BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: sb 535
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: yee
VERSION: 4/2/09
Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: April 28, 2009
SUBJECT:
High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane access
DESCRIPTION:
This bill allows vehicles that utilize advanced lithium ion
battery plug-in technology to access HOV lanes regardless of
vehicle occupancy.
ANALYSIS:
In 1999, the Legislature passed and the governor signed AB 71
(Cunneen), Chapter 330, to allow the following low-emission
vehicles to access HOV lanes, regardless of vehicle occupancy:
A vehicle that meets the state's super ultra-low emission
vehicle (SULEV) standard for exhaust emissions and the federal
inherently low-emission vehicle (ILEV) standard for
evaporative emissions.
A vehicle that was produced during the 2004 model year or
earlier that meets the state's ultra-low emission vehicle
(ULEV) standard for exhaust emissions and the federal ILEV
standard.
To differentiate these vehicles, the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) issues white stickers to be affixed on the
vehicle. There is no limit on the number of these vehicles that
may be issued white stickers. To date, DMV has issued 9,099
SB 535 (YEE) Page 2
sets of white stickers.
In 2004, AB 2628 (Pavley), Chapter 725, allowed the following
hybrid vehicles to access HOV lanes, pending approval by the
federal government:
A hybrid vehicle or an alternative fuel vehicle that meets the
state's advanced technology partial zero-emission standard (AT
PZEV) standard for criteria pollutant emissions and has a 45
miles per gallon (mpg) or greater fuel economy highway rating.
A hybrid vehicle that was produced during the 2004 model year
or earlier that has a 45 mpg or greater fuel economy highway
rating and meets the state's ULEV, SULEV, or partial
zero-emission vehicle (PZEV) standards.
The DMV issues these vehicles yellow stickers. The number of
vehicles that may be issued yellow stickers was ultimately
capped at 85,000, a limit which was reached in 2007.
The authority to access HOV lanes expires for all four types of
vehicles on January 1, 2011.
Existing law requires the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to assess, according to a specified
timeframe, whether HOV lanes have experienced significant
degradation due to access by hybrid vehicles with yellow
stickers. Caltrans is authorized to restrict single-occupant
vehicles with either white or yellow stickers from accessing
segments of HOV lanes during periods of peak congestion if it
finds that the lane has a specified level of service, the
operation of these vehicles will significantly increase
congestion, and it is not feasible to alleviate congestion by
other means.
This bill allows vehicles that utilize advanced lithium-ion
battery plug-in technology, which would be issued green
stickers, to access HOV lanes. These vehicles would not be
subject to the January 1, 2011 sunset date.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . The purpose of the bill, which is sponsored by
SB 535 (YEE) Page 3
General Motors, is to provide incentives to consumers to
purchase the next generation of more technologically advanced
vehicles, specifically plug-in vehicles utilizing lithium ion
batteries, by giving these vehicles access to HOV lanes.
2.Picking technological winners and losers ? By specifying
plug-in vehicles that run on lithium ion batteries, this bill
chooses a particular technology over those that may achieve
the same or similar performance. The bill is aimed to provide
incentives for the Chevy Volt, which is a plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle not yet in commercial production. For the
first 40 miles, the Volt runs on battery electric power.
After that distance, a gasoline-fueled internal combustion
engine provides the energy necessary to run the car.
While the Volt has not yet been rated by ARB, these vehicles
are likely to be categorized as Enhanced AT PZEZs. ARB has
established several categories that describe the emissions
profile of a vehicle. These are listed in the following table
along with an example of the technology used in that vehicle,
in order from the least emitting to the most.
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| Emissions Category | Technology Example |
| | |
|------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|ZEV |Battery (e.g., Tesla, RAV 4 |
|(zero-emission vehicle) |EV), hydrogen fuel cell (e.g., |
| |Toyota Fuel Cell Hybrid) |
|------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|Enhanced AT PZEV |Uses a ZEV fuel such as a |
|(advanced technology partial |battery, coupled with an |
|zero-emission vehicle) |internal combustion engine |
| |(e.g., Volt) |
|------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|AT PZEV |Gas-electric hybrid (e.g., |
|(advanced technology partial |Prius), natural gas (e.g., |
|zero-emission vehicle) |Honda Civic CNG), methanol fuel |
SB 535 (YEE) Page 4
| |cell |
|------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|PZEV |Extremely clean, conventional |
|(partial zero-emission |gas-fueled (~33% of new |
|vehicle) |vehicles for sale are PZEVs) |
|------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|SULEV |Very clean, conventional |
|(super ultra low-emission |gas-fueled vehicle |
|vehicle) | |
|------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|ULEV |Conventional gas-fueled (over |
|(ultra low-emission vehicle) |half of new vehicles offered |
| |for sale in CA are ULEVs) |
|------------------------------+--------------------------------|
|LEV |Conventional |
|(low-emission vehicle) |gas-fueled |
---------------------------------------------------------------
The next generation of clean vehicles is reflected in Enhanced
AT PZEVs and ZEVs. As the table suggests, there are a variety
of technologies used in those vehicles, many of which are in
development. With regard to battery chemistry alone, there
are several "flavors" of lithium batteries, including lithium
ion, lithium titanate, and lithium copper chloride. A 2007
report on emerging ZEV technologies found that several battery
chemistries appear to provide the necessary performance to
meet consumer preferences.
As California and the rest of the nation seek vehicles that
produce the least emissions and depend less on petroleum-based
fuels, favoring a specific technology could stall development
of emerging technologies that have the potential to produce
zero emissions and move the country away from petroleum.
Instead, the author or committee may wish to establish a
performance standard that a vehicle must meet in order to be
eligible for an incentive such as HOV lane access. A
performance standard may include an emissions rating, such as
ZEV, and a fuel economy rating, such as 60 mpg.
By specifying a performance standard, the bill would provide
incentives for the development, manufacture, and purchase of
vehicles that meet the state's air quality and greenhouse gas
emission goals, while also allowing the market place to
determine which products best meet consumer preferences.
3.Author's amendments . To address this concern, the author
SB 535 (YEE) Page 5
intends to offer amendments in committee that do the
following:
Deletes the provision to allow plug-in vehicles
utilizing lithium ion batteries to access HOV lanes.
Deletes the sunset date for the cleanest of the
white-sticker vehicles (vehicles that meet both the state
SULEV and federal ILEV standards, which are effectively
ZEVs and certain CNG-powered vehicles).
These amendments will "reset" the bill to permit only the
cleanest vehicles that currently access HOV lanes to continue
to access those lanes, while providing the author, sponsor,
and committee the opportunity to develop a performance-based
approach to incentivize the development and purchase of next
generation vehicles.
One issue that arises by sunsetting one white-sticker vehicle
instead of both is that law enforcement will be unable to
differentiate which of the white-sticker vehicles are
authorized to access HOV lanes after January 1, 2011. The
author or committee may wish to consider amending the bill to
allow all existing white-sticker vehicles to continue using
the HOV lanes and to direct DMV to issue new white stickers
only to the cleanest vehicles that the author's amendments
target.
1.HOV lane degradation . The Federal Highways Administration
(FHWA) granted conditional approval to allow hybrid vehicles
in HOV lanes, as authorized by AB 2628 (Pavley), in April
2006. FHWA required Caltrans to monitor and report on the
performance of HOV lanes and to take steps to address
degradation (i.e., congestion), if necessary.
In July 2006, after 50,000 yellow stickers were issued to
hybrid vehicles under the program, Caltrans assessed
congestion in the HOV lanes using both the state and federal
standards of performance. Under the state standard, Caltrans
found that the number of congested HOV lane segments increased
from 7 to 12 percent. Under the federal standard, Caltrans
found that approximately 46 percent of HOV lane segments
operated under degraded conditions. While the increased
congestion could not be attributed solely to single-occupant
hybrid vehicles accessing the lanes, FHWA nonetheless asserted
that these vehicles did not have to be the cause of
SB 535 (YEE) Page 6
degradation for Caltrans to take action to reduce HOV lane
congestion and requested that Caltrans develop a plan for
improving the performance of HOV lanes.
Caltrans submitted the California High Occupancy Vehicle Lane
Degradation Reduction Plan to FHWA in August 2007. The plan
outlines short- and long-term measures to improve HOV lane
performance, including increased enforcement, improved system
management, infrastructure improvements, public education,
and, if necessary, a prohibition of single-occupant hybrid
vehicles from accessing the most congested segments of the
HOV-lane network.
Following the submittal of that plan, Caltrans updated its
analysis of HOV lane degradation and submitted a supplemental
report to FHWA in September 2008. This updated analysis found
that, based on the federal standard, congestion increased on
HOV lanes from 46 percent to 54 percent. Given the growth in
both population and number of registered vehicles, degradation
is only likely to worsen. The Department of Finance estimated
California's population to be 33,873,086 in 2000 and
38,049,462 in 2008, a 12.3 percent increase in 8 years.
During that same time period, registrations for passenger
vehicles and motorcycles grew from 19,544,152 to 22,781,390, a
16.6 percent increase. Furthermore, the Department of Finance
projects that California's population will reach 44 million by
2020, an increase which will be accompanied by growth in the
number of vehicle registrations and demand for highway travel.
Further degradation of HOV lanes benefits no one, most
notably, the consumers this bill seeks to target. Given the
current threat of congestion on the state's HOV lanes and the
possibility that this bill would result in further
degradation, the committee may wish to consider the following
two questions:
How to weigh the possible consequences of allowing HOV
lanes to degrade further vs. the potential value of
incentivizing the next generation of clean vehicles?
Are there incentives other than HOV lane access that
might be offered to encourage the development of these
vehicles?
RELATED LEGISLATION
SB 535 (YEE) Page 7
SB 626 (Kehoe) requires the California Public Utilities
Commission to evaluate and implement policies to provide fueling
infrastructure for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles. Set
for hearing on April 28th in this committee.
AB 1500 (Lieu) extends the sunset date to allow certain
low-emission and hybrid vehicles to access HOV lanes, regardless
of vehicle occupancy, from January 1, 2011 until January 1,
2016. Set for hearing on April 27th in the Assembly
Transportation Committee.
AB 1502 (Eng) extends the sunset date to allow certain
low-emission vehicles from January 1, 2011 until January 1,
2017, regardless of vehicle occupancy, but maintains the January
1, 2011 sunset date for hybrid vehicles. In the Assembly
Transportation Committee.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 22, 2009)
SUPPORT: None received.
OPPOSED: None received.