October 2004

E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Version

SACRAMENTO - The California Air Resources Board’s new greenhouse gas rule will help to promote the use of renewable hydrogen, and the carmakers’ arguments against adopting the measure haven’t been very convincing, says ARB chairman Alan C. Lloyd.

Here are his responses to questions sent to him by H&FCL:

Q: What does the new rule mean for hydrogen energy and fuel cells? Are they specifically addressed in the document?

A. This helps to advance hydrogen energy and fuel cells inasmuch as reductions in carbon emissions are required. It depends on which technology choices the car companies make to comply with the rule. If hydrogen-related technologies are used, and since upstream emissions are being taken into account, this would require the use of some renewable hydrogen. Additional information is in the staff report.

Q: Does the new rule recommend specific technologies or strategies? If so, could you summarize what they are or give examples?

A. No, the rule sets performance standards. However, for illustrative purposes, to assess technical feasibility and for economic impact assessment, the staff assumed certain technologies could be used, e.g., variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation, or continuously variable transmissions.

Q: Does Gov. Schwarzenegger support the new rule?

A. While the governor has not seen the specifics of the rule, he is on record as supporting the Pavley legislation (ed.note: 2002 legislation introduced by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley) which required us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

Q: We saw some pretty negative reactions already from carmakers in media reports, saying, among other things, the changes would be much more expensive than what your staff projects. What’s your response to that?

A. It’s the same arguments that we heard at the hearing and that historically have been the position of the automobile companies – the rule is too expensive and implies unknown or unproven technologies. The board felt that the car companies could choose from a variety of technologies that already exist, and the legislation required those to be cost-effective for the consumer over the lifetime of the car. The unanimous vote of the board was a clear indication of how the board weighed the evidence presented at the hearing.