California Reaches Compromise With Automakers on Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

The state of California is famous worldwide for its Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate: a regulation which requires automakers to produce a specific proportion of zero emission vehicles alongside their gasoline and diesel models in order to avoid tough fines and be allowed to sell cars in the state.

Cars like the FIAT 500e exist purely to satisfy CARB regulations

Cars like the FIAT 500e exist purely to satisfy CARB regulations

It’s that very regulation which helps California have such a large range of plug-in cars for sale. Aside from the handful of automakers who make and sell plug-in cars nationwide — like Nissan, General Motors, BMW, Ford and Tesla — most automakers produce limited number of plug-in cars exclusively for sale in California and the other states which follow California’s ZEV mandate in order to satisfy that mandate. These are colloquially known as ‘compliance’ cars by the auto industry.

Originally focused on high-volume automakers, the minimum ZEV requirement for automakers has slowly risen as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) strives to meet the state’s goal of 1.5 million zero emissions vehicles on its roads by 2025 as well as reduce chronic air pollution in major Californian cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. In addition, ZEV rules have come into force for mid-volume automakers, requiring more automakers than ever before to produce zero emission vehicles — or buy the appropriate amount of credits from rival automakers with credits to spare.

The latest version of the ZEV mandate — due to come into force on January 1, 2018 —  will require intermediate-volume automakers to produce at least some zero-emission vehicles in order to sell in state. But for some time now, five of those intermediate-volume automakers — Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Subaru and Volvo — have argued that they should be exempt from the ZEV mandate due to their small research and development budgets.

As Automotive News (subscription required) explains however, those pleas were rejected at a recent May 18 meeting of the Air Resources Board, meaning that each of the five automakers listed above will have to produce some form of advanced fuel vehicles in order to meet the ZEV requirements.

CARB has reached a compromise with intermediate volume automakers allowing TZEV to qualify for ZEV credits.

Yet in a measure that addresses some of the five automakers’ concerns, CARB has offered something of a compromise. Instead of requiring automakers with less than $40 billion in annual global revenue to produce all-electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in order to meet the ZEV requirements, the CARB will allow those companies to produce Transitional Zero-Emission Vehicles (TZEVs) instead.

Under the agreement, cars like the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV would earn credits.

Under the agreement, cars like the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV would earn credits.

It’s essentially the outcome suggested back in October last year, when those same five automakers attended an CARB hearing on softening zero-emission requirements for intermediate-volume manufacturers. Now that outcome has been agreed on, those five automakers can concetnrate on making TZEVs instead of full ZEVs. For those unfamiliar with the distinction, ZEVs produce no tailpipe emissions and are therefore powered by either electricity or a hydrogen fuel cell. TZEVs include plug-in hybrids: cars with both a gasoline or diesel engine and a battery pack for limited-range zero emission use.

One of the arguments made at the hearing was that in everyday use, TZEVs operate as electric vehicles, only using their gasoline engines as range-extenders. However a counter-argument to that would be that developing a dual-drivetrain vehicle is as complex — if not more so — than developing a purely electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.

Under the rules that come into force in January 2018, intermediate-volume automakers will have to earn some of their ZEV credits through the production and sale of ZEV or TZEV vehicles. But if they don’t sell enough, they’ll have to turn to other automakers — like Tesla Motors — to buy any remaining credits needed to satisfy CARB regulations.

For Tesla Motors, which sold more than $51 million worth of ZEV credits in the first quarter this year to automakers who weren’t producing enough ZEVs on their own, you’d think that the compromise would be at least a secure revenue stream moving forward.

But as Ken Morgan, director of business development and governmental affairs at Tesla points out, there’s already an oversupply of ZEV credits. And if those credits become cheaper than building and selling ZEV or TZEV models in California, automakers will take the easy choice.

His argument? Even intermediate-volume automakers — all of which are bigger than Tesla — have “billions of dollars in operating profit and cash on hand.”

Essentially, if Tesla can make an electric car, so too can automakers like Mazda and Subaru, argue many advocates. Currently, neither Mazda nor Subaru appear to have any plans for either a plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid model for the U.S.

Tesla argues the compromise isn't exactly fair on those who do make ZEVs.

Tesla argues the compromise isn’t exactly fair on those who do make ZEVs.

Jaguar Land Rover, Volvo, and Mitsubishi meanwhile, do — and we should note that Mitsubishi already sells the low-volume i-Miev electric car, which would qualify it for at least some ZEV credits.

Here at Transport Evolved, we’d rather see more cars with plugs on the roads than without — even if those cars happen to be plug-in hybrids rather than all-electric models. Further, we feel the compromise — which could change again in 2016 during a 2015-2017 mid-cycle CARB review — is indeed better than scrapping the mandate altogether.

But we’re curious. Do you think the CARB should have reached the compromise — or forced those lower-volume automakers to produce fully zero emission vehicles?

Leave your thoughts in the Comments below.


Want to keep up with the latest news in evolving transport? Don’t forget to follow Transport Evolved on Twitter, like us on Facebook and G+, and subscribe to our YouTube channel.

You can also support us directly as a monthly supporting member by visiting

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInDigg thisShare on RedditEmail this to someonePin on Pinterest

Related News

  • Rob Andrews

    Sorry, less than 40 Billion is still huge. eGolf shows a little extra thought can yield one car that suits both needs. Electric cars are not hard to build. If cost is really a concern, these manufacturers could easily partner on a range of vehicles (e.g.FRS/BRZ). Tesla is right, these new rules are just letting very big auto companies of the hook.

    • Michael Thwaite

      Yes, slippery slope. I think we’ve effectively discounted the “can’t afford to” argument so, if automakers won’t design more environmentally responsible cars then, others that can should flourish – it’s the natural order of things.

  • jeffsongster

    I just hope this isn’t the beginning of the end. It seems we’ve come to far to go back to the crushers… but this is the way the EVs mostly went away last time. The creepy lobbyists start softening the law… letting the corporate criminals and polluters off the hook… and then they stop making them… the leases end… the values collapse and they start crushing the lease returns. When the charger infrastructure is used less because of this it recedes and mostly disappears. Go out and try to find an induction paddle charger these days… from the first round of these CARB restrictions… before they were previously undermined.
    Sad to hear that the Corporate Whiny babies are getting their way/profits again at little or no cost to them as they cause more pollution and cases of lung cancer and asthma. PHEVs or TZEVs are definitely not EVs. Less pollution is better than more… sure… but none trumps. We are going to need to set a tougher standard for the definitions of these cars so that PHEVs must go at least 30 miles or something on battery before they qualify so that we can avoid burning oil in 90% of the average daily drive. The PHEVs also should be required to charge their batteries when parked at home. Most VOLT owners do this anyway but many PHEVs are driven on gas alone often. Hardly gains anything then.

    Well I sincerely hope I am being to dismal about this… but it is worrying. I think that we have progressed too far this time to go back to near zero… but T-Zero and PHEV is not the correct long term answer.

  • Dennis Pascual

    Disappointed that the proposal is basically what was discussed in October 2014. Especially since the R&D “necessary” for these smaller manufacturers can be alleviated by making use of the “open” patents from Tesla AND Ford.

    Plus, Mitsubishi’s iMiEV experience and Outlander PHEV should count against their own argument.

  • D. Harrower

    Sad day for California (and the rest of the CARB states), and shame on CARB for cow-towing to pressure and bullying from lazy automakers who just want to maintain the status quo and refuse to innovate. They want to sit on their butts counting profits, they should be allowed to die.

    Better get out my parachute pants; It’s seems like we’re back in the 90’s.