Comment Log Display

A persistent bias in favor of hydrogen in the proposed State
Alternative Fuels Plan Report defies logic and could once again
distract the ARB from fair treatment of more-realistic alternative
fuels. 

The Plan suggests that use of plug-in hybrids and biofuels would
be cleaner than scenarios with hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, but
the plan largely ignores battery electric vehicles (BEVs). A
detailed study for the California Energy Commission by consultants
TIAX LLC found that BEVs reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by
68% compared with conventional cars using the existing electric
grid, compared with a 54% reduction from hydrogen fuel-cell cars,
if a hydrogen infrastructure existed. Buses, too, are cleanest if
they’re electric, the study adds.

The Alternative Fuels Plan uses wildly inflated cost estimates to
dismiss BEVs yet accepts much, much higher costs for the hydrogen
scenarios. CARB should reject this biased premise.

This bias appears in other ARB-associated projects:

ARB-funded studies of plug-in hybrids starting soon at the
University of California’s Berkeley and Irvine campuses are
comparing them with conventional hybrids and with hydrogen
fuel-cell cars — but not with battery electric cars. That makes no
sense, especially at a time when several major automakers are
expressing interest in resuming production of electric cars. The
ARB should provide state-owned electric cars for the studies, if
necessary, for complete comparisons.

In February 2008 the ARB will revise the Zero Emission Vehicle
program. The current ARB staff proposal gives automakers the same
credits for three hydrogen fuel-cell cars as for four BEVs. The
ARB should insist on one-to-one technological neutrality. Treat
hydrogen and electric vehicles equally, and let the market decide.



Sherry Boschert, president
San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association