electric drive trains have less moving parts than ICEs. Also, 

see response to Comment 258. 

258. Comment: ICEs require various toxic substances such as lubricating oil, so 

reduction in their sale and use will reduce the widespread distribution and 

pollution due to these substances. This consideration should be included in the 

economic analysis, even though much of the pollution thus produced isn’t air 

pollution. (Strand) 

 Agency Response: Both under the regulations before the 2008 rulemaking and 

under the 2008 rulemaking amendments to the ZEV program the production 

numbers for ZEVs are in the phase-in period to commercialization. Under the 

2008 rulemaking the Board’s amendments would replace 7,500 vehicles, rather 

than 25,000 vehicles with internal combustion engines, with ZEVs. The impact of 

this change is not significant when compared with the annual sales of over 1.8 

million vehicles in California and the current California fleet of approximately 20 

millions vehicles, the vast majority of which are ICE vehicles. 

259. Comment: EVs do not pay any transportation infrastructure taxes, which means 

they wear out our roads without paying their fair share of construction and 

maintenance costs. (Harralson) 

 Agency Response: While EVs do not use gasoline and therefore, do not pay 

state and federal gasoline taxes that contribute to highway and road 

maintenance, EVs will pay annual California vehicle registration and licensing 

fees, a portion of which goes to highway and road maintenance 

260. Comment: Citing 2003 battery cost estimates and projected 2012 to 2014 fuel 

cell costs to determine the incremental cost of each technology paints an 

inaccurate economic scenario that biases the reader against plug-in vehicles. 

(Clifford, Greer, Hoffner, Medvecky, Pease, PIA, RAN, SEVA, Synergy) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 255. 

261. Comment: Manufacturers are facing severe challenges due to the economy and 

cannot afford to lose anything approaching $25,000 per vehicle for such a large 

quantity of vehicles. [PHEVs] These costs cannot be spread over all the vehicles 

we sell because those vehicles would no longer be competitive with similar 

market entries offered by small and intermediate manufacturers not subject to the 

ZEV mandate. (Ford) 
119

Agency Response: ARB does not agree with the claim of $25,000 additional cost 

per vehicle in large quantities, and this cost is also inconsistent with product 

plans for other automotive manufacturers indicating plans to break even or profit 

as they transition to large quantities of PHEVs. Manufacturers are not required 

to produce PHEVs; rather it is one production option under the ZEV regulation to 

meet the ZEV requirement. 

262. Comment: Since CARB’s proposal significantly reduces the number of pure 

ZEVs required, automaker costs of compliance are reduced. CARB should 

require that these savings are put back into vehicle technologies, such as plug-in 

hybrids. (ALA, CEERT, CCA, EIN, FOE, NRDC, Sierra, UCS) 

 Recapture the $6 billion investment that was planned for fuel cell vehicles. (ALA, 

CEERT, CCA, EIN) 

 Agency Response: The ISOR shows the incremental cost of staff’s proposed 

changes over the existing requirement. These costs do not account for the entire 

cost of the program. The ZEV program will continue to require large investments 

from manufacturers. 

263. Comment: Reducing the Phase III Gold Floor from 25,000 to 2,500 vehicles 

would eliminate $163 million from potential hydrogen infrastructure suppliers, and 

$68 million of revenue from potential fuel cell stack and hydrogen storage 

suppliers. The proposal also reduces the investment in battery suppliers during 

Phase III by a factor of $10 to $15 million. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, 

NRDC, UCS) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board set the minimum production 

number of ZEVs at 7,500, rather than 25,000 as ARB staff had proposed. The 

increased minimum production number is anticipated to sustain demand at a 

commensurably increased level for ZEV component and infrastructure suppliers. 

264. Comment: Look at the total life cycle cost when evaluating battery EVs. (SEVA) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. At this time, life cycle costs for a 

production battery EV are not available. In developing the ISOR economic 

analysis, ARB used information available, meaning pre-commercial production 

estimates. As information becomes available in future rulemakings, ARB will 

work to use life cycle costs in this analysis. 

B. Environmental Impacts 

265. Comment: As an IVM in 2012, 60 percent of our volume sold in California would 

be PZEV vehicles. As a large volume manufacturer our combined PZEV and AT 

PZEV percentage would drop to less than 40 percent in 2012. Thus the change 

in BMW’s manufacturer status would have the effect of increasing its average 
120

fleet emissions, counting added evaporative and NOx exhaust emissions. 

(BMW) 

 

 Volkswagen is far cleaner than the NMOG fleet average currently required in 

California’s LEV regulations. As a large manufacturer, the required volume for 

PZEV vehicles drops to 30 percent of the California fleet, a significant reduction 

in clean and affordable vehicles. (VW) 

Agency Response: While becoming an LVM would reduce the number of PZEVs 

required from a manufacturer, the manufacturer would start producing ZEVs, 

which are the focus of this ZEV regulation. Additionally, in the 2012 through 

2014 MYs, 88 percent of a manufacturer’s vehicles will continue to meet the 

average fleet emissions or NMOG requirements under ARB regulations (see 

California Code of Regulations, title 13, section 1961). The total ZEV 

requirement in the 2012 through 2014 MYs is 12 percent. Within the 12 percent, 

the LVM may choose to produce between 12 and 0.79 percent ZEVs, with other 

credited vehicles backfilling production if less than 12 percent ZEV production is 

the option. For further details, see section 1962.1(b)(2)(D)3. 

266. Comment: You are not going to make an impact on air quality with a few 

hundred cars – you need thousands. (Pohorsky) 

The CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the 2008 Proposed 

Amendments to the ZEV Program will not produce enough progress in reducing 

criteria pollutants and GHGs. The staff proposal by 2017 would eliminate only 

one-fifth of the smog-forming emissions from tailpipes that doom thousands of 

people to lung disease and death. We can and should do better. The proposal 

would eliminate an average of only 291,000 tons/year of GHGs through 2017 

compared with today. California needs more than 200 times that amount of 

progress to meet its 2020 goals for GHG reductions from vehicle emissions. 

(Sierra) 

 It is not acceptable to make the ZEV Program so lenient that four-fifths of the 

amount of smog-forming emissions produced by today’s cars will still be allowed 

in 2017, especially when the technology for ZEV commercialization is ready. 

(Sierra) 

We need more than 200 times the average of only 291,000 tons/year by 2017 

that would be eliminated by the proposed change in the ZEV program. (Seal) 

 The proposed amendments weaken our State’s ability to end our dependence on 

oil which poses a threat to our national, environmental, and economic security. 

(AJC) 

 Agency Response: Comments noted. The Board views greater emissions 

benefits from the ZEV regulation being realized in the long term. The 2008 
121

modifications increase emissions benefit, as noted in the ISOR on pages 37 and 

38, while accounting for the current state of ZEV technology. ZEV 

commercialization will be hampered if manufacturers are required to produce a 

technology before it had proven reliability and durability. The Board made 

modifications necessary for the near term, in order to phase-in and ensure ZEV 

commercialization in future years. Also, as vehicle technologies mature in the 

ZEV program, the technologies are likely to be pulled in the LEV program, setting 

new fleet standards and giving California the greatest emission benefits. 

267. Comment: Continue to push for ZEVs in an effort to reduce GHG enmissions 

[sic], and reduce fuel consumption. (Baragona) 

EVs and PHEVs have the potential to significantly reduce our CO2 emission 

footprint from the transportation sector which is currently responsible for 42 

percent of California’s emissions. EVs and PHEVs have the additional benefit of 

reducing the trade deficit. (CalCars) 

I support an agenda to reduce GHG emissions in order for us and our future 

generations at least the same (if not better) quality of life in the future. The most 

promising way to reach this goal is to give consumers the choice to buy ZEVs or 

PHEVs. (Chaudhary) 

The ZEV regulation is a down payment to meeting 2020 and 2050 AB 32 goals. 

(Friedland) 

Reducing our dependence on petrolem [sic] products by use of renewable 

sources would help with a variety of problems that are facing the United States. 

(Holroyd) 

We need to look at our Pavley goals for 2050 which calls for rather dramatic 

reductions in GHG. (Killian) 

Please make the greatest effort to reduce GHG emissions by requiring more 

electric cars and/or any ZEVs to be manufactured by automakers. (Love) 

 The haunting trajectory of GHG emissions and the current impact of petroleum 

addiction on our pocketbooks and politics demands for ZEVs for others clamoring 

for choice. (SFEVA) 

 Agency Response: ARB agrees with these comments. ARB sees the ZEV 

regulation aids in achieving the Board’s long term environmental goals. 

However, at this time, the ZEV regulation is not a GHG emission reduction 

program. 
122

268. Comment: Even 25,000 seems like too low of a number to really push the auto 

industry to do their part to improve air quality and reduce CO2 emissions. 

(Saxton) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. See responses to Comments 8 and 267. 

269. Comment: This is a critical time for California to focus on strengthening the ZEV 

program, not weakening it. It is especially important, given the EPA’s denial of 

the California Clean Cars (AB1493 – Pavley) waiver and the critical need for 

additional pollution emission reductions to meet SIP goals. (ALA, CEERT, CCA, 

EIN) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB sees the ZEV program as being vital 

in meeting all of the Board long term environmental goals. California will 

experience an emission benefit from the 2008 rulemaking, due to the inclusion of 

Enhanced AT PZEVs. However, at this time, the ZEV regulation is not a GHG 

emission reduction program. 

270. Comment: The commenter gave specific recommendations on important actions 

for the prevention of global warming. (Cree) 

 The commenter spoke about the potential of solar-charged EVs and its potential 

to reduce CO2 emissions. The commenter supported their claims with charts 

and graphs explaining in detail the relationship between solar charged EVs and 

AB 32. (ASES) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB appreciates the suggestions in 

meeting its other program goals, but these comments are outside of the scope of 

the 2008 rulemaking for ZEVs. 

271. Comment: The Enhanced AT PZEVs for ZEV trade-off does not go far enough to 

make up for the foregone zero-emission vehicles simply because the South 

Coast Air Basin needs emission reductions now, not over a 150,000 mile vehicle 

lifetime. (SCAQMD) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. See responses to Comments 8 and 265. 

272. Comment: The ZEV mandate is a critical piece of dealing with smog and oil 

addiction. (W. Korthof) 

 Agency Response: ARB concurs with this comment. The Board believes the 

ZEV mandate is essential to meeting ARB’s near term and long term 

environmental goals. 

273. Comment: In the section of the ISOR labeled “Effect of Proposed Amendments,” 

it states, “the ZEV program continues to provide positive air quality impacts as 
123

compared to no program.” Is this really a standard against which the program 

should be compared? Is better than nothing really what we as Californians 

expect from our government and ourselves? (Tramiel) 

Agency Response: The ZEV program acts as an incubator for new technologies 

that will later be moved into fleet-wide emission average programs such as the 

LEV and Pavley programs. It is in these programs that commercially viable ZEVs 

and Enhanced AT PZEVs will have the greatest emission benefit in California. 

Vehicles currently in the ZEV program continue to need development before 

reaching commercialization levels of production, meaning the volumes are much 

less and the near term emission benefits from the program are minimal. The 

ISOR (page 37) environmental impacts are determined for 2020 and 2030, 

assuming success of the ZEV program, using ARB’s mobile emissions inventory 

modeling program (EMFAC). The ISOR (page 38) shows the benefits realized 

from the 2008 rulemaking. Compared to the preexisting ZEV regulations, the 

Board expects that the amendments will result in a net lifetime emissions benefit 

of approximately 5,000 tons reactive organic gases plus oxides of nitrogen 

(ROG + NOx). This emission benefit is due to Enhanced AT PZEVs being 

included as an option for manufacturers to produce. Compared to having no 

ZEV program, the amendments are expected to reduce approximately 14 and 

15.5 tons per day of ROG + NOx in 2020 and 2030, respectively, in the South 

Coast Air Basin. 

274. Comment: The commenter mentioned a report detailing the relation between a 

successful ZEV regulation in California and public health. The mentioned report 

detailed a full fuel cycle emission benefit analysis and benefit to society analysis 

of converting California’s existing motor vehicle fleet to pure ZEVs. The 

commenter went on to explain that the report also detailed the emission benefits 

and benefits to society of an increased number of PHEVs on the road. (ALA) 

 Agency Response: The report mentioned by the commenter was not submitted 

to the Board during the 45-day comment period. Neither staff nor the Board 

proposed converting California’s fleet to 100 percent ZEVs. The amendments 

adjust the number of ZEVs introduced in the near term and allow manufacturers 

greater flexibility in complying with the ZEV requirements. The amendments do, 

however, provide an emission benefit, as mentioned in the response to 

Comment 273. The ISOR also explained the environmental benefits of the 

amendments on pages 37 and 38. 

C. Impacts to Small Businesses 

275. Comment: The staff proposals enacted will have a severe negative impact on 

Tesla, the only car maker based in California, since having the ability to sell the 

accumulated ZEV rights mitigates in part some of the large costs incurred by the 

company in the development of a pure ZEV car. (Tavill, Tesla) 
124

 Allow homegrown companies like Tesla to flourish under the ZEV program. 

(Olenski) 

 Agency Response: The 2008 modifications do not impose any hindrance to 

small volume manufacturers, such as Tesla. By being a manufacturer not 

mandated to produce and sell ZEVs, small volume manufacturers may produce 

ZEVs and sell earned credits to other manufacturers needing to comply with the 

ZEV requirements. 

COMMENTS PRESENTED DURING THE FIRST POST-BOARD HEARING 

COMMENT PERIOD 

Part IV. Non-Specific Regulatory Comments 

Comments grouped in this section generally responded to the modifications made 

available July 25 through August 15, 2008; the comments do not specifically address 

the ZEV regulation. Other comments in this section refer to parts of the regulation 

which were not modified in this rulemaking. 

A. General Support 

1. Comment: General support for the proposed 15-day modifications. 

 (NESCAUM) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the post-Board 

 Hearing modifications. 

B. General Opposition 

2. Comment: This regulation will not meet the goal of the CARB. (Bohanon) 

Agency Response: ARB does not agree with this comment. The post-Board 

Hearing modifications will continue the ZEV regulation toward meeting CARB’s 

environmental goals and further ZEVs toward commercialization. 

3. Comment: ARB received requests to not amend the ZEV regulation. 

(Kulongoski) 

Agency Response: Overall, the Board’s modifications to the ZEV regulation 

strengthen the program and will help with the successful commercialization of 

ZEVs. The Panel concluded that fuel cell and battery technology was not ready 

for the requirements in the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. The Board’s 

amendments maintain pressure on the auto manufacturers to continue in their 

R&D, without requiring mass commercialization before the technology is ready. 
125

4. Comment: ARB received comments in opposition to the Board’s actions, 

insisting these actions weakened the mandate. (Davies, D. Korthof, Power, 

Trudeau) 

Agency Response: ARB does not agree with this statement. The Board’s 

modifications strengthen the ZEV regulation, mandating a realistic yet stringent 

pure ZEV requirement, and limit provisions in the ZEV regulation that have 

historically lead to large banking of credits. In particular, the LVMs’ banked 

credits are limited to use for requirements that may be met with credits from 

Enhanced AT PZEVs, AT PZEVs, and PZEVs. See section 1962.1(g)(6)(B). 

5. Comment: Waiting until 2015 and requiring very few vehicles on the road will not 

accomplish what we need and that will only serve to reduce the long term 

effectiveness of CARB and hurt the State of California. (PIA) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. However, requiring too many ZEVs, not 

currently ready for commercialization could also lead to market failure. The 

Board’s modification to the pure number of ZEVs required in the near term, 

increasing the ZEV floor to 7,500 pure ZEVs in the 2012 through 2014 MYs, 

maintains pressure on OEMs to produce a larger number of ZEVs, while taking 

into account the current state and cost of battery EV and fuel cell technology. 

C. General Requests to the Board 

6. Comment: ARB received comments requesting that the Board do the right thing, 

do something, force automakers to produce ZEVs, continue with a strong ZEV 

program or strengthen the ZEV requirements, pass ZEV regulations, make ZEVs 

and Enhanced AT PZEVs easy to obtain. (Connor, Cox, Davies, Elliott, 

Faulkner, Foster, Gillock, Glatman, Jan, Marion, McCurdy, Munson, Nater, 

Orndorff, Pritt, Tesla, J. Webster, L. Webster, Yoney) 

Agency Response: As a result of the ZEV program, over 4,000 battery electric 

and fuel cell vehicles have traveled California’s roads over the past 15 years. 

The Board’s most recent amendments to the ZEV regulation will continue to 

stimulate the development and production of ZEVs. 

7. Comment: ARB received several comments in support of ZEVs, of the 

commenter’s individual experiences with ZEVs or desires to own ZEVs. (Elliott, 

Foster, Kulongoski, Rahm, Roche) 

Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 rulemaking supports ZEV development 

and commercialization while taking into account technology feasibility and cost. 

8. Comment: ARB received several comments insisting that ZEVs, particularly 

battery EV technology is ready today. (D. Korthof, Kulongoski, Orndorff, 

J. Webster, L. Webster) 
126

Agency Response: While many ZEV types have demonstrated technological 

feasibility, the ZEV regulation must also consider the cost effectiveness of these 

vehicles. Much was learned from these early-introduction battery EVs, and the 

next generation will benefit greatly from the resulting improvements so that costeffective battery EVs are now expected to be produced in the very near future. 

ARB agrees that battery EVs are ready for limited production and is assuming 

that most ZEVs to be built to comply with the regulation in the next decade may 

be battery EVs. However, ARB recognizes that battery EVs still face 

considerable engineering, charging infrastructure, and marketability challenges, 

and that they cannot be expected to demonstrate the same degree of sales 

growth as PHEVs will in the 2014 and beyond timeframe. Even if battery EVs do 

not become a dominant vehicle technology, they are still expected to play a key 

role in California’s future, and ARB will continue to encourage their deployment in 

every way possible. 

9. Comment: ARB received comments urging the Board to not water down the 

current mandates. (Roche, Swennes) 

Agency Response: Overall, the Board’s actions strengthen the ZEV program. 

The Board’s modifications increased to 7,500 – the number of pure ZEVs 

required in the 2012 to 2014 MYs. The 2008 modifications provide for more 

equal treatment of battery EVs, create new ZEV types that recognize 

improvements in battery EV and fuel cell vehicle technology, include provisions 

to ensure the placement of the most technologically advanced NEVs and limit 

historical and future banking of NEV credits, and include a travel provision which 

ensure section 177 states the most commercially available vehicles in the ZEV 

program, AT PZEVs and PZEVs. 

10. Comment: CARB needs to apply the rule fairly. Without such a provision, I 

 believe this proposed rule is unfairly singling out PZEVs. (Jungreis) 

Agency Response: ARB believes the 2008 rulemaking as modified continues to 

allow manufacturers to fulfill their ZEV requirement with ZEVs, AT PZEVs, and 

PZEVs. 

11. Comment: To end this program in 2008 is to forfeit the future of our 

 children. (Gillock) 

Agency Response: For simplicity, ARB broke the regulations into two separate 

sections: a regulation (section 1962) applying to the 2005 through 2008 MYs, 

and a regulation (Section 1962.1) applying to the 2009 and subsequent MYs. 

ARB has no intention of ending the regulation in the 2008 MY. 

12. Comment: Opposition to the lack of expediency in this subject. (Glatman) 
127

 Regulations ought to be put into effect as soon as possible, without delay. 

 (Rahm) 

Agency Response: ARB must complete the full rulemaking process, and has up 

to one year from the release date of the ISOR to file the final rulemaking package 

with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). ARB will work to complete this 

process as soon as possible. 

 

13. Comment: As a consumer, I want to have the choice to use cleaner, cheaper, 

domestic electricity to power my car. It is time for CARB to do everything in its 

power to advance plug-in cars, including plug-in hybrids and all-electric battery 

cars. Grid-connected cars can make an extraordinary contribution to reducing 

toxic and GHG emissions and lowering our dependence on petroleum. The ZEV 

mandate has already proven the technological and economic viability of allelectric cars. CARB should do everything possible to expedite and facilitate the 

availability of electric cars and plug-in hybrids. (Form Letter #9) 

Agency Response: The 2008 modifications allow manufacturers to produce 

Enhanced AT PZEVs, including PHEVs, to meet their ZEV requirement in 

complying with the regulation in the 2012 MY and beyond. ARB concurs that 

these vehicles are important in meeting ARB’s long term environmental goals 

and has provided for additional credit for their use in 2012 and later MYs when 

used in transportation systems. See section 1962.1(g)(5)(B). 

14. Comment: Please stop passing onerous and unnecessary regulations on electric 

cars. Make it easy for manufacturers to get them on the roads. (Glener) 

Agency Response: No response is necessary as this comment does not address 

the modifications to the regulations. 

15. Comment: Do not allow another electric car to be killed. (J. Webster, L. 

 Webster) 

Agency Response: No response is necessary as this comment does not address 

the modifications to the regulations. 

16. Comment: What is sorely needed is for CARB to change tack completely. It 

needs to simply assure that citizens are given every option available, and then let 

the free market work its magic. More specifically, it needs to forget about 

percentages (like before) or numbers and different colors of “credits” (like now). 

The ZEV mandate should simply require that, by 2012, the franchised dealers of 

all the major auto manufacturers licensed in California ...must comply with these 

stipulations: They must have a ZEV vehicle in their showrooms, and at least two 

more on the lot for customers to test drive at any time, ...capable of a top speed 

of no less than 80 mph, ...emissions-free range of no less than 100 miles, must 

meet federal safety standards, ...must cost no more than 125 percent of the 
128

average base price of all the models in the same “class” sold by the parent 

company in the previous year. (Larsen) 

 Agency Response: ARB is constrained by law to consider the costs of the 

technologies it is requiring, and while many ZEV technologies are now technically 

feasible and can be seen in demonstration programs, our research had not yet 

indicated that ZEV technology can be implemented in the 2012 timeframe with a 

cost increase over conventional vehicles of only 25 percent. The least expensive 

and most feasible near-term ZEV technology, the battery EV, will likely exceed 

the proposed 125 percent cost limit even with a driving range of only 50 to 75 

miles. Additionally, ARB does not believe that demanding a minimum of 100 

miles of emission-free range is necessary for commuters who have more modest 

driving requirements and who cannot afford to purchase the additional battery 

required for a 100-mile range that they might seldom make use of. ARB believes 

that the current percent requirements will bring modest numbers of ZEVs and 

ZEV technology vehicles to market, and that once consumers are exposed to 

them, that market demand will be a key ingredient in driving towards higher 

volume sales. 

D. Fuel Cell Technology 

17. Comment: ARB received comments in general opposition to hydrogen. 

 (Lange, Marion) 

 

No special credit should be given to hydrogen-powered vehicles. (Kulongoski) 

Agency Response: ARB supports the use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to meet 

the ZEV regulation because these vehicles produce zero criteria, GHG and toxic 

emissions during vehicle operation. Another benefit to the citizens and the State 

of California is the opportunity to produce hydrogen from multiple domestic 

resources thereby reducing petroleum dependence. 

The Board sees promise in both battery EV and fuel cell vehicle technology, and 

views both as part of the California’s future vehicle fleet. Hydrogen fuel cell and 

battery EVs both operate with zero emissions; if another fuel technology could 

operate a vehicle this way, then the fuel would also be included into the 

regulation with minimum performance criteria. Both battery EVs and fuel cell 

vehicles have the potential to have zero upstream emissions. Both also have 

technology and infrastructure challenges that need to be overcome before they 

are commercially viable. 

E. Overall Regulatory Structure 

18. Comment: All major automobile manufacturers must produce for sale in 

California X (large number) amount of EVs. Just start with this one item. Don’t 
129

worry about hybrids or hydrogen, nor credits, etc. These are attempts to resist 

change. (Bohanon) 

Agency Response: The ZEV regulation provides a performance standard – zero 

emissions. The regulation then permits a manufacturer to choose the type of 

ZEV to produce to meet the pure ZEV requirement. Additionally, other 

technologies, such as HEVs, are given partial credit as an option for 

manufacturers to produce to meet their requirements. These options allow 

manufacturers to produce less expensive ZEV enabling technologies as well as 

fulfill pure ZEV requirements. 

19. Comment: Set the minimum ZEV requirements on a yearly basis rather than for 

three years, thus preventing manufacturers from getting an additional three-year 

grace period and eliminating “blackout” years. A consistent, steady regulatory 

environment is the single best thing the CARB can provide for the clean energy 

sector. (Fermi, Form Letter #10, Jan, Tesla) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. Many of the 2008 modifications move the 

ZEV requirements to yearly requirements in the 2012 and subsequent MYs. 

Methods for determining a manufacturer’s ZEV requirement have been adjusted 

to become rolling averages, rather than set MY averages. Also, percentages for 

the 2012 MY and beyond represent yearly pure ZEV requirements rather than 

period requirements. However, ARB realizes that manufacturers are still 

demonstrating ZEV technologies, and may want to focus their compliance for 

pure ZEV requirements in single years, and would carry-forward credits earned 

to subsequent MYs. 

20. Comment: Keep it simple. Give unexpiring credits to auto manufacturers for 

California DMV registered ZEV only sales to residents of California. (Bradley) 

Agency Response: ARB has designed the ZEV regulation to account for certain 

historical trends. Unexpiring ZEV credits do not encourage placements of new 

ZEVs in California. Also, ARB believes there is validity to small scale advanced 

demonstration programs, which do not require vehicles to register with the DMV. 

These programs allow manufacturers to test and validate emerging technologies. 

21. Comment: ARB received comments suggesting Enhanced AT PZEVs merit their 

own support and should not come at the expense of ZEVs. (Jan, 

Assemblymember Ruskin, Tesla, Trudeau) 

Agency Response: ARB believes that the Enhanced AT PZEV category is an 

intermediate step towards pure ZEV production. However, some manufacturers 

may not want or need to produce Enhance AT PZEV technology, especially if the 

manufacturer has a commitment to fuel cell vehicle development programs. 

Additionally, PZEVs and AT PZEVs do not have separate requirements in the 

ZEV program, but rather also act as a backfill to the full ZEV requirement. A 
130

separate category for any one of these enabling technologies may be considered 

in future rulemakings that the Board has requested to refocus the ZEV regulation 

on pure ZEV technologies. 

F. Future ZEV Revisions 

22. Comment: I fully expect CARB’s 2014 redesign of the ZEV program to reflect an 

aggressive effort to meet our 2020 and 2050 emission reduction targets. 

(Assemblymember Ruskin) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB intends to reshape the regulations, 

focusing solely on the pure ZEV requirement to become effective in meeting the 

Board’s long term environmental goals. 

23. Comment: Complete the 2015 and later review by the end of 2010 calendar 

year to allow sufficient time for product and production planning. (Toyota) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB will stay within the Board’s directed 

timeline stated in Resolution 08-24. Staff will return to the Board with a proposal 

by the end of 2009. 

G. Miscellaneous 

24. Comment: ARB received requests to close the loopholes in the regulation. 

(Kulongoski)

Have the staff review and address the nine potential loopholes. (UCS) 

Agency Response: Comments noted. The Board directed staff to review a 

comment submitted by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 

titled “2008 Proposed Solutions to Potential Loopholes in the Amendments to the 

California Zero Emission Vehicle Program Regulation, Agenda Item 08-3-5”, and 

make modifications to the regulation if necessary. ARB resolved the loopholes 

that the Board felt was threat to the goals of the ZEV regulation. Please see 

Attachment C to the Notice of Availability of Modified Text, released July 25, 

2008. 

25. Comment: Emphasis should be placed on near-term implementation, not 

technologies that are still in R&D stages or otherwise have significant barriers to 

adoption. This suggests that technologies with existing infrastructure and/or 

home refueling capability receive extra credit for their potential to deliver 

measurable air quality benefits sooner. (PIA) 

Agency Response: The Board modified the credit structure by adding a Type G 

advanced componentry allowance, awarded to vehicles using enabling near-term 

technologies. See section 1962.1(c)(4)(B)8. ARB believes both near term and 
131

future ZEV technologies will be important in meeting long term program and 

environmental goals. 

26. Comment: CARB must begin to treat all ZEV vehicles equally with respect 

 to funding and personnel, establishing battery electric and PHEV and 

 infrastructure programs, with funding and incentives equal to those of 

 hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure or vehicle programs. (PIA) 

Agency Response: ARB supports R&D programs for all ZEV technologies. 

 

27. Comment: ARB received specific recommendations on important action for the 

prevention of global warming. (Cree)

Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB appreciates the suggestions in 

meeting its other program goals; however, this comment is outside the scope of 

this rulemaking. 

Part V. Regulatory Comments 

Comments grouped in this section responded to specific changes made available in 

Staff’s first notice of post-Board Hearing modifications, released July 25 through 

August 15, 2008. 

A. Pure ZEV Requirement 

28. Comment: ARB received comments in opposition to the Board’s reduction of the 

number of ZEVs required or for the Board to not amend the original number of 

ZEVs required. (Connor, Cox, Assemblymember Ruskin, Ward, Warren) 

ARB received several requests to increase the number of ZEVs required. (Cox, 

Form Letter #10, Fermi, Harman, Hoke, Jan, Roche, Tesla, Yoney) 

 

 ARB received comments insisting the pure ZEV requirement is too lenient, to 

reconsider their decision. (Aller, Hoke, Jan, Orndorff, Assemblymember Ruskin, 

Tesla, Trudeau, Verma, J. Webster, L. Webster) 

 

 I strongly urge you to reinstate the mandate of 25,000 pure ZEV vehicles by 

2014. (Assemblymember Ruskin, Trudeau) 

Agency Response: The pure ZEV requirement was one of the more contentious 

issues during this rulemaking process. The Board’s modifications require 

generation of credits equal to a minimum of 7,500 Type IV ZEVs during the 2012 

through 2014 timeframe and require generation of credits equal to a minimum of 

25,000 Type IV ZEV during the 2015 through 2017 timeframe. If a manufacturer 

were to produce a Type I, Type I.5, Type II, or Type III ZEV, more ZEVs would 
132

need to be produced relative to the number of Type IV ZEV required. The 

Board’s modifications also allow manufacturers flexibility in meeting the 

requirement, allowing them to fully meet their ZEV obligation with pure ZEVs, or 

with a combination of Enhanced AT PZEVs and pure ZEVs. ARB believes the 

number of pure ZEVs required is appropriate in recognition of current 

technological and cost barriers. Additionally, the Board directed staff to redesign 

the ZEV regulation in a future rulemaking, focusing mainly on the pure ZEV 

requirements, meaning future ZEV requirements could be modified. Also, see 

the response to Comment 30. 

29. Comment: At minimum, the ZEV requirements of 11 percent in 2009 to 2011, 12 

percent in 2012 to 2014, 14 percent in 2015 to 2017, and 16 percent in 2018 and 

beyond should be sustained. (Foster) 

Agency Response: The 2008 rulemaking did not amend the basic ZEV 

requirements in the regulation. The ZEV Requirement remain 12 percent for the 

2012 through 2014 MYs, 14 percent for the 2015 through 2017 MYs, and 16 

percent for the 2018 and subsequent MYs. Rather, the 2008 amendments affect 

the Alternative Path for the LVMs to meet these production percentages by 

replacing the Alternative Path with the New Path. The New Path retains the 

percentage pure ZEVs required and includes Enhanced AT PZEVs as an option 

in meeting the requirement. 

30. Comment: 7,500 ZEVs per manufacturer is too few. Require 12,500 ZEVs. 

(Kulongoski) 

Agency Response: Dependent on the Type of ZEV used to fulfill the pure ZEV 

requirement, manufacturers could provide over 18,000 ZEVs during the 2012 

through 2014 timeframe. The Board believes it is appropriate to require 7,500 

Type IV ZEVs, but if all the LVMs chose to meet the pure ZEV requirement with 

Type I ZEVs, 18,500 Type I ZEVs would be required. 

31. Comment: ARB received comments urging faster implementation of the ZEV 

goals, and more ambitious pure ZEV requirements. (Verma) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 1. 

32. Comment: ARB received comments urging the Board to return to the 

 original mandate. (Harman, Cox) 

 Agency Response: The original ZEV mandate required 2 percent of a 

manufacturer’s production be pure ZEVs by 1998, increasing to 10 percent by 

2003. 10 percent of all new vehicle production would be close to 140,000 ZEVs 

per year from the LVMs. Current ZEV technology would not be able to 

successfully meet this volume. The Board adopted the most appropriate pure 
133

ZEV requirement for the upcoming timeframes, taking into account the current 

state of technology and costs. 

 

33. Comment: Such a sharp reduction in pure ZEVs undermines the very purpose of 

the program – it weakens the push for technology. More importantly, it 

destabilizes the certainty in future technology markets that is essential to attract 

investment, forge partnerships, and create the infrastructure necessary to propel 

those new innovations from smaller scale demonstration into the commercial 

market. Requiring only 7,500 ZEVs by 2014 will not be enough on the front end 

to meet long term goals. Even if the Board intends to hasten the pace for ZEVs 

when it redesigns the ZEV program for 2014 and beyond, the sharp reduction in 

ZEVs now will stifle investment and momentum that we will need in 2014. The 

recent changes essentially pull the rug out from under the efforts from EV 

manufacturers and suppliers based in California. (Assemblymember Ruskin) 

Reducing the number of ZEVs required, yet again, will not accomplish any CARB 

goal. The current proposal would require less than an average of 500 ZEVs per 

year from any individual automaker until 2015 – few enough that several 

automakers can use banked credit for most of the next decade to meet this 

requirement. Those with fewer banked credits can easily accomplish these 

numbers through credit trading with small automaker, like Tesla. Worse, the 

lower numbers ensure that ZEVs will never leave hand built production volumes, 

and that costs will remain too high for commercial viability. CARB should 

reconsider and hold firm on the current 25,000 ZEVs required in Phase III, and 

50,000 ZEVs required in Phase IV. These are numbers previously committed to 

by the automakers, and are appropriate to bridge the gap between R&D and 

commercialization. (PIA) 

Agency Response: ARB does not agree with this comment. Both the Board and 

the ZEV Panel’s assessments of the state of technology development relative to 

cost indicate that decreased production of pure ZEV is required. Additionally, 

forcing mass production of ZEVs before the vehicles have proven durability and 

are economically feasible for consumers could damage market acceptance. The 

Board believes its 2008 modifications will enable manufacturers to direct 

resources into appropriate pre-commercial production levels of ZEVs, ensuring 

only the most advanced and durable ZEVs are placed into consumer hands. 

Also, see the response to Comment 30. 

B. Enhanced AT PZEV Backfill 

34. Comment: Based on several technological reasons and manufacturer public 

statements, the commenter asserted by 2018 that all passenger cars and light 

vehicle trucks sold in California should be PHEVs with high compression ICEs. 

The commenter also gave other specific requirements that these PHEVs should 

have. (Saidak) 
134

Agency Response: The ZEV regulation focuses on the commercialization of 

pure ZEVs in California. This proposal does not further the goal of the ZEV 

regulation. 

35. Comment: ARB received comments urging the Board to focus on the 

 number of PHEVs required. (Rahm) 

Agency Response: The Board’s 2008 modifications will potentially bring the 

placement of between 50,000 and 70,000 PHEVs on the road during the 2012 

through 2014 timeframe. These numbers are sufficiently aggressive, considering 

manufacturers have yet to produce a single commercial ready PHEV. In a future 

rulemaking, the redesign of the ZEV program will evaluate the appropriate 

number of Enhanced AT PZEVs to be required in future years. 

36. Comment: We strongly recommend that the Enhanced AT PZEVs required be 

brought back to the original staff proposal of 75,000 as needed for the SIP. 

(SCAQMD) 

 Agency Response: See response to Comment 35. 

C. Enhanced AT PZEV (General) 

37. Comment: PHEVs should be required to travel at least 40 miles on electric 

charge to get any extra credit. (Kulongoski) 

Agency Response: ARB believes there is considerable benefit with 10-mile 

PHEVs and that the minimum should not be set so high as to eliminate incentives 

for automakers to consider offering more affordable PHEVs for those who drive 

below the average or cannot afford larger batteries. ARB also believes that 

workplace charging will be a key element in the electrification of transportation. 

These 10-mile PHEVs would then be capable of 20 miles of electric commuting 

each day and would be fully charged well before afternoon power demand begins 

to peak. 

38. Comment: We continue to recommend that Enhanced AT PZEVs with the lowest 

emissions be rewarded with higher credits. (SCAQMD) 

 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. Currently, PHEVs with 40-mile AER and 

HICE vehicles receive the highest amount of Enhanced AT PZEV credit under 

the ZEV program, and are the cleanest, i.e., lowest emission, non-ZEVs currently 

produced by manufacturers. 
135

D. Travel Provision 

39. Comment: General support for the Board’s changes to the Travel provision. 

(ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, NESCAUM, NRDC, Sierra, UCS) 

 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support received for the proposed 

modifications to the travel provision, as released in the first post-Board Hearing 

comment period. However, due to comments regarding MY implementation of 

this proposal, ARB further modified the travel provision to better meet the intent 

of proportional travel and account for timing and implementation. Proportionality 

continues, but is proposed to begin in the 2010 MY. The further modification also 

specifies that a credit earned in a Section 177 state is earned at a proportional 

value in the Section 177 state, while credit is earned in the full amount in 

California. Lastly, a manufacturer complying with the Alternative Path 

requirements in the 2010 and 2011 MYs in a Section 177 state will not be 

affected by proportionality if those credits are produced in California. The 

maximum number of credits allowed for compliance in the Section 177 state for 

the 2010 and 2011 MYs, however, is limited to the Section 177 state’s Alternative 

Path minimum ZEV percentage. Any credits earned in California and used in a 

Section 177 states beyond the minimum Alternative Path ZEV percentage are 

subject to proportionality. 

40. Comment: Support for the proportional assignment of travel credits under 

 section 4.4 (e) beginning in the 2009 MY. (NESCAUM) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support received for staff’s proposed 

modifications to the travel provision, as released in the first post-Board Hearing 

comment period. However, ARB received comments from manufacturers on the 

timeline for implementing the travel provision. Because manufacturers are 

currently producing in the 2009 MY vehicles, there would be no lead time if the 

travel provision were effective in the 2008 MY. Lead time is at issue, as the 

travel provision affects the overall number of ZEVs required. Therefore, ARB 

maintained the travel provision as presented in the ISOR for the 2009 MY, and 

implemented proportional travel for the 2010 and subsequent MYs. Also, see 

response to Comment 39. 

41. Comment: Any traveling provision incorporated into the regulation should be 

accompanied with the proportional limits. (New York) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. Other than the 2009 MY, the travel 

provision provides for proportionality in travel for ZEV credits. Also, see 

responses to Comments 39 and 40. 
136

42. Comment: If there is need to address manufacturers’ compliance with the nonZEV parts of the requirements; we believe that those issues should be handled 

separately. (New York) 

Agency Response: ARB modified the travel provision to ensure Section 177 

states will receive the most commercially ready vehicles, meaning the AT PZEV 

and PZEVs. See the table in section 1962.1(d)(5)(E)2. The table shows the 

vehicle types that are counted for compliance in all Section 177 states – these 

are all ZEV Types. Also, see response to Comment 39. 

43. Comment: In addition to the provision starting with the 2009 MY, the extended 

travel provision should be applied to ZEV Credits (Type I – Type V) generated 

from IVMs before they are subject to the LVM requirements. This would mean 

that the travel provision would be applied to the 2008 MY battery EV credits. 

This proposal would be in line with the carry-forward provision for early 

generated ZEV credits of IVMs. We believe that this proposal would provide the 

flexibility suggested by the Board while assuring that companies like BMW will 

continue to provide the greatest air quality benefit to the State of California and at 

the same time contribute significantly to the advancement of low emission 

technology and the electrification of their vehicles as advocated under the ZEV 

mandate. (BMW) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. Because the rulemaking was conducted 

during the 2008 MY, the Board made very few modifications to requirements for 

the 2008 MY. ARB does not feel it is appropriate to make a retroactive change 

for the 2008 MY. 

44. Comment: Toyota and other manufacturers are already within the 2009 to 2011 

compliance period. While additional incentives might encourage us to do more 

than otherwise planned or expected, we have already made decisions and taken 

actions to implement out ZEV compliance plans for this period. This is why we 

are very concerned by what we hope is an inadvertent and a completely new 

requirement to begin so-called “proportional travel” starting from now, as 

opposed to what we thought it was the common understanding of 2012. Such a 

significant change for a compliance period already underway would be contrary 

to well-established ARB considerations for adequate lead time. (Toyota) 

The travel provision should not be changed until 2012 MY because 

manufacturers already have begun implementing plans for ZEV requirements for 

the 2009 to 2011 MY period. The LVMs understand and acknowledge the 

concept of proportionality of the travel provision introduced at the ZEV Board 

Hearing. However, this change may require substantial adjustment to 

manufacturers’ compliance plans. Therefore, the LVMs request that the travel 

provision proportionality commence from the 2012 MY at the earliest. 

Implementing the proportionality sooner than 2012 MY does not provide the lead 

time needed to adjust product plans for new, advanced technology vehicles. For 
137

example, many of the advanced components that go into these vehicles are 

linked to completed supply agreements that cannot be adjusted for short-term 

capacity/volume changes. As stated previously, the 2009 MY has already 

started, and the start of the 2011 MY is only one and one-half years from now. 

This simply does not allow time for compliance adjustment. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, 

Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. The travel provision remains unchanged 

for the 2009 MY. Proportional travel will commence with the 2010 MY. See 

responses to Comments 39 and 40. 

45. Comment: There should not be any travel provision in combination with 

 decreasing the number of ZEVs required in any phase. (PIA) 

Agency Response: While the travel provision provides ZEV credits for vehicles 

placed in service in Section 177 states, the number of ZEV credits required in 

California is not changed by the travel provision. Additionally, the travel provision 

ensures that manufacturers can focus resources and infrastructure development 

in concentrated areas for those vehicles in pre-commercialization development 

stages. 

46. Comment: If the travel provision is extended, because of SIP emission reduction 

needs, we recommend a compensatory trade-off to ensure the forgone 

emissions benefits are realized. The burden of adapting California’s regulation in 

other states should be placed on those states. (SCAQMD) 

Agency Response: The 2008 modifications to the travel provision in section 

1962.1(d)(5)(E) have very little impact on emissions in California. These 

modifications allow manufacturers to focus resources and efforts on much 

needed small scaled demonstrations, designed to eventually leading to ZEV 

commercialization. 

47. Comment: As indicated in the following mark-up of ARB’s proposed regulatory 

language (1962.1(d)(5)(E)), the LVMs recommend replacing “any” with “all” for 

added clarity that the credits travel to all 177 states. The LVMs also recommend 

replacing “total sales” with “PCs, LDT1s, and LDT2s, as applicable, produced 

and delivered for sale.” This change accomplishes two things. First, it makes it 

clear that just those vehicle classes subject to the ZEV regulations are included 

in the volume of vehicles used to calculate the proportional credit values. 

Second, it makes it clear that the vehicle volumes used in the proportional 

calculations are those vehicles produced and delivered for sale in the state, 

which is consistent with the basis for the ZEV requirements themselves. 

(E) Counting Specified ZEVs Placed in a Section 177 State. 

Specified MY ZEVs, excluding NEVs and Type 0 ZEVs, that are either certified to 

the California ZEV standards or as part of an advanced technology 

demonstration program and are placed in service in California or in a state that is 
138

administering the California ZEV requirements pursuant to Section 177 of the 

federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. section 7507) (hereafter "Section 177 state") 

applicable for the ZEV’s MY may be counted towards compliance in California 

and in allany Section 177 states, with the percentage ZEV requirements in 

section 1962.1(b), including the requirements in section 1962.1(b)(2)(B) and 

(b)(2)(D), provided that the credits are multiplied by the ratio of an LVM's PCs, 

LDT1s, and LDT2s, as applicable, produced and delivered for saletotal sales in 

the state receiving credit to the LVM's PCs, LDT1s, and LDT2s, as applicable, 

produced and delivered for saletotal sales in California. The table below specifies 

the qualifying MYs for each ZEV type that may be counted towards compliance in 

allany Section 177 states. 

(Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB further modified section 

1962.1(d)(5)(E) to better reflect the intent of proportional travel. The 

commenter’s suggestions in clarifying the language were added to the final 

language. 

48. Comment: The LVMs are concerned with the proportional calculation accurately 

tracking compliance in cases where a manufacturer elects to use credit carryforward or carry-back. The following examples illustrate the LVM’s concerns. 

The LVMs understand that the intent of the proportional calculation is that if a 

manufacturer produces and places into service in California/177 States sufficient 

ZEVs to just meet the gold requirement in California that will equate to sufficient 

ZEVs to just meet the gold requirement in all 177 states, regardless of any use of 

carry-forward or carry-back. The LVMs have not developed any specific 

regulatory language to address this issue, but look forward to working with ARB 

and the 177 states to make sure that the proportional calculation provision is 

implemented in a manner consistent with its intended purpose. 

Example 1: Carry-Forward

1

California 2012 2013 2014 

CA Volume Subject to ZEV Regulations

2 100,000 100,000 100,000 

ZEV Credits Earned in CA 1,210 1,220 0 

ZEV Credits Required in CA (0.81-

percent) 

810 810 810 

ZEV Credits Balance in CA 400 810 0 

New York 2012 2013 2014 

NY Volume Subject ZEV Regulations

2 50,000 50,000 60,000 

ZEV Credits Earned in NY 605 610 0 

ZEV Credits Required in NY (0.81-

percent) 

405 405 486 

ZEV Credits Balance in NY (Cumulative) 200 405 -81 

1. For simplicity, the impact of multiplying credits by the fleet NMOG average is not taken into account in this example, 

although this is another complicating factor that will need to be considered. 

2. Assumes same MY method for determining volume of vehicles subject to ZEV regulations. 
139

Example 2: Carry-Back

1

California 2012 2013 2014 

CA Volume Subject to ZEV Regulations

2 100,000 100,000 100,000 

ZEV Credits Earned in CA 0 1,220 1,210 

ZEV Credits Required in CA (0.81-

percent) 

810 810 810 

ZEV Credits Balance in CA -810 -400 0 

New York 2012 2013 2014 

NY Volume Subject ZEV Regulations

2 60,000 50,000 50,000 

ZEV Credits Earned in NY 0 610 605 

ZEV Credits Required in NY (0.81-

percent) 

486 405 405 

ZEV Credits Balance in NY (Cumulative) -486 -281 -81 

1. For simplicity, the impact of multiplying credits by the fleet NMOG average is not taken into account in this example, 

although this is another complicating factor that will need to be considered. 

2. Assumes same MY method for determining volume of vehicles subject to ZEV regulations.

(Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

Agency Response: ARB modified the travel provision to better reflect the 

intention of proportional travel, but could not modify the travel provision to fit 

every possible scenario. The intention of the travel provision is to provide that a 

manufacturer meets California’s ZEV requirements that must be met with ZEVs, 

excluding NEVs and Type 0 ZEVs, will also fully meet those requirements in the 

Section 177 states. Also, see response to Comment 39. 

E. Carry Forward/Carry Back 

49. Comment: Support for modifications to the carry-forward provisions that allow 

manufacturers other than LVMs to accrue and bank credits until subject to LVM 

requirements. (BMW) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the modification in the 

carry-forward provision that allow manufactures other than LVMs to bank pure 

ZEV credits until subject to LVM requirements. 

50. Comment: Change the carry-forward provision of gold ZEV credits earned by 

any manufacturer that exclusively manufacturers pure ZEVs to expire 3 years 

from the date of transfer to another manufacturer. (Fermi, Form Letter #10)

 

 Ironically, staff goes out of their way to safeguard the welfare and commercial 

interests of the IVM including BMW, Mercedes, and VW. In stark contrast, the 

proposed modification will perpetrate irreparable damage on Tesla, the only car 

maker based in California and the world’s only car maker that actually develops 

and is committed exclusively to zero emission vehicles. How? Since Tesla 

makes only ZEVs we sell our gold ZEV credits to LVMs. The monies received 
140

defray in part some of the large R&D costs incurred in pioneering the 

development of the zero emission electric cars. If the 3-year clock starts ticking 

in the MY during which we sell the car, and not the time in which we sell the ZEV 

credit to an LVM, (unless we are able to sell the ZEV credits immediately upon 

selling the car), we will be left with highly perishable ZEV credits that expire 

sooner than 3 years and consequently may be valued at a steep discount if not a 

zero value altogether. Please note we are not speculating about the huge 

reduction in value of the ZEV credit due to even the slightest reduction in its 

validity period, we have experienced it already. We respectfully request that 

Tesla be accorded the same considerations given to much larger and more 

established IVMs and that the proposed rules be modified so that for any 

company that solely manufacturers ZEVs the 3-year period of the ZEV credit 

starts only upon transfer of the ZEV credit to another company. (Jan, Tesla) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. The intent of the carry-forward provision 

limitation is to avoid creating black-out periods during which there are no 

placements of ZEVs in certain years. When a traded credit is used for 

compliance with the ZEV requirement, it essentially represents a placed ZEV. 

Therefore, ARB believes traded credit should be treated the same as any 

LVM-produced ZEV credit, with a provision that limits the credit’s usefulness. 

This modified carry-forward provision encourages new production of ZEVs. 

F. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles 

51. Comment: Chrysler LLC and GEM® have committed and sustained resources to 

research, develop, continuously improve and support NEVs over the past 10 

years to make them a major contribution to the ZEV program and air quality. 

One-third of NEV owner’s yearly tailpipe emissions are eliminated simply by the 

avoidance of cold starts during the short trips taken. As the majority of 

hydrocarbon emissions from a typical gasoline engine are produced in the first 

minute of operation, a NEV is able to eliminate this event completely – identical 

to the characteristics of any ZEV. NEVs replace cars and trucks for two out of 

three vehicle trips, averaging approximately 3,000 miles per year for GEM® 

commercial customers and 1,200 miles per year for residential customers. 

Based on their air quality benefits, we believe the NEV credit value should be 

increased to a minimum of 0.50. 

An example of the disproportionate credit value between NEVs and plug-in 

hybrids (PHEVs) provides the basis for a higher NEV credit level. A “P10” PHEV 

achieving an all-electric range of 10 miles per day (assuming daily recharge) 

accumulates 3,650 all-electric miles annually. This vehicle has a credit value of 

1.57 in the 2012 MY. In contrast, a commercial GEM® accumulating 3,000 allelectric miles annually only earns a credit value of 0.30. Additionally, NEVs could 

arguably be considered to provide equivalent or better air quality benefit to a P10 

PHEV. Since the gasoline engine of the PHEV kicks in after 10 miles of the allelectric range operation, customers may be less inclined to plan their trips 
141

knowing this back-up gasoline system is available, allowing continued driving in 

non-electric mode. 

In addition, the recent credit basis or “hinge point” increase from 3 credits for a 

Type III ZEV to 5 credits for a Type IV ZEV further devalues NEVs. This 67 

percent increase in the base credit requirement alone, if applied proportionately 

to the current 0.30 NEV credit, would essentially increase the value of NEVs to 

0.50. (Chrysler)

Agency Response: ARB also believes that NEVs are a valuable component of 

the ZEV Program. However, for the reasons discussed in the agency response 

to 45-day comment number 44, ARB believes the modified credit level 

established for NEVs at 0.30, which is a doubling of the prior level at 0.15, is 

appropriate. 

52. Comment: Emissions regulations should not set non-emissions related, 

customer-driven performance requirements for NEVs, or any other vehicle type. 

[1962.1(d)(5)(F)] We do not believe it is appropriate for ARB to set non-emissions 

related, customer-driven performance, battery and warranty requirements for 

NEVs to receive ZEV credit. These vehicle attributes are not related to emissions 

and should not be included as a requirement. Customers will decide which NEVs 

will provide them with the performance, utility and warranty specifications that 

they need. All NEVs are zero emitting and displace vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

from other emitting vehicles; therefore, all NEVs should receive ZEV credits. 

(Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota)

 Agency Response: ARB’s modifications to the NEV requirements protect against 

placement of limited utility NEVs. The modifications add performance criteria to 

ensure the placement of the most technologically advanced NEVs in the 2010 

and subsequent MYs. 

53. Comment: The commenter expressed support for staff’s post-Board Hearing 

modifications to NEV requirements. (CalETC) 

 Agency Response: ARB appreciates the commenter’s support for technical 

requirements for NEVs. 

54. Comment: Prevent product blackouts caused by NEV credits for the pure 

ZEV minimum requirement and early introduction of Enhanced AT PZEVs. This 

can be accomplished by limiting the use of NEV credits earned before 2008 to 

the (non-Enhanced) AT PZEV or PZEV categories after 2011 and restricting NEV 

credits earned after 2008 from the pure ZEV floor. In the early 2000’s, auto 

manufacturers placed low cost, low technology NEVs in California for a short 

period of time only to fulfill their pure ZEV requirement. NEVs were then 

abandoned or removed with almost no benefit to air quality and technology 

advancement. Because of this, auto manufacturers have banked over 123,000 
142

pure ZEV credits from NEVs. Because NEVs have been used as a pure ZEV 

credit loophole, the authors recommended limiting the use of the existing banked 

credits earned before 2008 to the (non-Enhanced) AT PZEV or PZEV categories 

after 2011. NEV credits earned after 2008 could be applied to all categories 

outside of pure ZEV floor. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, NRDC, Sierra, UCS) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB modified the regulation to limit the 

use of NEV credits, both 2001-through-2005 credits as well as 2006 and 

subsequent MY NEV credits. With these modifications, 2001-through-2005-MYNEV credits are not available to meet the portion of the obligation that must be 

met with ZEV in 2012 through 2014. Also, the 2001-through-2005-MY-NEV 

banked credits are capped at 50 percent usage within the obligation that may be 

fulfilled with Enhanced AT PZEVs or AT PZEVs for the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. 

These modifications limit the use of 2006 and later MY NEV credits within the 

minimum ZEV floor during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe while still allowing them to 

be fully used to meet requirements that may be met with Enhanced AT PZEVs, 

AT PZEVs, and PZEVs. 

Also, to ensure that only the highest performing NEVs receive credit, ARB 

included additional requirements for the 2010 MY NEVs. These requirements 

mirror the NEV America Standards, set forth in “NEV America: Neighborhood 

Electric Vehicles (NEV) Technical Specifications” (Revision 2), including 

acceleration, top speed, and constant speed range specifications as well as 

battery and warranty requirements. 

G. Zero Emission VMT Allowance 

55. Comment: It is confusing to now use a mixture of EAER and Rcda to define 

whether the allowance is a constant or derives from the equation. For instance, it 

is possible to have an EAER of 10.1 miles and an Rcda of 9.9 miles which 

presents a circumstance undefined by the table in section C-3.3. In addition, 

because the peak allowance is not defined by Rcda, a manufacturer could simply 

include enough battery energy to displace the minimum 10 miles worth of CO2 

production and slowly deplete it over 40+ miles in order to earn the maximum 

credit. This would be a cost-effective way for a manufacturer to maximize credit 

earnings, but would not provide the large CO2 displacements desired. 

Recommendation: Return to range bins defined solely by EAER. (NREL) 

Agency Response: It should not be possible for a PHEV to have an actual Rcda

less than its EAER. It might however be possible, although extremely unlikely, 

for a PHEV’s test results to exhibit the maximum allowable inaccuracy in the 

opposite direction for each of these tests. What makes this situation even less 

likely to occur is that manufacturers are not expected to gamble during the PHEV 

design phase and bring a car for certification testing that is too close to the EAER 

lower limit of 10 miles. ARB believes that minimum qualifying AT PZEV, PHEVs 

will likely test out with EAERs of at least 11 to 12 miles. 
143

A manufacturer who chooses to develop a PHEV with EAER equal to 10 miles 

and an Rcda of 40 miles will earn much less than the maximum allowance 

because the electric range fraction will be very low, and their allowance will be 

reduced in proportion to this electric range fraction. 

56. Comment: It is confusing as written to understand what the maximum allowance 

should be. Is the EAER40 supposed to be a variable or a constant? 

Recommendation: Rewrite the maximum allowance as 40/29.63 or 1.35 if that 

was the intention. (NREL) 

Agency Response: In most cases, the maximum zero emission VMT allowance 

will be 1.35. The most likely high-range PHEVs will have an EAER40 equal to 40 

miles because the fraction of driving with electric propulsion will be 100 percent. 

(EAER40 greater than or equal to the EAER that a particular 40 mile Rcda PHEV 

achieves (will vary with electric range fraction)). In the unlikely event that a 

manufacturer chooses to produce a “blended” PHEV with Rcda of >= 40 miles, the 

40-mile value must be reduced by the electric range fraction to convert the value 

to EAER at 40 miles. ARB believes that the most likely PHEVs that push to 

40 miles Rcda or beyond will be Type F or G, and these will usually earn the 

maximum zero emission VMT allowance of 1.35. A blended PHEV will have an 

electric range fraction of less than one, and the 1.35 allowance will be reduced in 

proportion to the electric range fraction. For example, a blended PHEV with a 

.85 electric range fraction would receive an allowance of 

(0.85 x 40) / 29.63 = 1.15. 

57. Comment: Rcda is a somewhat abstract variable compared to EAER, which is 

calculated from the full Rcda measurement multiplied by the measurable CO2 

offset fraction (EERF). Its application is further brought into question by the two 

examples shown in the spreadsheet, and by the fact that a fractional distance 

into a cycle may not correspond to an equivalent fractional energy use or CO2 

production. Recommendation: Simplify the regulation by eliminating the need 

for Rcda measurement and instead of using UF(Rcda) in the equation, use 

UF(EAER) or use UF(Rcda). (NREL) 

Agency Response: Both ARB test procedures and the upcoming SAE test 

procedures have proposed a consistent methodology for determination of Rcda. 

ARB believes that Rcda is a much more direct measurement and is less abstract 

than EAER, but ARB also believes it must leave the option open for “blended” 

PHEVs and must build in a methodology incorporating EAER in order to 

accommodate them. Most PHEVs are now expected to be fully UDDS-capable 

in electric mode, and with EAER values equal to Rcda. 
144

H. Advanced Componentry 

58. Comment: Support for Type G advanced componentry allowance. (Toyota, GM, 

CalETC) 

Support the Board’s action to allow additional credits for more capable PHEVs 

especially using more real word [sic] metrics such as the US06 driving cycle. 

(PIA) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for its addition of a Type G 

advanced componentry allowance. 

I. ZEV Multipliers 

59. Comment: ARB reduced the AT PZEV multiplier from 3.0 to 1.25. While this 

action was directionally correct, the net effect of these changes is AT PZEVs can 

earn up to 3.125, still greater than Type I, I.5, and II pure EVs. (Mitsubishi) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. However, those Enhanced AT PZEVs 

potentially receiving more credit than Type I, I.5, and II pure ZEVs will have over 

40 miles EAER or Rcda. ARB believes these vehicles will have comparable 

usefulness and zero emission travel characteristics to a Type I, I.5, and II ZEV. 

60. Comment: Support for keeping the 3X multiplier in place as is. This multiplier 

has been in the ZEV regulations since the 2003 ZEV rulemaking for vehicles that 

earn a zero emission VMT allowance (at least 10 miles urban AER). ARB should 

not be making changes to the 2009 to 2011 ZEV regulations that adversely 

impact manufacturer’s compliance plans at this late stage. In addition, the 3X 

multiplier provides far greater incentive for manufacturers to try to get PHEVs to 

market as quickly as possible. (GM) 

Agency Response: ARB believes the reduction in the multiplier offered to those 

Enhanced AT PZEVs sold or put into an extended lease is appropriate. The 

modified value reflects the amount offered for ZEVs sold or put into extended 

lease and is appropriate for this timeframe. 

61. Comment: ARB could establish a varying multiplier based upon the category the 

credits are used toward, such as the following: 3X multiplier if credits are used 

toward the PZEV category, 2X if credits are used toward the AT PZEV category, 

1.25X if credits are used toward the Enhanced AT PZEV category. This 

multiplier could be applicable to vehicles that earn a zero emission VMT 

allowance as well as ZEVs, thereby ensuring that ZEVs would receive the same 

credit multiplier and at least as a high a total credit level as PHEVs. It would 

address the concern over optional blackout periods for PHEVs since the 

proposed credit multiplier for credits applied to the Enhanced AT PZEV category 
145

is 1.25, the same as the proposed by staff. Most importantly, it would provide 

manufacturers an incentive to bring more Enhanced AT PZEVs and ZEVs to 

market sooner. A separate category in the credit bank could be created to 

ensure accurate tracking. (GM) 

ARB Response: ARB does not feel it is appropriate to multiply ZEV credits to 

meet other portions of the regulation. This does not further the overall goals of 

the ZEV regulation or ARB’s future environmental goals, but leads the placement 

of fewer clean vehicles and significantly complicates the regulation. 

62. Comment: The reduction in the introduction multiplier for PZEVs that earn zero 

emission VMT allowance discourages manufacturers from early placement of 

new technology vehicles in the field. This multiplier should not be changed. The 

dramatic reduction in the level of the multiplier at this late stage does not provide 

sufficient lead time for manufacturers to adjust product plans. In regard to the 

current multiplier resulting in excess credits that in turn results in blackouts of 

Enhanced AT PZEV vehicles, the LVMs do not believe this is a realistic concern. 

PHEVs are an emerging and rapidly advancing technology. The number of 

PHEVs produced will undoubtedly grow over time as manufacturers improve the 

technology, the supply base for key components such as batteries expands, 

recharging infrastructure expands, and education and acceptance by consumers 

grows. Secondly, in regard to ZEVs receiving fewer credits than Enhanced 

AT PZEVs, the LVMs believe this concern can be addressed by providing a 

higher credit value for ZEVs (both battery electric and fuel cell EVs) that are not 

used toward the “floor” requirements. This would have the added advantage of 

incentivizing intermediate volume manufacturers (and for that matter any 

manufacturer) to produce additional gold vehicles beyond the number required 

under the floor requirements. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

 This is the time when additional incentives are needed for PHEVs. PHEVs are 

not commercially available today from major automakers. They are a new 

technology, with an unproven market, and represent a business risk for 

automakers. These vehicles will undoubtedly be more costly to produce, and 

automakers are expected to lose money in the early years of production. 

Regulatory incentives, such as the “early introduction multiplier”, can help to 

overcome these barriers and improve the business case for PHEVs in the early 

years of vehicle introduction. In addition, PHEVs are more difficult for an 

automaker to produce than battery EVs, because they are more technologically 

complex; another reason for the need for the larger incentives in 2009 to 2011. 

This proposed reduction in the “early introduction multiplier’ for PHEVs was not in 

the proposal that went to the Board nor was it discussed during the Board 

Hearing, nor was it included in the Board Resolution. Do not reduce regulatory 

incentives for the production of PHEVs during the 2009 to 2011 time period. 

(CalETC) 
146

Agency Response: ARB made this modification to section 1962.1(c)(7)(B) due to 

two board directions: 1) the Board directed consideration of the nine loopholes 

presented by NGOs in their March 26 comment letter and 2) the Board directed 

consideration of applying a multiplier to battery EV credits earned during the 

2009 to 2011 timeframe for IVMs in order to ensure there is not a disincentive to 

produce gold vehicles. 

The following loophole relates to Enhanced AT PZEV credits: 

Loophole #2: “Extend carry-forward provision to Enhanced AT PZEVs to ensure 

that banked credits do not create long “blackout” periods when none of these 

vehicles are produced.” 

ARB does not agree that the carry-forward provision, which limits the use of ZEV 

credits in some categories, should apply to Enhanced AT PZEV credits. ARB 

does not expect large numbers of Enhanced AT PZEV credits to be banked and 

carried forward during the 2009 to 2011 time frame. These vehicles have never 

been produced in commercial production volumes, and it is unlikely that a 

sudden ramp-up of volumes would occur. Additionally, if a manufacturer were to 

be successful in their production of an Enhanced AT PZEV, it would be unlikely 

that they would stop production during the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. 

However, ARB recognizes that the 3.0 multiplier offered to PZEVs that earn a 

zero-emission VMT allowance, such as PHEVs, delivered for sale during the 

2009 to 2011 timeframe could create a significant bank of credits that could be 

used to comply during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. This multiplier would allow a 

manufacturer to earn three times the credit for each PHEV delivered for sale, 

which would have the effect of reducing the number of vehicles and increasing 

the number of credits. 

ARB also concluded that adding an additional multiplier to enhance ZEV credits 

use in place of AT PZEV credits for IVMs was not considered advisable as it 

would increase program complexities without a commensurate benefit to 

technology development. 

Rather, ARB chose to approach both issues in the context of credit multipliers 

and to address the overall credit discrepancy between PHEVs and pure ZEVs 

during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe. 

For this reason, ARB instead has decreased the value of the 3.0 multiplier to 

1.25 for PHEVs in the 2009 through 2011 MYs. The decreased multiplier value 

for PHEVs reflects a comparable value of a similar multiplier offered to ZEVs 

during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe. 

The reduced multiplier was also advised because, as Mitsubishi pointed out 

otherwise, a PHEV could earn more than a ZEV during the 2009 to 2011 

timeframe. This would be inconsistent with the purpose of the ZEV program, i.e., 

to produce ZEVs. 
147

63. Comment: In regard to the conditions placed on the multiplier, this would also be 

a new requirement for this type of vehicle that does not apply under current 

regulations. Current regulations have no conditions relative to whether the 

vehicle is sold or leased for a specified period of time, but simply require that the 

vehicles be produced and delivered for sale in California. The most likely 

technology that will qualify in the Enhanced advanced technology (AT) PZEV 

category, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or PHEVs, is a new and emerging 

technology with many new components and systems, including advanced 

batteries. Manufacturers are already taking on significant technical risk and cost 

in producing these advanced technology vehicles by the 2011 MY, and the early 

phase-in multiplier should reward them without conditions on how the 

manufacturer markets and sells the vehicle. Manufacturers want PHEVs to be 

successful in the market in the initial years that the vehicles are introduced as 

well as the longer term, and will market the vehicle in whatever manner provides 

the best chance for success. For example, it may be that uncertainty over the 

durability of the batteries of these earliest PHEVs results in shorter-term leases 

being the optimal marketing approach. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, 

Toyota) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. The conditions for a manufacturer to earn 

the multiplier in section 1962.1(c)(7)(B) were modified from “produced and 

delivered for sale” to “sold to a California motorist or is leased for three or more 

years to a California motorist who is given the option to purchase or re-lease the 

vehicle for two years or more at the end of the first lease term.” It was 

directionally incorrect for PZEVs with off vehicle charging capabilities, including 

PHEVs to have less stringent requirements than ZEVs. ARB felt it was 

appropriate to align the requirements for ZEVs and Enhanced AT PZEVs earning 

multipliers for similar reasons. 

J. Transportation System Credits 

64. Comment: The commenter expressed support for Enhanced AT PZEVs being 

included into the section 1962.1(g)(5). (Toyota) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for allowing Enhanced 

AT PZEVs placed in transportation systems to receive additional credits. 

65. Comment: Opposition to the proposal to exclude the ability to use transportation 

system credits towards the gold obligation. ZEVs linked to mass transit and in 

projects demonstrating shared use, and “intelligent transportation systems” are 

perhaps worth more because they potentially do more. California and ARB 

should continue to foster the smart transit linkage and shared use that these 

programs enable, and continue to incentivize manufacturers to actively 

participate in them. The commenter provided an example of its own experience 

with these programs. (Toyota) 
148

The limitation on the use of "gold" transportation system credit removes any 

motivation to put these zero-emitting vehicles into transportation system 

programs. [1962.1(b)(2)(D)4.] ARB is proposing to eliminate the ability to use 

credits that were earned by placing a ZEV in a transportation system credit 

toward the ZEV ("Gold") obligation. We believe that transportation systems 

should be encouraged because there are significant societal benefits to these 

programs. As ARB concluded in their report, "Recommendations of the 

Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee (ETAAC)" that 

was presented to the Board on February 28, 2008, "Decreasing Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (VMT) is critical to meeting AB 32 GHG emission reduction goals". 

Transportation system programs provide a means to reduce VMT. ARB should 

be encouraging manufacturer's early involvement in the establishment of these 

transportation system programs to set the ground-work for growing these 

programs. The placement of ZEVs in transportation system programs provides 

greater exposure to this technology, which is important in the early stages of 

commercialization. Furthermore, placing ZEVs in transportation system 

programs have the potential to provide consumers with a means of commuting 

while producing zero emissions. The existing regulations already limit the use of 

transportation system credits to 1/10th of the "Gold" obligation; we do not believe 

these credits should be eliminated altogether. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, 

Nissan, Toyota) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB modified the provision allowing 

credits earned by ZEVs placed in transportation systems to meet up to 10 

percent of the portion of the ZEV requirement that must be met with ZEVs. 

K. ZEV Credits/ZEV Types 

66. Comment: The New Type V ZEV should be required beginning 2015. 

 (Kulongoski) 

Agency Response: At this time, ARB supports flexibility in the option LVMs have 

to meet the ZEV requirement. For this reason, ZEV will not limit the use of the 

various ZEV types in future MYs. 

67. Comment: Facilitate the sale of ZEV credits by startup ZEV manufacturers to the 

large vehicle manufacturers who refuse to build them. (Cox) 

Agency Response: The 2008 rulemaking continues to allow manufacturers to 

trade and sell ZEV credits. 

68. Comment: The establishment of Type IV and Type V ZEVs are thinly veiled 

attempts to continue to promote hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as the ultimate 

solution. We again call for neutrality among technologies within the Gold 

category. (PIA) 
149

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with this statement. The credit structure as 

approved by the Board recognizes those technologies that are still in the 

development stages. Type I, I.5, II, and III ZEVs earn less credit because these 

vehicles are closer to commercialization than Type IV and V ZEVs. 

69. Comment: Credit levels in 2018 MY do not recognize the significant differences 

in technology types, costs, or commercialization-readiness. [1962.1(d)(5)(C)] 

The credit values for Type V from 2018 and beyond need to be reconsidered. 

The implication of having ZEV Types II through V in the 2018+ timeframe all 

earning 3 credits suggests an equal level of technology development, technology 

maturity, performance, utility and cost. We believe strongly that the advantages 

of Type V ZEVs are significant, while the state of their development after 2018 

will, in all likelihood, still need support, as reflected in the need for higher credits. 

We also expect a technology review will be conducted, which will evaluate these 

ZEV technologies in terms of performance, status, and cost. The technology 

review findings should also be considered in assessing changes to the credit 

values. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

Agency Response: ARB supports technology neutrality in the regulation. 

A Type V ZEV earns 7 credits because this vehicle needs the greatest amount of 

development in the near term. In the longer term, ARB believes it is appropriate 

for Type V ZEVs, like the Type II, III and IV ZEVs, to earn 3 credits in the 2018 

and subsequent MYs. However, the Board has directed a redesign of the ZEV 

program in a future rulemaking. Aspects of the program will be reviewed and 

evaluated and adjustments made as necessary. 

L. Credit Transparency 

70. Comment: The commenters expressed support for credit transparency. (ALA, 

CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, Kulongoski, NRDC, PIA, Sierra, UCS) 

 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for the Board’s modification for 

full credit transparency including trades in the ZEV regulation. 

71. Comment: For clarity, we request the addition of the words “Each 

manufacturer’s” to section 1962.1(l)(2) as follows: 

(2) Each Manufacturer’s Annual Credit balances for 2010 and subsequent years 

for... Without the addition of these two words, it appears that the credit balance 

information made available to the public is disassociated from the automaker that 

earned the credit, thereby making it very difficult for the public to understand the 

basis on which credits are issued. (ALA, CCA, CEERT, EIN, FOE, NRDC, 

Sierra, UCS) 

 Agency Response: Comment noted. This suggestion was incorporated in 

 CCR, Title 13, Section 1962.1(l)(2) 
150

M. Miscellaneous 

72. Comment: The proposal for an optional “gold to silver” was misconstrued by 

ARB staff and no action was taken. This is opposite the stated intentions of the 

Board who clearly directed ARB staff to include this proposal in the “15 Day 

Changes.” ARB staff should obey the Board’s direction and establish a 

Gold/Silver multiplier. The commenter provided several places in the March 27, 

2008 Board Hearing transcript which supported these claims. (Mitsubishi) 

Agency Response: The Board directed staff to consider Mitsubishi’s proposal. 

See the Comment 62. 

73. Comment: BMW’s new approach to cryo-compressed hydrogen storage 

promises a major step forward to reach combined DOE 2010 and 2015 storage 

targets, including system capacity and thus, system energy density. Insulated 

cryo-compressed hydrogen storage can be charged with compressed liquid 

hydrogen as well as with chilled gaseous hydrogen at a pressure below 5000 psi 

and at cryogenic temperatures between 80K and 100K. Such storage of chilled 

gaseous hydrogen can lead to more than a double physical density and more 

than a double volumetric capacity than gaseous 5000 psi hydrogen storage at 

ambient temperature. Thus, an advanced cryo-compressed hydrogen storage 

system allows high energy densities in gas storage even below 5000 psi storage 

pressure. BMW therefore proposes to define innovative storage systems based 

on the DOE storage target definition of system capacity rather than on a fixed 

storage pressure, and to add a formula to account for systems that provide an 

additional storage capability. Suggested regulatory wording: 

(a) Use of high Pressure Gaseous Fuel or innovative Hydrogen Storage System. 

...A vehicle capable of operating exclusively on hydrogen stored in a high 

pressure system capable of refueling at 5000 pounds per square inch or more, or 

stored in nongaseous form or at cryogenic temperatures, shall instead qualify for 

an advanced componentry PZEV allowance of 0.3. Advanced hydrogen storage 

systems enabling a specific storage capacity higher than that of high pressure 

systems capable of refueling at 5000 pounds per square inch shall receive the 

PZEV allowance of 0.3 multiplied by the ratio of the specific storage capacity 

(kWh/L) of advanced systems to the specific storage capacity of high pressure 

systems capable of refueling at 5000 pounds per square inch. 

 (BMW) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB included language in section 

1962.1(c)(4)(A) that allows hydrogen tanks storing hydrogen at cryogenic 

temperatures to earn credit. ARB did not feel BMW’s specific language was 

appropriate. 
151

74. Comment: Vehicles in the ZEV Program should be defined and credited based 

on their overall energy efficiencies using a well-to-wheel or lifecycle analysis. We 

encourage the Board to look toward the future by considering overall efficiency 

today. (PIA) 

Agency Response: The ZEV program is currently based on vehicle emissions. 

This is not within the scope of the modifications noticed for 15-day comment. 

75. Comment: We recommend that the fast refueling requirement be eliminated from 

the Type IV and V vehicles such that a plug-in hybrid, electric, fuel cell vehicle 

would be sufficiently incentivized based on range capability. (SCAQMD) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. ARB does not agree that it is appropriate 

to eliminate all Type IV and Type V fast refueling requirements, but did add a 

provision for ZEVs utilizing more than one ZEV fuel to be exempt from fast 

refueling requirements, subject to Executive Officer’s approval. 

76. Comment: The following are some miscellaneous clarifications and 

 corrections: 

• 1962.1(c)(3)(A): 1st column, 3rd row of the table should be changed from 

“EAER > 10 miles” to “EAER >= 10 miles” 

• 1962.1(c)(4)(B)1.: 1st sentence, the word “four” should be changed to 

“five” to reflect the addition of the new Type G category. 

• 1962.1(c)(4)(B)1.: 2nd sentence “HEVs must quality for the Zero-Emission 

VMT Allowance in section 1962.1(c)(3)(A)” should be deleted. 

 (GM) 

 

The comments in this section reflect those items which are being clarified. 

1. There is no need to require a manufacturer to make up ZEV deficits within the 

production-period because the two-year carry-forward/carry-back provisions will 

prevent long blackout periods. Furthermore, this requirement is inconsistent with 

the previous section which allows deficits to be made up by the end of the third 

MY. [1962.1(g)(8)] In this section the wording was changed from “specified time” 

to “production-period” where production period is defined as each three year 

interval with a unique Minimum ZEV Requirement per 1962.1(b)(1)(A). The 

concern of the manufacturers was that this change appears to be in contrast to 

the intention of ARB to provide a two-year make up period for ZEV compliance 

as defined in 1962.1(g)(7)(A). It is our understanding that the two-year make up 

provision was the concept adopted by the Board. The wording in section 

1962.1(g)(8) should be changed to avoid the conflict with 1962.1(g)(7)(A). This 

would further suggest the definition for “Production-Period” listed in section 

1962.1(i)(9) may be removed. 

2. The 17 percent LDT2 phase-in in 2007 MY should be removed. 

[1962(b)(1)(C)] In a letter dated January 16, 2007, ARB informed auto 
152

manufacturers that it would not be enforcing the LDT2 phase-in requirement in 

title 13, CCR, section 1962(b)(1)(C) as it applies to the 2007 MY. For 

consistency, ARB should use this current rulemaking as an opportunity to 

remove the 2007 LDT2 phase-in percentage (i.e., 17 percent) from the 

regulations as well as from the corresponding section in the test procedures 

document (i.e., section C.2.1(c)). 

3. AT PZEV obligation should be changed to be consistent 2.19 percent or 93.25 

percent. [1962.1(b)(2)(D)] Section 1962.1(b)(2)(D)1. states that “no more than 

92.5 percent may be met with Enhanced AT PZEVs and NEVs, as limited in 

section 1962.1(g)(6).” The 92.5 percent value should be changed to 93.25 

percent to reflect the Enhanced AT PZEVs or NEVs percentage allowance of 

2.19 percent, which is stated in 1962.1(b)(2)(D)3. 

4. It should be made clear how Type 0 credits may be used. [1962.1(b)(2)(D)] 

In section 1962.1(b)(2)(D)1. and 2. both NEVs and Type 0 ZEVs are excluded 

from satisfying the ZEV requirements (there is no longer an Alternative Path) in 

the 2012 through 2014 MYs and in the 2015 through 2017 MYs. While these 

sections exclude Type 0 ZEVs from meeting pure ZEV requirements, it is not 

clear which requirements may be met with Type 0 ZEVs. The language in 

1962.1(b)(2)(D)1. should read “No more than 93.25 percent may be met with 

Enhanced AT PZEVs, Type 0 ZEVs, and NEVs, as limited in section 

1962.1(g)(6).” Similar changes should be made to section 1962.1(b)(2)(D)2. and 

1962.1(b)(2)(D)3. 

 (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the commenters specifying these 

conforming changes. ARB agrees and has incorporated these changes into the 

regulation. 

77. Comment: Previous MY method for the 2012 MY and later ZEV obligation 

calculation should be based on a constant three years average as is done today. 

The 15-Day Notice clarified that the production volumes for 2009 to 2011 MY are 

based upon the 2003 to 2005 MY three year average. The large vehicle 

manufacturers would like to request that the same three year average 

methodology be applied to subsequent three year periods such that the 2012 to 

2014 production volumes would be based upon the 2006 to 2008 MY three year 

average and the 2015 to 2017 production volume on the 2009 to 2011 MY three 

year average. This has been the LVM's understanding based on the response to 

our questions in which ARB indicated that, "It was not staff's intent to change to a 

three year rolling average." (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

 Agency Response: ARB believes this change is not appropriate. A rolling 

average of MYs is better in line with making the ZEV regulation an annual 

requirement. The example provided in the regulation correctly describes staff’s 
153

intent for the ZEV requirement determination method. Additionally, ARB made 

modifications to the regulation that allow manufacturers to switch annually 

between fourth, fifth, and sixth previous MY average and a same year average. 

ARB believes this modification allows manufacturers greater flexibility. 

78. Comment: Alternative Requirements for the 2009 to 2011 MYs should be based 

on a constant 3-year average. [1962.1(b)(2)(B)1.b.] This provision states that the 

Alternative Path requirement be based on “either production volume 

determination method described in section 1962.1(b)(1)(B).” This allows the 

Alternative Path volume to be established by either the “constant 3-year average” 

or the “same year” method. In the prior regulations and in the 45-day notice, the 

Alternative Path quantity has been determined solely by the constant 3-year 

average method. The reasoning was to allow significant lead time for 

manufacturers to plan and produce the required number of Alternative Path 

vehicles. Therefore, the language in 1962.1(b)(2)(B)1.b. should read, “ . . . 0.82 

percent of the manufacturer’s sales, using the three-year average of the 

manufacturer’s volume of PCs and LDT1s, and LDT2s as applicable, produced 

and delivered for sale in California in the 2003, 2004 and 2005 model-years.” 

Additionally, 1962.1(b)(2)(B)1.b.ii. should be deleted. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, 

Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

 Agency Response: ARB agrees with this comment. This was an oversight. The 

regulation was corrected to reflect and set the 2003 through 2005 MY average to 

determine the 2009 to 2011 MY Alternative Compliance Path percentage 

requirement. 

COMMENTS PRESENTED DURING THE SECOND POST-BOARD HEARING 

COMMENT PERIOD 

A. Fast Refueling Requirements 

1. Comment: CARB continues to impose an inherent bias against electric vehicles 

due to fast refueling mandates in the regulation. The Commenter provided 

examples of how this might be difficult for some battery EVs to meet these 

mandates. CARB needs to eliminate the refueling requirements and focus 

exclusively on range to distinguish one Type of ZEV from another. Any vehicle 

that can travel over 100 miles without refueling should qualify as Type III, and 

any vehicle that can travel over 200 miles without refueling should qualify as a 

Type IV – no matter how long that refueling takes, 10 minutes or 4 hours. 

(Larsen) 

Agency Response: ARB modified section 1962.1(d)(5)(B), ARB did not modify 

the intent of these requirements. The ZEV types are options, rather than 

mandates, within the ZEV requirement. The Board sees the fast refueling 

requirements as appropriate for ZEV technologies that earn more credit per 
154

vehicle. Manufacturer may opt for battery technologies that are not have fast 

recharge capability, but will earn less credit per vehicle. ZEVs with fast refueling 

capabilities are similar to current gasoline vehicles, and have “unlimited range.” 

However, the Board sees a mix of ZEVs without fast refueling capabilities as well 

as those with fast refueling capabilities in California’s future fleet. 

2. Comment: Support for modifications to the fast refueling requirements. 

 (SCAQMD) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the support for modifications to fast 

refueling requirements which allow ZEVs that utilize more than one ZEV fuel to 

quality for Type IV and Type V ZEV credit. 

B. Travel Provision 

3. Comment: Support for staff’s changes to the travel proportionality language to 

address cases where manufacturers are complying under the Alternative Path 

during the 2010 and 2011 MYs, and providing an additional MY of lead time 

before the proportionality provision takes effect. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, 

Nissan, Toyota) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates support for modifications made to the 

provision which allow manufacturers to count credits earned from ZEVs to be 

used in compliance in California and in all Section 177 states. 

4. Comment: The proportionality calculation in the travel provision will serve its 

intended purpose in cases where the sales ratio between a Section 177 State 

and California remains constant over time. It will also serve its intended purpose 

in cases where a manufacturer is not using any carry-forward or carry-back of 

credits. In these cases, a manufacturer that achieves compliance with the gold 

requirement in California (e.g., 0.79 percent in 2012 to 2014) will achieve 

compliance with the gold requirement in the Section 177 State at exactly the 

same percentage, i.e., 0.79 percent in 2012 to 2014, without any extra credits or 

any shortage of credits. However, this most likely will not be the norm, since 

production/sales plans will not exactly match compliance requirements. 

Therefore, in most cases, manufacturers will use carry-forward or carry-back of 

credits while the sales ratio between the Section 177 State and California will 

change over time. This may result in a manufacturer achieving sufficient credits 

in California (e.g., 0.79 percent in 2012 to 2014) but not having sufficient credits 

in the Section 177 State. The LVM’s comments for the 1st 15-day Notice 

provided examples of such situations under both a carry-forward scenario and 

under a carry-back scenario. 

 Ideally, in situations where a manufacturer uses carry-forward/carry-back credits, 

the proportionality calculation would result in the same percentage of credits in 

both California and the Section 177 State for each MY for which those credits are 
155

used. In general, if the manufacturer generated sufficient credits in California to 

cover the gold requirement, the manufacturer should be considered to have 

sufficient credits in the Section 177 State to cover the gold requirement. The 

LVMs request that CARB confirm that this is the intent of the travel provision 

proportionality calculation. (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) 

 

Agency Response: The commenter correctly states the intention of ARB’s 

modifications to the proportionality provision in section 1962.1(d)(5)(E) and 

ARB’s expectation of how credits earned in California would be regarded in 

Section 177 states when the applying both the carry-forward provision of 

1962.1(g)(6)(B) and the requirement to make up a ZEV deficit as provided in 

section 1962.1(g)(7)(A) (also referred to informally as the carry-back provision). 

5. Comment: If the travel provision is extended, we recommend a

 compensatory trade-off to ensure the foregone emission benefits are 

 realized. (SCAQMD) 

Agency Response: The 2008 rulemaking generally reduces emissions and the 

modification to section 1962.1(d)(5)(E) have very little impact on emissions in 

California. These modifications allow manufacturers to focus resources and 

efforts on much needed small scaled demonstrations, eventually leading to ZEV 

commercialization. 

C. Unrelated Comments 

6. Comments: ARB received several comments which do not relate to the 

 modifications presented in the second post-Board Hearing comment period. 

 (Cabrera, Elliott, Guldenbrein, Haskell, Kunhardt, Rosen, SCAQMD, Yelverton) 

 

 Agency Response: The comments received do not speak to any modifications 

 presented during the second post-Board Hearing comment period.