Apr 23, 2007 (From the CalCars-News archive)
CalCars-News
This posting originally appeared at CalCars-News, our newsletter of breaking CalCars and plug-in hybrid news.
View the original posting here.
Here's the most important news: reports from the
California Air Resources Board now point the way
forward to getting large demonstration fleets of
PHEVs, and for meeting ARB's new programmatic
responsibilities for Low Carbon Fuel Standards
and implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act.
Way back in 2003, the ARB said it would take a
fresh look at the options available in reviewing
its Zero Emission Vehicles Mandate (the
guidelines that are the backdrop for the story
presented in "Who Killed the Electric Car?").
When we testified about the implementation of the
Pavley Bill in 2004, suggesting that PHEVs could
provide a 60% reduction in new-car CO2 emissions
in two years, instead of the goal of 30% by 2016,
Board Members agreed it was time to take another look at PHEVs.
The Board appointed an expert panel, and that
panel received testimony last fall. (At
<http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html>, see our summaries, including:
10/05/06: Progress or Breakthroughs at California
Symposium on Zero Emission Vehicles
09/29/06: Experiences of 2 PHEV Early Drivers:
Testimony to Air Resources Board ZEV Technology Symposium
Now at
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevreview/zevreview.htm>
you can download the long-awaited 207-page Air
Resources Board ZEV Expert Panel report (1.4MB),
its 12-page summary, and the 27-page ZEV Staff Recommendations.
The bottom line from the expert panel, after
evaluating the status of battery technology and
meeting with automakers and component suppliers,
is found in the panel's expected timetable to
commercialization. Here's part of the Projected
Achievement of Global Volumes chart that appears
in all 3 reports (in color on p.7 of the staff
report), showing PHEVs as the vehicle type that
will progress fastest (after hybrids that are already in mass production):
Low-Volume Commercialization (10,000s/year):
PHEVs: 2012
EVs: 2015
Fuel Cell: 2020
Mass Commercialization (100,000s/year)
PHEVs: 2015
EVs: 2030
Fuel Cell: 2025
It will take all of us some time to digest and
discuss the study, but here are a few broad comments:
* PHEV timetables could accelerate further,
especially if CalCars and all the other advocates of PHEVs do our job!
* For PHEVs, the chart projects volumes for
"Demo" ((100s/year) starting in 2008-2010, and
"Pre-Commercial" (1,000s/year) in 2010. Yet we
read these projections in a report that agrees
with car-makers that "perfect" batteries are not
yet available. How do we reconcile these two
perspectives? As you will see in our excerpts
below (especially page 169), the expert panel
recognizes an urgent need to for "real-world
experience" to enable all the interested parties
to agree on definitions and standards about
PHEVs. The way to do this is to get substantial
demonstration fleets on the road ASAP -- version
1.0 PHEVs with "good enough" batteries!
California has the opportunity to be creative and
pro-active. We hope Board Members and staff who
connect the dots will get to work on ways to
incentivize car-makers to build and deliver
sizeable demonstration fleets as soon as
possible. (The Board meets to review the reports
May 24-25 in San Diego, and a significant turnout
among PHEV and EV advocates is likely.)
* The report confirms that today's proven
nickel-metal hydride batteries could power PHEVs
and EVs, but confirms that auto-makers aren't interested in using them.
* We expect that the time will soon show that the
projections for full-electric vehicles are also overly extended.
* Given the obstacles to hydrogen and fuel cells
described in the report, we see the level of
detail presented on these issues (far greater
than for other technologies throughout the
report), as indicative of the difficulty the ARB
faces in evolving from its previous expectations
that hydrogen would far more than a long-term goal.
For early media analyses and comments, see:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/04/arb_expert_zev_.html
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1234
EXCERPTS FROM REPORTS
Below are some sections we think are most
significant, though we encourage you to read the
entire report and staff recommendations! (FPBEV
is an acronym for Full-Power Battery Electric
Vehicles, as distinguished from NEVs and CEVs (neighborhood/city):
In the expert panel report, not to overlook the
important sections on a whole range of topics,
here are the main sections on PHEVs:
pp. 3-5, 10 summarize findings on batteries and PHEVs
pp. 161-170 are the main PHEV section
pp. 196-198 discuss small-format batteries in
PHEV conversions and full electric vehicles
EXPERT PANEL REPORT PAGES 3 -5
Medium power/medium energy NiMH technology has
promise to meet the technical requirements for
PHEVs with relatively short (e.g., 10-20 miles)
nominal electric range. It is the conclusion of
the Panel that in mass production, medium
power/medium energy NiMH technology’s incremental
cost over that of HEV batteries, estimated to be
about $800-1,200, is probably less than the
difference in lifetime fuel costs. However, no
substantial efforts to develop or capabilities to
fabricate medium power NiMH technology appear to exist.
Medium energy/power Li Ion technology has
sufficient performance for PHEVS and small
FPBEVs, and it can be expected to meet the life
requirements for FPBEVs, in the view of the
Panel. Recent test results indicate good
potential to also deliver the very demanding
cycle life for PHEVs. The projected costs for
shorter range PHEV Li Ion batteries are about
$3500-4000 in mass production; this is generally
less than the fuel cost savings expected over the
life of the vehicle. Low volume cell production
and prototype battery fabrication is underway in
Asia and Europe, and limited fleet demonstrations are underway or planned.
Batteries assembled from large numbers
(typically, 5,000 or more) of small, high energy
Li Ion cells mass-manufactured for laptop
computers and other electronic applications are
now being used in FPBEVs (and PHEVs) fabricated
on a small scale. It is the conclusion of the
Panel, however, that such small-cell batteries,
although providing early opportunities to
demonstrate the technical capabilities of PHEV
conversions and modern FPBEVs, have inherently
high costs and uncertain calendar and cycle life.
The major impediment to engagement in developing
Li Ion batteries for PHEVs appears to be that the
PHEV battery requirements are insufficiently defined at this time.
The prospects of PHEVs also were judged
negatively by most major automobile manufactures
until recently. However, several manufacturers
are now active in modeling, designing and
evaluating various PHEV architectures and
technologies, with consequent attention to
candidate battery technologies and their
prospects. In the U.S., an effort sponsored by
DOE and supported by USABC is now underway with
automobile industry expert participation to
establish PHEV battery performance, life and cost
targets for a planned Research and Development
(R&D) program. In Japan the New Energy and
Industrial Technology Development Organization
(NEDO) is launching an initiative to develop PHEV
batteries with the involvement of leading Li Ion
battery developers. These initiatives and
automobile manufacturers’ initiatives such as
GM’s recently announced plans to offer a PHEV
version of the Saturn VUE HEV and to launch the
“Volt” PHEV if suitable Li Ion batteries become
available are the signals needed by the major
battery manufacturers to become engaged with
their own resources in the development and manufacture of batteries for PHEVs.
PAGE 10
PHEVs have no expected customer compromises while
promising several benefits to customers and
society. The relatively small battery capacity
can be fully used daily for maximum customer fuel
savings payback of the initial vehicle premium.
Recently, some OEMs have become interested in
PHEVs, and GM and Ford have shown concept PHEVs
at recent auto shows and other events – which is
attracting major media attention and establishing high consumer expectations.
However, definitions and fuel economy/emissions
testing standards do not yet exist and need to be
agreed upon. Also, All Electric Range (AER) could
have a major impact on manufacturing cost, as
well as capital investment requirements if unique
and more powerful electric drive systems are
necessary, and therefore AER could have a
significant impact on the early success of the technology.
Despite the fact that recent auto show PHEVs
appeared to require new platforms, it may be more
likely that OEMs will want to derive early PHEVs
from existing HEVs in order to minimize capital
investment and the associated business risk. For
the same reason, blended AER, as opposed to EV
mode, may be more likely in early products.
It is the Panel’s opinion that PHEVs have the
potential to provide significant direct societal
benefits and are likely to become available in
the near future. They may foster future mass
market BEVs by stimulating energy battery
development and conditioning mass market customers to accept plugging in.
PAGE 12
As a long term ZEV outcome, the Panel can
envision plug-in hybrid FCEVs, powered by
sustainable electricity for shorter trips and
sustainable hydrogen for longer trips.
PAGE 161
From the customer’s perspective, a plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) combines all the
benefits of a BEV with all the benefits of a HEV.
Compared to a HEV, a PHEV adds the capability to
connect the vehicle to the electric grid while
parked and charge an energy battery, similar to a
BEV. It then depletes this stored energy during
driving to displace the use of ICE fuel. The
attributes of a PHEV could make it attractive to
the mass-market customer – like BEVs, they can
reduce fuel cost and be refueled at home, and
like HEVs they can be used for long trips, they
can be refueled quickly when necessary and
“plugging in” is not required to operate the
vehicle. Compared to a HEV, they provide reduced
exhaust emissions, fuel consumption and CO2 production.
PAGE 165
Agreed upon definitions and standards for testing
emissions and fuel economy of PHEVs are likely to
be complicated and do not yet exist. Ideally they
will maximize commonality with existing standards
and will need to be established before serious
design and development of PHEVs can begin. In
addition to modeling efforts underway,
manufacturers will need to deploy PHEV
demonstration fleets with a variety of
operational characteristics to gather real world
onroad customer data in order to provide
meaningful input to proposed definitions and
standards prior to being finalized. Furthermore,
truly representative battery cycle life testing,
which takes a long time to conduct, cannot be
started until agreement is reached on definitions and standards for PHEVs.
PAGE 166
The Panel expects customer interest and
acceptance of a PHEV to be good. Depending on the
final label methodology, high fuel economy
numbers are likely to get mass-market customer’s
attention, and this could be particularly
effective coupled with the significant 2008 MY
reductions in label values. Fuel costs can be
reduced by plugging into the grid, and unlike
FPBEVs, the vehicle does not have range issues
and does not need to be plugged into the grid to
be able to operate. Customers can also have the
satisfaction of knowing they are helping to
reduce exhaust emissions, petroleum consumption
and the creation of CO2. Other advantages are
fewer trips to the service station, and if the
vehicle has EV mode, quiet electric drive and the
security of being able to do some limited driving
during a fuel shortage. Ultimately, however,
vehicle price will be a major factor in
establishing mass-market customer appeal and
therefore market success of the PHEV.
...the incremental cost of the PHEV at these
volumes is therefore about $3,100. Assuming no
additional profit mark up from the OEM to recover
incremental development, warranty, and marketing
costs, the customer payback would be about 6+
years. The payback is highly sensitive to the
price of gasoline; at $2/gallon the payback
period increases to 12+ years, and at $4/gallon it declines to 4+ years.
PAGE 167
Average customers will need to be educated on how
a PHEV differs from a HEV and many are likely to
be confused for a while. Communications efforts
by manufacturers to convince potential HEV
customers that HEVs do not need to be plugged in
will be complicated by the existence of PHEVs.
PAGE 169
Given the rapid success and increasing
mass-market awareness of HEVs, the high level of
national publicity about PHEVs, recent auto show
PHEV concept and prototype vehicle announcements,
and the need for OEMs to gain real world fleet
experience in order to participate effectively in
PHEV standards development, the Panel projects
that demonstration level volume (100’s/year)
could be on the road within the next 5 years. A
key requirement to enable successful introduction
of PHEVs are definitions and standards developed
through a formal process and consensus among the
key stakeholders. Some manufacturers may
introduce expensive and/or limited numbers of
PHEVs within the next 5 to 10 years, probably as
marketing or public relations initiatives. When a
battery becomes available that is technically
capable for the intended application and the
purchase price is low enough, or gasoline prices
rise significantly, or some combination of the
two, mass commercialization (100,000’s/year) is
likely to be achieved within five years
thereafter. Until then, however, volumes of PHEVs
will not progress beyond the level of
pre-commercialization (1,000s/year) or, at most,
early commercialization (10,000s/year).
PAGE 177
The Panel’s projection is that PHEVs with modest
energy storage capacity will be derived from HEVs
and will proliferate rapidly, stimulating further
development and cost reduction of energy
batteries and leading to commercially viable
PHEVs and, in the longer term, FPBEVs. While
PHEVs will continue to grow rapidly, as they have
no functional limitations, FPBEVs will grow more
slowly due to customer acceptance of limited range and long recharge time.
STAFF REPORT
PAGE 9
The Panel found that plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles offer direct societal benefits to the
consumer and are likely to become commercially
available in the near future. The incremental
cost of the small battery pack should be offset
by the lower operating cost of the technology.
The major technical issue with PHEVs is the
ability of the energy battery to endure the large
number of deep cycles the battery must deliver
over the life of the vehicle. The number of deep
cycles is substantially higher for PHEVs than
FPBEVs and thus represents a new dimension in
deep cycling requirements. Battery cycle life for
PHEVs is not completely know at this time. The
Panel also found that test procedures to
accurately determine emissions and efficiency do
not exist and need to be developed. Also, the
cost impact of greater electric range is not well
understood and could have a significant impact on
consumer acceptance. The Panel concludes that
commercialization of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles will stimulate battery development and
help consumers become comfortable with plugging in a vehicle.
PAGES 17-18
Issue: The question of how to treat plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) was a
controversial topic during the 2003 amendments
and remains so today. The Board was asked to
classify PHEVs as “gold” as they appeared to have
greater chance for near term commercial viability
considering the smaller battery pack, unlimited
range and limited infrastructure needs. However,
the Board said no, gold means zero emissions.
Instead, the Board directed staff to create
sufficient regulatory incentive outside of the
gold category to encourage introduction of PHEVs.
One of the toughest questions the Board asked the
manufacturers as they testified at the 2003
hearings was “why don’t you produce a plug-in
hybrid vehicle?” Coming into this technology
review, with still no PHEV from a major
manufacturer, staff asked the Panel to help staff
to assess what more could be done to further support PHEV.
Current Treatment in the Regulation: PHEVs earn
silver credit that ranges from 10.8 to 18
depending on the amount of all electric range.
This compares to a conventional hybrid that earns
a credit of up to 0.7. PHEVs produced after 2009
may earn up to 4 credits each and after 2012
three credits each. Certification test procedures
for PHEVs need revisions to better reflect
current design approaches to PHEVs. When the
initial certification procedures were adopted
staff anticipated that PHEVs would be designed to
operate in an all electric mode until the battery
pack was exhausted. Instead, manufacturers are
designing fully integrated PHEVs where the
battery and gasoline engine operate
intermittently or simultaneously (blended)
throughout typical driving. Currently, the
regulation invites manufacturers to present an
alternative certification calculation method for approval of their PHEV system.
Panel Findings: The Expert Panel concludes that
PHEVs have the potential to provide significant
direct benefits and to foster future mass market
ZEVs by stimulating battery development and
conditioning mass market customers to accept
plugging in. Several major manufacturers are
showing a new interest in the technology and have
recently announced PHEV development activities
and timeframes for selling them to the public.
PHEVs have the potential to achieve significant
electric drive use. The technology may be very
close to technical and economic feasibility and
ready for mass market introduction by 2015. The
Panel concluded that the significant issue that
must be addressed before commercialization can
take place is the cycle life of batteries used in
PHEVs which may experience more deep cycles than full function BEVs.
Staff findings and recommendations: While
interest in and technical promise for PHEVs is at
an all time high, the fundamental question
remains; should PHEVs count toward meeting pure
ZEV requirements? Staff recommends against
allowing PHEVs to be used in the gold category.
This recommendation is based on the original
concern that PHEVs are not zero emission.
Additionally, uncertainty exists regarding how
PHEVs will be used (will they be plugged in
consistently and throughout their life? Will all
electric range be maximized under a wide variety of driving cycles? etc.).
As examples of PHEVs are demonstrated it is clear
that multiple approaches are under development
that could have very different impacts on air
quality. Traditionally, we have thought of
plug-in hybrids as range extended battery
electric vehicles or electric vehicles with an
engine that could recharge the battery if/when
needed. However, PHEVs being discussed today have
more of a blended approach to using the battery
pack. Like a conventional hybrid, the battery is
used off and on throughout the driving cycle to
assist the engine or drive in an all electric
mode. Staff needs to learn more about how these
blended PHEV strategies would be implemented and
how they might impact air quality before
recommending how they be treated in the ZEV
regulation. For these reasons, staff does not
recommend opening up the pure ZEV category as an
incentive to bring PHEVs to market.
Staff does believe, however, that there are good
reasons why manufacturers will produce PHEVs and
there are adjustments to the regulation that
could be explored that would facilitate this. The
gold category is challenging for manufacturers,
but as the percentage of the overall obligation
that can be met by silver category vehicles
increases, significant pressure builds on
manufacturers to produce large numbers of
“conventional” AT PZEVs. This pressure would make
production of a high scoring silver vehicle
increasingly attractive. Figure 6.3 illustrates
an example of how use of PHEVs with 20 miles
all-electric range to meet one half of the
credits from the AT PZEV category can
significantly reduce the overall number of AT
PZEVs needed while creating a market for PHEVs.
Full documents and profile of Expert Panel
Members at <http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevreview/zevreview.htm>.
