Why is California so Anti-Tesla and pro foreign auto makers?

Yes, why ?

Can you imagine Michingan or Japan or Germany making regulations that disadvantage local home grown automakers and prefer foreign auto makers ?

I can't.

So, why are CARB-ZEV regulations of California so anti-EV and pro-Fuel Cell - given that Tesla is the most well-known EV maker and fuel cells vehicles are mostly being made by foreign auto makers like Toyota, Honda, MB and Hyundai ?

Who does CARB board give so many more points for a Fuel cell vehicle than an EV ? Why does the board let the foreign automakers enjoy traveling provisions beyond 2017 ? Why does CA spend tax dollars on fuel cell infrastructure ?

Clearly a case of a bureaucracy that is beholden to foreign automakers rather than citizens of California.

Guess who the big contributors to the legislatures are in Sacramento... Toyota spends more alone than Tesla, GM and Ford do combined. It is as much about politics as it is the environment.

evnow said:

Clearly a case of a bureaucracy that is beholden to foreign automakers rather than citizens of California.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised the press is not writing about this. This is the weirdest thing I've seen in auto regulations - CA is literally making rules that prefer foreign automakers compared to local.

It also goes to show how bad Tesla is at lobbying. Silicon Valley has been notoriously bad at that.

TomT said:

Guess who the big contributors to the legislatures are in Sacramento... Toyota spends far more alone than Tesla, GM and Ford combined.

Click to expand...

And....that may change since Toyota is moving their headquarters to Plano, TX (DFW area) from California.

And you want to know who hates Tesla? Texas. The strictest dealership laws in the US. Yet, we are the second highest purchasers of Teslas. Imagine how much more would be bought if they could legally sell here? I love how Texas tries so hard to say its business friendly and business neutral and has such harsh laws to push out businesses like Tesla - its so hypocritical. .

Where are the Tesla battery swap stations that put them on par with FCEV?

And I do agree CA has a freakish obsession with hydrogen at any cost.

smkettner said:

Where are the Tesla battery swap stations that put them on par with FCEV?

And I do agree CA has a freakish obsession with hydrogen at any cost.

Click to expand...

The first swap station goes in at Harris Ranch in an old car wash in about six months. It is officially a "demonstration", which tells me that it will likely be one of one (or maybe two or three total).

It's easy to be pro hydrogen when so few cars need to be sold to meet the ZEV mandates and the infrastructure is both built and MAINTAINED by our friends, the loyal state tax payer.

Expect about one million per year per hydrogen station just to maintain and operate them. Contrast that with a Supercharger site that costs... almost nothing except electricity, and no subsidizes.

TonyWilliams said:

smkettner said:

Where are the Tesla battery swap stations that put them on par with FCEV?

And I do agree CA has a freakish obsession with hydrogen at any cost.

Click to expand...

The first swap station goes in at Harris Ranch in an old car wash in about six months. It is officially a "demonstration", which tells me that it will likely be one of one (or maybe two or three total).

Click to expand...

The primary motivation certainly died when CARB removed the fast-refueling credit for long-range BEVs. But I do think battery swapping has a limited future on heavily-traveled high speed routes: Bay Area - LA, NYC - DC, DFW - Houston. Anyone who can afford a Tesla probably values their time at at least $60/hr, so a swap is cost-effective. And until batteries get a lot denser and cheaper, battery swapping will almost be essential for cabs if they hope to make money for their owners by working either two 10 hour or three 8 hour shifts/day. I won't be surprised if we see a few Model X cabs in the interim; Model S' headroom is too limited in back.

TonyWilliams said:

It's easy to be pro hydrogen when so few cars need to be sold to meet the ZEV mandates and the infrastructure is both built and MAINTAINED by our friends, the loyal state tax payer.

Click to expand...

State-subsidized H2 fueling will be limited in time, until either FCEVs become viable, or BEVs with similar capabilities overtake them in cost. I figure ten years max, but more likely five.

TonyWilliams said:

Expect about one million per year per hydrogen station just to maintain and operate them. Contrast that with a Supercharger site that costs... almost nothing except electricity, and no subsidizes.

Click to expand...

Oh, well, if there are no subsidies for the Superchargers, then I'm sure Tesla can reduce the price of their SC-compatible cars by $2,000, or else refund $2,000 of the $2500 state subsidy to the state.

GRA said:

Oh, well, if there are no subsidies for the Superchargers, then I'm sure Tesla can reduce the price of their SC-compatible cars by $2,000, or else refund $2,000 of the $2500 state subsidy to the state.

Click to expand...

I'm confident you knew I meant "tax payer" funded. The $2000 - $2500 is obvious paid by the folks who directly receive the benefit of "free" charging.

But, you knew that.

The Hyundai ix35 (Tucson) Fuel Cell (hydrogen) gets 65.4 miles per KG of hydrogen. That vehicle is not that different from the Toyota RAV4 EV, which gets about 3mi/kWh.

Hydrogen consumption in the ix35 is less than 1.2mi/kWh. That is based on producing 1kg of hydrogen with an electrolysis plant which requires 55kWh of electricity.

The energy costs to operate over 100,000 miles is:


$10,565 - Tucson H2 car uses 1529 KG of hydrogen multiplied by $6.91


$14,583 - Tucson oil burner uses 4166 gal. of gasoline multiplied by $3.50


$ 2,500 - Tesla Supercharger capable car, "free forever" plus any at home / work charging costs


$ 4,000 - Tesla car at 400 wattHours per mile or 40 MegaWatts (no Supercharger fee)




£4.19 per kg ($6.91 USD) - estimated cost of producing hydrogen (without profit)
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/07/itmpower-20130722.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

24 mpg combined Hyundai Tucson oil burner
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Hyundai2014.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Average USA gasoline prices $3.50 gallon
http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Average price per kWh in USA - 10 cents
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/end_use.cfm#tabs_prices-3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TonyWilliams said:

GRA said:

Oh, well, if there are no subsidies for the Superchargers, then I'm sure Tesla can reduce the price of their SC-compatible cars by $2,000, or else refund $2,000 of the $2500 state subsidy to the state.

Click to expand...

I'm confident you knew I meant "tax payer" funded. The $2000 - $2500 is obvious paid by the folks who directly receive the benefit of "free" charging.

But, you knew that.

Click to expand...

No, my point is that Tesla is receiving subsidies from the state of California that reduces the price of their cars, which gets passed on to the customers, who then have more money to spend on things like SCs. The SCs are subsidized by the state (and feds), but indirectly. Tesla is the sole BEV at the moment that could probably survive without subsidies.

GRA said:

No, my point is that Tesla is receiving subsidies from the state of California that reduces the price of their cars, which gets passed on to the customers, who then have more money to spend on things like SCs. The SCs are subsidized by the state (and feds), but indirectly.

Click to expand...

If you want to go that route - I can prove that EVERYTHING is subsidized - since everyone gets some sort of "subsidy" - whether it is for mortgage interest or child care or no tax on food articles or the roads that the state builds.

TonyWilliams said:

The Hyundai ix35 (Tucson) Fuel Cell (hydrogen) gets 65.4 miles per KG of hydrogen. That vehicle is not that different from the Toyota RAV4 EV, which gets about 3mi/kWh.

Hydrogen consumption in the ix35 is less than 1.2mi/kWh. That is based on producing 1kg of hydrogen with an electrolysis plant which requires 55kWh of electricity.

The cost to operate the Hyundai Tucson hydrogen car over 100,000 miles divided by 65.4 miles per KG of hydrogen is:

1529 KG of hydrogen multiplied by $6.91 = $10,565.39 per 100,000 miles

<snip>


£4.19 per kg ($6.91 USD) - estimated cost of producing hydrogen (without profit)
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/07/itmpower-20130722.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Tony, that article (from last July) quotes $6.44/kg, not $6.91. Did you use a different Pounds/$ conversion factor? Looking it up just now, it appears to be $7.11/kg. Of course, the article also notes that the cost had dropped 32.7% in one year. Target price by DoE, which is subsidizing research to bring it down, is $2-$4/kg. retail (but untaxed).

Let us not get into an argument on H2 here. We have other threads for that.

My point here is purely local politics. One would expect that even if BEV is really bad compared to FCV, the rules CA makes would normally benefit BEV vs FCV.

But in this case it benefits FCV !

This is like imposing extra tax on locally manufactured goods and giving subsidies on imported goods !!

evnow said:

Let us not get into an argument on H2 here. We have other threads for that.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the topic drift.

GRA said:

... you use a different Pounds/$ conversion factor? Looking it up just now, it appears to be $7.11/kg. Of course, the article also notes that the cost had dropped 32.7% in one year. Target price by DoE, which is subsidizing research to bring it down, is $2-$4/kg. retail (but untaxed).

Click to expand...

I just typed in in the uber high tech iPhone app. That's what popped out.

Again, not only is that without tax (included road tax, which electricity doesn't currently have either), but is the cost, not retail price.

I don't care where things are made as long as it is the best. It's like everyone hates the other countries and thinks the US can go alone. It's all one big money pot today, get over it. If Japan collapses or China or the US, it is bad for everyone. That's why the Russian sanctions do nothing, because they can't. Money isn't local anymore so buying "local" cars just because they are built up the road is silly.

If it is the best car on the road that you want, they by all means purchase one.

Just because CA is unreasonably pro hydrogen does not mean CA is anti Tesla.
May as well say pro high speed train is anti EV and anti Tesla.... it is not.
The depth of hydrogen subsidy does seem rather over the top.

smkettner said:

Just because CA is unreasonably pro hydrogen does not mean CA is anti Tesla.
May as well say pro high speed train is anti EV and anti Tesla.... it is not.
The depth of hydrogen subsidy does seem rather over the top.

Click to expand...

I think they are highly related.

To give an example - but for FCV, Toyota may have been still getting RAV4EV drive trains from Tesla or Tesla can be selling a ton of ZEV credits.

High speed trains are far too indirect as competitors.

CA is rabidly pro-hydrogen. I've yet to see it be anti-Tesla.

But, this isn't an American vs foreign choice, it's a technology choice. CA's H2 love affair started when its primary proponents were American automakers. And it considers FCVs the holy grail over EVs even though the most aggressive EV company (and perhaps two, depending on BMW) are foreign.

However, CA has noted that it prioritizes supporting CA companies. Tesla is one, and been the beneficiary of that consideration. But at least for the moment, the US headquarters of all three of today's H2 cheerleaders are in California too.

2k1Toaster said:

I don't care where things are made as long as it is the best. It's like everyone hates the other countries and thinks the US can go alone. It's all one big money pot today, get over it. If Japan collapses or China or the US, it is bad for everyone. That's why the Russian sanctions do nothing, because they can't. Money isn't local anymore so buying "local" cars just because they are built up the road is silly.

If it is the best car on the road that you want, they by all means purchase one.

Click to expand...

I partially agree with this. Yes the market is global now, you cannot just live in a jar and pretend those other country's economies don't affect us. BUT buying local does have direct effects. Most states and cities have a sales tax that goes into those government coffers for parks, road repair, business incentives, etc. etc. If I choose to buy food at my walmart in my smallish size city (20k) the state gets most, but my city gets some. If I buy in the walmart on the way home from work in a different city, yes the state gets the same, but the other city wins the money instead of my home town. I don't know how it works for other states, but sales taxes for cars ONLY include the state, not local, so technically it doesn't matter if I buy it in my city or the adjacent. The influence is more of indirect and cumulative effects - less purchases at one place could mean a reduction in staff or reduced salaries that could cause a local person to buy less things...but its very difficult to quantify those indirect effects.

evchels said:

CA is rabidly pro-hydrogen. I've yet to see it be anti-Tesla.

But, this isn't an American vs foreign choice, it's a technology choice. CA's H2 love affair started when its primary proponents were American automakers. And it considers FCVs the holy grail over EVs even though the most aggressive EV company (and perhaps two, depending on BMW) are foreign.

However, CA has noted that it prioritizes supporting CA companies. Tesla is one, and been the beneficiary of that consideration. But at least for the moment, the US headquarters of all three of today's H2 cheerleaders are in California too.

Click to expand...

Even as a non-Californian and one who has never been, I even know how insanely rabidly pro-hydrogen California is. That's how prevalent it is that even out of staters can see it. Too me, I just can't ever see hydrogen as being viable. Its a step back in environmental-wise from BEVs all for the convenience of filling up faster because us Americans are too lazy or too "on the go" to QC for 20 minutes. Granted hydrogen still has the range superiority, but I think that gap is rapidly closing in favor of BEVs. Hydrogen does have an automotive use, but not in personal vehicles. Its freight trucking - long haul. These long hauls count every minute and every hour - they only stop because they are required to rest, stopping extra for fuel just waste time and I don't think batteries (unless there is a huge breakthrough) would last a 8 or 12 hour driving period. But even then, most freight (~80%) is actually local and not cross country. So its a smaller market than you think.