In bureaucracy, truth is often stranger than fiction. A non polluting electric car company gets slammed with fine for “non compliance” for a car that can’t produce any emissions.
That’s weird enough by itself, but even weirder is what else is in the company’s Securities and Exchange Commission report under what they cite as “risks”.
Here’s the relevant page of the report where they talk about risks, including the $275,000 fine from the EPA. Note what is highlighted under that.
They headline that with:
We are subject to substantial regulation, which is evolving, and unfavorable changes or failure by us to comply with these regulations could substantially harm our business and operating results.
That’s right, a zero emissions “green” electric car company cites this as a risk to the company’s business future:
the imposition of a carbon tax or the introduction of a cap-and-trade system on electric utilities could increase the cost of electricity;
You can see the Telsa SEC 10Q report for yourself at:
http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/100813/TESLA-MOTORS-INC_10-Q/#ixzz0yDhK9ON3
Tesla’s crime? Failing to file for a 2009 emissions “Certificate of Conformity” from the EPA to comply with the “Clean Air Act.” until late in the year. Wait, I thought electric cars were supposed to help clean the air?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It is a wonder that anybody would bother even trying to do business anymore where the minefield of bureaucracy looms even for popular and politically correct green companies in California.
h/t to autoblog.com
Sponsored IT training links:
The 642-374 study pack also includes 1Y0-A05 dumps and 350-018 practice exam so you will pass your certification exam on first try.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
where i live, the water is so clean that we have to add crap to the water and then filter it back out to meet the minimum state requirements.
Just because the car itself doesn’t produce any pollutants, the power plants that generate the electricity for the car probably do. I find it counterintuitive that people would ever consider electric cars as a viable solution to a greener environment considering how much they cost to build, the low utilization efficiency of the primary power supply, the minimal driving range, and lack of infrastructure to support such vehicles. Only when the majority of our electricity is generated from a combination of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear can the argument be made that an electric car is a good choice for the environment.
It has no OIL, then it doesn’t managed to “oil” as expected by officials.
So, for the sake of a couple of reminder letters from the EPA (it’s their regulations after all), a small start-up company gets a huge fine. It’s almost like the government is at war with its own people.
If it’s any consolation, it’s no different over here in Euroland, so at least we’ll go down together. Can’t wait to hear what E.M. has to say about this.
Can’t say I’m surprised. After all, one part of the government wants cars to get better gas mileage. One easy way is to make the cars lighter. But then another part of the government wants cars to be safer. One easy way is to make them heavier.
What needs to be regulated is the totally out of control EPA! That bunch of power mad bureaucrats needs to be reined in before they completely destroy the country. And stand by for E15 rules this coming Jan.
http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do;jsessionid=625BB00D381EDF99F03BA1ADAD487D7E.agfreejvm1?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=policy&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc2a8c8730012ac88b1b4302ed&showCommentsOverride=false
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told reporters in a conference call Tuesday he doesn’t think Congress would appease environmental groups by holding more hearings on an expected rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that would allow E-15 blends of ethanol to be sold. Grassley agreed such hearings would only be a delaying tactic, but added that once a rule is released that there will likely be court challenges trying to delay implementation as well.
Grassley said he has recently met with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and staff from the U.S. Department of Energy and was told E-15 would be available by January.
the stupidity of this one made me want to slam my head against the wall.
Or better yet, the EPA officials who issued it.
alGore said electric cars are the key to a carbonfree America.
If the EPA had existed a century ago, when automobiles first made their appearance, the world would be a different place today. Only the rich could afford such a luxury item and the rest of us peons would be famliar with the real meaning of horsepower.
Reading this piece I thought, “You can’t make this stuff up!”
An unremarkable screw-up by Tesla’s management, but at least it makes for a funny story.
Speaking of funny stories, have you heard the one about how mercury is now good for us when safely enclosed in glass and excited with electricity…
This is why we need to eliminate about 2/3rds of the Federal payroll, and any agency that was created post WWI.
RockyRoad says:
“I find it counterintuitive that people would ever consider electric cars as a viable solution to a greener environment considering how much they cost to build, the low utilization efficiency of the primary power supply, the minimal driving range, and lack of infrastructure to support such vehicles.”
That’s only for the cars made for the masses, the rich peoples cars are much better. Read below:
“Battery
Custom microprocessor-controlled lithium-ion battery with 6,831 individual cells. 3.5 hour charge time from empty to full using the Tesla Home Connector at 240 Volts and 70 Amps.
Range 245 miles
Expected Battery Life Seven-years or 100,000 miles
Battery heater for cold weather charging to -20 degrees Celsius”
We know that “green” energy is much more expensive than “black” energy from coal fired power stations.
Why do people assume that “green” energy uses less resources than coal ? Why is it “better” to generate pollution by mining copper, aluminium, iron and other ore resources to build solar and wind plants than it is to mine coal resources ?
I also believe that the cost of energy from a device reflects the total cost of energy used in the components used in generation. That is, the total energy including food to feed workers, transportation for management, the energy in smelting aluminium etc etc is greater for devices like windmills than it is for coal fired power stations. I wonder if there’s ever been a study on this ?
The problem is that the car will not be a source of taxes–no CO2, no revenue
@ur momisugly RockyRoad says August 31, 2010 at 2:36 pm:
Just because the car itself doesn’t produce any pollutants, the power plants that generate the electricity for the car probably do. I find it counterintuitive that people would ever consider electric cars as a viable solution to a greener environment considering how much they cost to build, the low utilization efficiency of the primary power supply, the minimal driving range, and lack of infrastructure to support such vehicles. Only when the majority of our electricity is generated from a combination of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear can the argument be made that an electric car is a good choice for the environment.
Good points about the power generation. The electricity doesn’t get generated currently (no pun intended) without SOME form of “fossil fuels” being burned.
(semi-OT…)
As to the “solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear” you can pretty much write off the first two. They will never be more than a pimple on an elephant’s bum – not until some breakthrough happens. And we’ve been waiting since the 1970s for that breakthrough. Like the promise of hot fusion, solar and wind are going to be like the Edsel – ugly and extinct. And living in some tree huggers’ utopian dreams.
Like everyone here, I’D LOVE IT if solar and wind would take the place of fossil fuels. But it just isn’t going to happen. Defeatism? Or facing reality?
So many tree huggers are out there, thinking that someone next week or next year will be coming up with THE solution.
When the oil and natural gas DO run out, we are going to be in a world of hurt.
Nuclear – BAD solution, unless we go to breeder reactors (as I last read about them). Waste IS a problem.
Hydro? In the U.S. we are pretty well maxed out on hydro.
And here I thought electricity came out of the magic wall plug.
paulhan says August 31, 2010 at 2:42 pm:
“It’s almost like the government is at war with its own people.”
Almost?
The marketers within Tesla Motors want the government to make their vehicle marketably viable (without the heavy hand of Uncle Sam their vehicle makes no sense) so they should take the good with the bad. Screw ’em.
Heck, even gasoline powered 2 seat roadsters have a very slim niche of the automobile market, and those vehicles out perform the Tesla in myriad ways.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/imports/factmna.htm
“The vehicle is driven through a specific driving cycle representing a typical urban drive of 10.5 miles, takes 14 to 36 hours, and includes fuel filling, starting, stopping, accelerating, decelerating, cruising, idling, and sitting while parked*. The emissions measured include hydrocarbons (H C), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrous Oxides (NOx), Evaporative emissions, and particulate emissions”
I’m wondering how long the EPA would scratch their heads for while they try to work out where to insert the gas, and measure such emissions from, in this car?
Rocky Road says:
Only when the majority of our electricity is generated from a combination of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear can the argument be made that an electric car is a good choice for the environment.
I must admit, I hate environmentalists, as a group–because they are so hard on the environment. None of the energy sources cited are SUPERRENEWABLE by becoming CO2 and water vapor which can make new fuels forever by plants turning them into biofuels. Worse, none enhance the carrying capacity of the Earth. Fossil fuels and only fossils qualify.
Windmills have the special disadvantage of killing birds, though an extensive literature search failed to convince me either that the numbers killed are high enough to be a serious concern–or low enough not to cause extinctions. Worse is the reference to nuclear energy. That industry tells lies beyond easy description. They remind me of climate alarmists in their “truth-challenged” characteristics. The most devasting effect–in my opinion–is to the IQs of the highly intelligent, which you can find, if you are sharp, in a free download: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/
Besides, nuclear fuel is our starship fuel and should not be wasted here on Earth. It is the only truly nonrenewable fuel.
Is the EPA authorized to regulate emissions from non-emitting “motor” vehicles? It has no motor, as in combustion engine. Why should the EPA be authorized to regulate it? I went looking for the text of the clean air act, but, this probably requires LEXIS-NEXIS to figure out. The USC ss 18 definition seems to support the EPA, but, that sort of thing is probably up to a judge.
Do electric wheel-chair manufacturers need EPA approval? They have “motors” and provide conveyance. I’m betting nobody thought this law through. It may require a judge.
It’s worse than that in California. The state has its own Cal/EPA, who have their own set of rules and regulations. A California company must follow both US and Cal/EPA regulations. This is how California keeps diesel cars out of the US (about 30% better mileage all other things being equal). Cal/EPA’s auto emissions requirements are tougher than federal numbers, especially for diesels, so the manufacturers don’t bother to qualify many of their highest mileage models for the US market.
In a related story, a UCLA professor has just been sacked because he called “baloney” on Cal/EPA diesel carcinogenic regulations. See
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/31/pc-professors-firing-fueling-exhaustive-debate/
The EPA’s poorly designed over regulation is killing opportunities and jobs.
For instance, the conversion cost (due to EPA regulations) of gasoline to natural gas powered cars is so excessive that there simply isn’t any ROI for the consumer. It seems fair to say, the EPA has a huge regulation based carbon footprint and is actually the problem instead of the solution.
Sadly, they also seem hell bent on regulating everything into obscurity before it ever gets off the ground with all their red tape.
There’s another interesting aspect to the electric car story few are aware of — electric cars can actually cause Brown-outs. This article is worth the read and the link was found on the Tesla Motors website.
Electric cars coming, but can California take charge?
http://www.thestar.com/article/834056–electric-cars-coming-but-can-california-take-charge
“Regen, a company I profiled here nearly two years ago, has a big interest in all of this. As a refresher, the company has developed a wireless device that applies the concept of “swarm logic” to manage when major electrical appliances draw electricity from the grid.”
Apparently, power companies are concerned that a sufficient cluster of electric cars in a neighborhood, all charging at the same time, will overwhelm supply and cause Brown-outs.
So, Regen stepped up and devised a method for appliances including electric cars to chat with each other and schedule their own recharging schedule. Pretty cleaver but I wonder how the device knows when you want to use the car next?
Sadly, the EPA will find some way to be involved with “swarm logic” so its probably doomed.
This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who regularly deals with government regulation. The amount of money spent on showing compliance to regulations would stun most folks. I deal with the FAA on a regular basis so I’m assuming the FDA, DOT, and the other alphabet soup regulators operate basically the same way. The original goal of the regulation, which was to keep people safe or clean or whatever, completely loses out to filling out the correct forms, in the correct numbers, to the correct people, with the correct signatures. Again, and again, and again.
The federal bureaucracy is Dr. Kevorkian to the US economy.
Certificate of conformity?? Very Orwellian.
Tesla, the car that runs on coal!