[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 65 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD'S LOW-EMISSION VEHICLE AND CLEAN FUEL 
                              REGULATIONS

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to report to the Senate 
today some very good news for all of us who look forward to having 
``clean cars'' on our Nation's roads as soon as possible. On Friday, 
May 13, the California Air Resources Board [CARB] decided to stick with 
the low-emission vehicle and clean fuel regulations it established in 
1990. These regulations mandate that 2 percent of all motor vehicles 
sold in California in 1998--about 25,000 cars--must be zero emission. 
In 2001, the requirement increases to 5 percent, and in 2003, a full 10 
percent.
  After hearing from numerous witnesses over 2 days, the board found no 
compelling reasons to delay implementation of the regulations. In her 
closing statement, Chairwoman Jacquelin E. Schafer summed up the 
portion of the hearing devoted to the zero emission mandate:

       A number of witnesses said they didn't like or that it 
     could, and I emphasize the word ``could'', stifle new ideas 
     and technologies. But we heard from no one who claimed the 
     mandate had not accomplished its stated objective of 
     stimulating technological development and innovation. While 
     electric vehicle and battery technology may not have advanced 
     much between the turn of the century and the 1980's, there is 
     no doubt that tremendous advancements have occurred since we 
     adopted the zero emission vehicle regulation in 1990. We 
     heard over and over again that the mandate caused or 
     contributed to these advancements. I don't think we want to 
     take any actions that would slow down or stall this progress.

  Mr. President, neither should the Congress take any action that would 
slow this tremendous and exciting progress.
  The decision to maintain the zero emission standards sends a clear 
message to the country that the clean fuel electric car, the only 
practical zero emission vehicle currently available, is on track. And 
it is great news for both the economy and the environment of my State 
of California.
  Nothing less than the quality of life itself is at stake in 
California. Of the seven American cities with the highest ozone levels, 
six are in California. In testimony before CARB, the executive director 
of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, James M. Lents, 
said, without the full implemention of the low-emission vehicle 
mandate--including the zero emission vehicle mandate--there is no 
possibility of southern California ever attaining healthful air 
quality.
  Success in cleaning up our air requires that we clean up the major 
sources of the pollution: cars, trucks, airplanes, and trains, which 
account for 70 percent of all carbon monoxide [CO] emissions. And by 
far the largest share of transportation pollution is from road 
vehicles.
  Yes, Mr. President, automobile emissions have improved; despite a 96-
percent increase in vehicle travel, highway carbon monoxide emissions 
were cut by 59 percent from 1970 to 1991. However, progress came only 
as a result of a strong push from government. The Environmental 
Protection Agency estimates that without the implementation of vehicle 
emission controls, carbon monoxide emissions from highway vehicles 
would have increased more than three times from 1970 to 1991.
  Still, more than 90 percent of Californians live in areas which do 
not meet Federal healthy air standards, and over two-thirds of this 
pollution comes from mobile sources. I was socked, Mr. President, to 
learn that children in the Los Angeles Basin, on average, suffer a 15-
percent reduction in lung function by age 12 because of exposure to 
smog. These precious children are our most important investment in our 
future, but we are letting them down.
  We must remove this poison at the tailpipe, and we can start by 
promoting the electric vehicle as a commuter car. According to the U.S. 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the average distance for commuters 
to travel to work is only 11.8 miles, and even in car-conscious 
southern California, the average daily commute is only 22 miles. So, 
despite having to recharge every 100 miles, the EV would make a great 
commuter car--the perfect second car in the more than half of all 
American households which own more than one car.
  It has been argued that the battery technology for EV's is not 
sufficiently advanced, that the price of the vehicle is too high, and 
that there are not enough recharging stations. But the fact is that 
practical electric vehicles are available now. Recharging stations are 
going in now, and Californians are ready to buy environmentally sound 
cars now.
  This is not a case of California versus Detroit, as some have 
suggested. California and Detroit in fact are natural partners in the 
development of electric cars. California has the aerospace expertise 
and other high-technology component manufacturing that is necessary in 
electric vehicle technologies.
  Indeed, some of the best evidence that a market-ready electric 
vehicle will be ready by 1998 comes from the automakers. The Hughes 
Electric Vehicle Team, a General Motors division, helped engineer a 
marvelous, ground-up electric vehicle, the ``Impact'', in southern 
California. ``Popular Mechanics'' magazine, in a February 1994 cover 
story, said of the car: ``GM's hard-charging Impact is practical, fun 
to drive and a master-stroke of engineering. * * * Impact can deliver 
the goods--lively performance, acceptable range and reasonable price--
with technology that exists right now.''

  This story offers clear proof that American engineering is producing 
a high-technology high-appeal electric vehicle right now. General 
Motors plans to put 50 Impacts on the road this summer for market 
testing, and the other automakers are also already turning out road-
ready electric vehicles. Ford's electric Ecostar test fleet has logged 
more than 18,700 miles of in-use experience. The Ecostar's average 
range is 94 miles and its top speed is 70 miles per hour.
  Consumers will buy electric cars if we provide the right incentives. 
GM's own survey in 1992 of 1,000 potential new car buyers in San 
Francisco and Los Angeles found that the number of people who would 
definitely or probably purchase an electric vehicle increased from 17 
to 68 percent if provided a mix of price and ownership incentives.
  Under the 1992 Energy Act, Congress provided a Federal tax credit of 
10 percent up to $4,000 on the purchase of an electric vehicle and 
required an ambitious program of procuring clean fuel vehicles for the 
Federal fleet. President Clinton last year issued an Executive order 
that would more than double the alternative fuel vehicle purchases by 
the Federal Government between 1994 and 1997 for a cumulative total of 
110,000 vehicles.
  We can also remove one of the glaring inconsistencies in the Tax 
Code. Although the tax credit is available, the cost of providing this 
clean fuel technology could subject the vehicle to the luxury tax. Last 
week I introduced S. 2117, legislation to repeal the luxury tax on the 
value of components required for a vehicle to be powered by clean-
burning fuel.
  The Tax Code does not now distinguish between an automobile that 
exceeds the luxury tax cost threshold because of special equipment or 
performance characteristics and an automobile that exceeds the 
threshold solely because it operates on a nonconventional fuel source, 
such as electricity. Because of the new technologies involved and the 
lack of economies of scale in low volume production, initially the 
price of some EVs will exceed the luxury tax threshold. The luxury tax 
now threatens to deter purchase of EVs, and to delay EV market 
development efforts. S. 2117 will remove this disincentive.
  I also hope that my colleagues will support the industry-government 
collaboration to place 5,000 EVs on the roads by 1997. If successful, 
this large-scale demonstration program, called ``EV America,'' would 
help build a sustainable market for EVs in the United States.
  EV America would utilize authorities of the Energy Policy Act, Public 
Law 102-486, title VI, subtitles A & B, to implement a partnership 
program between the private sector--led by the utility industry--and 
government to demonstrate electric vehicles and associated vehicle 
support systems. Phase I of EV America contemplates the placement of at 
least 500 EVs in government, utility and other commercial fleets 
nationwide by the end of 1995.
  It is our hope that some of these vehicles could be placed with the 
National Park Service to demonstrate the clean-fuel and quiet 
characteristics of electric vehicles to a large number of Americans. 
Yosemite and Grand Canyon national parks, which have among the worse 
air quality of any national park, would also be excellent locations for 
a full-scale electric vehicle demonstration program.
  To date, 13 U.S. utilities have signed an agreement to undertake this 
500-vehicle purchase and testing program, provided that the Federal 
Government agrees to share the costs of the program. Other utilities 
have expressed an interest in participating, and it is anticipated that 
they will become partners in the program, also.
  The total cost of this first phase will amount to $22 million for 
vehicle acquisition and 3-year support costs. We are requesting the 
Federal Government to supply 45 percent of the cost, with $5 million 
from the Department of Energy and $5 million from the fiscal year 1994 
funding already provided to the Advanced Research Projects Agency for 
its EV/infrastructure demonstration program under the Department of 
Defense.
  With consumer familiarity and acceptance of electric vehicles, and 
continued technological advancements and economies of scale, the 
incremental costs of electric vehicles will decrease. But the linchpin 
in this effort is California's zero emission requirement.
  Setting the target date for the zero emission requirements has become 
the equivalent of President Kennedy's pledge to put a man on the moon 
in a decade. We can put a significant number of electric vehicles on 
the road sooner than that. For the sake of our future, for our 
children's sake, we must not stop now.

                          ____________________