Printed 10/19/16 Page of

As part of the transaction, the University of Toyota's Technical and Body Training Development department provided a training course for Los Angeles city service technicians on Prius operation and proper maintenance of the hybrid system. The training course was developed by TMS Technical and Body Training Development Manager, John Saia, and Toyota Technical Training Administrator, Natae Cutler. A specialist in the Toyota Hybrid System, Cutler also conducted the course.

"The training program conducted by the University of Toyota was an invaluable tool in properly training our service technicians to ensure proper and safe maintenance of our Prius fleet," said Richard Coulson, automotive supervisor for training safety and compliance, City of Los Angeles.

Introduced in 1997, the Prius is the world's first mass-produced hybrid electric-gas vehicle. Prius is a technological breakthrough in combining an efficient, powerful, gasoline engine and a clean, quiet electric motor. It automatically switches between the gasoline engine and electric motor, depending on driving needs and is ideal for city use. And, because the gasoline engine recharges an onboard battery pack, Prius never needs to be plugged in.

Configured as a roomy five-passenger sedan, Prius has an EPA fuel economy rating of 52 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on the highway. It also is certified as a super ultra low emission vehicle (SULEV).

Government agencies across the nation have chosen Toyota's Prius hybrid sedan for clean, efficient transportation. In addition to the cities of Los Angeles and New York, other city and state government agencies that have chosen Prius include California, Washington, Houston, Oregon, San Francisco, Austin, Florida DEP, Nevada, Colorado, Denver, Missouri, San Antonio, and Maine. Even smaller towns such as Vail, Colo. and Mesquite, Tex. have ordered the Toyota hybrid.

Worldwide, Toyota has sold more than 100,000 Prius hybrid sedans, and also sells hybrid luxury sedans, four-wheel-drive minivans and commuter buses in Japan. Prius went on sale in the United States in July 2000. Since then, more than 40,000 units have been sold or leased to retail and fleet customers. Toyota sold more than 20,000 Prius in the United States in 2002.

Nine out of 10 hybrid vehicles on the road today are Toyotas.

For further information please visit www.toyota.com .

http://www.thecommondenominator.com/021003_news3.html

Source: TheCommonDenominator.com

[Feb 11, 2003]

By LaSHELL STRATTON

Staff Writer

Representatives of the national car-sharing service Flexcar said they want to help the environment and D.C. neighborhoods by bringing hybrid gas/electric cars to the District. But out of the company’s 17 cars parked near D.C. Metro stations, only one or two are hybrid vehicles.

"Because we started with gas cars, we’re always going to have both gas and hybrids," said Jill Frick, Flexcar’s general manager for the D.C. area. "We hope to one day have at least 50/50 because of our commitment to the environment."

But the big selling point of companies like Flexcar is not concern for the environment. It is the offer of yet another alternative to car ownership, cabs and public transportation. Car sharers are billed by the hour or mile or month. They can reserve cars by phone or online in 30 seconds, in some cases. Unlike rental car services, car-sharing companies do not require drivers to sign paperwork each time the vehicles are used. Frick said Flexcar requires no security deposit or annual fees.

Flexcar, which began in Seattle in 1999, started offering its cars in the District a little over a year ago when it won a contract with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and brought 22 Honda Civic four-door sedans to 12 Metro stations. It has since expanded to 42 cars at 24 Metro stations and hopes to add 50 more cars this year.

Frick estimates that Flexcar members in the metropolitan area use the cars two to six hours per month, but the number of members who use each car varies.

"It can be as many as 20 to 40 people per car," she said.

In one year Flexcar came up with many ideas to use its partnership with Metro to its advantage. One example is a promotional offer found on the company’s web site. The ad says members of the Greater Washington Board of Trade who sign up for a Flexcar and Metrochek can get up to 300 hours of car-sharing service at a value of $1,500, depending on how many employees sign up. Neil Peterson, president and founder of Flexcar, said in a news conference Jan. 31 that local drivers would soon be able to borrow a Flexcar with the "Smartcards" offered by Metro in addition to the standard "Flexcard" the company offers.

Frick said there are three reasons why Metro chose Flexcar over other services for partnership: Flexcar had experience working with public and private partnerships, the company was environmentally friendly and Peterson had past experience with public transportation as a general manager of Seattle and Oakland, Calif., transit systems.

"We also service to economically diverse neighborhoods," Frick said.

"From what my understanding of it is, that it is mainly a marketing partnership," Klein said, "whether or not places like WMATA should be forming partnerships like that…is open to questioning."

Klein said the partnership between the two has had no apparent effect on Zipcar’s business in the metropolitan area and that there is no difference between the two car-sharing services when it comes to Metro access.

"We have cars at many Metro stations as well…. We believe we complement the current transportation services. To be honest, there needs to be cars in other places besides Metro stations. People need cars at places that are not accessed by public transportation," Klein said, alluding to some of the Zipcar locations that can’t be reached by Metro.

The Cambridge, Mass., based Zipcar started like Flexcar in 2001 in the D.C. area. In one year, it expanded from 12 to 30 cars at D.C. locations. Klein said his company also offers hybrid cars. They were added to Zipcar’s fleet in D.C. in 2002.

Klein said he has no statistics on how often Zipcars are used in the District, but the "self-service cars by the hour," as Klein prefers to call them, are particularly popular in the Dupont Circle neighborhood, where they are used continuously.

Ward 1 Councilman Jim Graham says residents of his ward also heavily use the shared cars. Ward 1 has one of the lowest per capita car ownership rates in the city, Graham said during the Flexcar/Metro news conference on Jan 31. For Graham, the lack of car ownership is an example of the changing nature of transportation in the District.

"D.C. has become more Manhattanized – the way of life in Manhattan is that you don’t need a car," said Graham, who also serves as chairman of WMATA’s Joint Development Committee. He said that though some people may question why a public transportation service like Metro would form a partnership with a company like Flexcar, he believes the partnership was a fortunate collaboration.

"Twenty percent of those [in D.C.] who sign up for Flexcar live in Ward 1. Seventy-five percent of Flexcard owners use buses once a week and almost 90 percent use Metro once a week," Graham said. "It was a natural partnership."
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/871845.asp

States mull curtailing use of SUVs

Massachusetts considers slashing 4-wheel drive fleet

ASSOCIATED PRESS

BOSTON, Feb. 12 — Already under fire for their fuel efficiency and safety records, sport utility vehicles now may face elimination from public service in Massachusetts and other states.

GOV. MITT ROMNEY is considering slashing most of the 428 SUVs in the state fleet, a move expected both to save money and score political points among environmentalists.

“We see absolutely no reason why administrators or field reps at the Lottery need to have SUVs,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a top Romney adviser.

Fehrnstrom said the move has not been finalized, and no decision has been made on what types of cars will replace the SUVs. In all, there are 3,385 passenger vehicles, trucks and vans registered to state government.

Romney’s state police security drives him in a Ford Excursion, but it has not been decided if he will have to give up the SUV.

“We are looking at eliminating nonessential SUVs, not banning them entirely,” Fehrnstrom said.

There are no hard figures on potential savings of the proposed elimination. Massachusetts budget officials project that SUVs cost 50 percent more to purchase and 50 percent more to operate because of fuel inefficiency. A new SUV costs between $27,000 to $45,000.

At a current average gas price in Massachusetts of $1.52 per gallon, trading in all 428 state SUVs would save taxpayers nearly $130,000 in gas money for the year, officials estimate.

Despite criticism from environmentalists and safety experts, SUVs remain popular with the public. General Motors last year became the first manufacturer to top 1.2 million SUV sales in a calendar year, spokesman Michael Morrissey said.

“There’s some groups that are critical of those vehicles, but overwhelmingly customers are selecting them in larger numbers,” Morrissey said.

Still, environmentalists applauded Massachusetts’ proposed elimination, suggesting other governors follow suit.

“Governors are looked up to by many in their states and need to set a good example,” said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club’s Global Warming and Energy Program in Washington. “It sounds like he’s trying to be responsible.”

In Connecticut, where Gov. John G. Rowland generally travels in a Lincoln Town Car, officials are reviewing the need for the state’s 195 SUVs, citing budget problems, according to state Administrative Services department spokeswoman Donna Micklus.

Newly elected Vermont Gov. James Douglas plans to travel by SUV only when he has to, spokesman Jason Gibbs said.

“When it is snowing, the (state) troopers prefer they take the four-wheel drive vehicles,” Gibbs said. “He’s uncomfortable riding in the SUV. His personal vehicle is a Dodge Neon without air conditioning, power windows or locks, or a tape player.”

http://evworld.com/update/archive.cfm?id=61

EDITOR'S FINAL WORLD--version 3.8 EV World

Detroit, Are You Listening?

Senior managers at the world's carmakers should be afraid... very afraid. Why? Because at some point the millions who turned out this past weekend in massive anti-war demonstrations around the world are going to eventually "connect the dots" between fuel economy standards and oil wars. Sooner or later, the anger and revulsion being expressed toward those advocating war may very well be turned on the auto industry, which seemingly has fought tooth and nail to keep America hooked on its oil habit.

Think I am exaggerating? Read the reports coming in from the hundreds of demonstrations around the world and you'll soon be impressed by the fact that the majority of the people taking part in the marches aren't your stereotypical WTO protestors.

First the sheer numbers are staggering with estimates ranging from 5-10 million and possibly even higher. One report placed the number of protestors in Rome alone at 3 million. Whatever the real numbers, everyone pretty much agrees this was the largest demonstration in recorded history!

And who are these people? They come from a very broad cross-section of society and income levels. For example, taking part in the demonstrations here in America are war veterans from World War Two to Gulf War One. With the exception of the national teachers union, virtually every major labor union has joined the chorus of voices denouncing rush to war. For many of these people this is the very first time they have ever taken part in a protest march. More ominous for carmakers -- and oil companies -- are the signs many carried which make a direct connection between war and oil.

When people are stirred enough by an issue to discard their fears of public ridicule and join a peace demonstration, it is only a small step to direct that energy toward the cause of the problem: the oil we use with seeming abandon in the vehicles we drive.
http://www.businessweek.com/@@ZEGQW4YQJTFjGwEA/magazine/content/03_09/b3822038.htm

Business Week MARCH 3, 2003

NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY

By David Welch and Kathleen Kerwin

Just this past January, General Motors Corp. (GM ) CEO G. Richard Wagoner Jr. took center stage at the Detroit auto show to crow about a dozen new GM hybrid-electric vehicles that would significantly improve fuel economy. By decade's end, he promised, hybrid engines could power as many as one million GM vehicles, including some of its most-popular--and gas-guzzling--sport-utility vehicles. GM, he made resoundingly clear, would not be left behind in the race with Japanese auto makers for more fuel-efficient cars. Proclaimed Wagoner: "We have a responsibility to provide cleaner emissions and better fuel economy."

Nice sound bite. Too bad GM, together with its domestic rivals, is already furiously backpedaling. In mid-February, GM, Ford (F ), and DaimlerChrysler (DCX ) told the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration, which enforces fuel economy standards, that they can't meet its proposed rules to raise truck and SUV mileage. That plan, to raise combined truck fuel economy from 20.7 to 22.2 miles per gallon by 2007, is just too challenging and too costly, the Big Three argue.

Just what planet are American auto execs living on? If ever there was a smart time to get foursquare behind the push for fuel economy, it's now. And given current technology--never mind stuff that's still on the drawing board--increasing fuel efficiency by less than a mile and a half per gallon in four years should be a minimum goal, not a stretch. With war looming in Iraq and oil prices soaring, U.S. auto makers ought to be pushing as hard as possible for advances in fuel economy. Yet in what could prove to be a big public-relations and marketing blunder, they are digging in their heels.

But the potential consequences of auto makers' stubbornness go far beyond PR. If the industry fails to cultivate fuel efficiency, as it has so often in the past, its ability to compete head-on with foreign auto makers in the lucrative SUV market is at stake. And that, of course, has huge implications for Big Three manufacturing jobs.

U.S. auto makers have shown a lack of vision over the years. Since the 1970s, Detroit has consistently insisted that meeting tougher mileage rules would be impossible. Meanwhile, the Japanese hit and exceeded the new targets with vehicles U.S. buyers happily snapped up. "The Big Three always say they can't do anything," gripes auto analyst Maryann Keller, a member of the National Academy of Sciences committee that last year suggested raising fuel standards.

U.S. auto makers insist on sticking with what has already worked so well. Why mess with success, the thinking goes. SUVs and pickups account for 90% of profits, with the biggest gas guzzlers bringing in the most money. Indeed, even as it fights improved standards, Detroit continues to introduce huge new gas hogs like the Hummer H2.

True, Toyota and Nissan Motor Corp. (NSANY ) are also heavily vested in the big pickup and SUV business with new models and billion-dollar factory investments. But the Japanese are moving faster to develop more fuel-efficient trucks, even as U.S. carmakers insist on sticking with the early 21st century version of 1970s muscle cars. With consumer tastes starting to shift, they risk ending up on the wrong side of that bet. Last year, sales of big SUVs leveled off, falling at the same 2% clip as overall auto sales. The growth is in the more fuel-thrifty, car-based SUV segment Honda and Toyota invented, where Detroit is late. Sales of such "crossover" SUVs shot up 23% last year.

Detroit lost dominance in the car market by sticking its head in the sand while imports offered better mileage and higher quality. The last thing it can afford is to let the same thing happen in its cash-cow SUV business.

Welch and Kerwin cover the auto industry from Detroit.
http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news200203-01

http://www.msnbc.com/news/874695.asp

Source: MSNBC

[Feb 20, 2003]

As the nation continues to face higher energy prices, the auto industry and the White House are locking horns over higher fuel standards for sport utility vehicles and trucks. What is at stake is potential changes to Detroit’s most profitable vehicles, and from the automakers’ perspective, those changes could be costly.

The debate centers around the minimum fuel economy standards for an automaker’s line-up of light trucks. Right now, those line-ups have to get on average 20.7 miles per gallon. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration wants to raise the minimum by 1.5 mpg to 22.2 mpg, but that idea does not sit well in Detroit.

General Motors Corp. filed a response on Friday outlining how this would hurt the world’s largest automaker, saying increasing truck fuel economy by 1.5 mpg would cost the company $1.5 billion.

"We believe that a more accurate assessment of our capabilities will show that the proposed standards are significantly too high," GM said in its 127-page filing.

In its own analysis of automakers’ confidential data, NHTSA found that GM’s truck fleet would fail to meet the new standards by as much as 3 mpg, while Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG would meet or be just below the standard.

But GM contends NHTSA’s analysis was riddled with flaws, double-counting some improvements, skipping others and ignoring time and engineering constraints. In one case, GM said it didn’t even have a working version of a technology that NHTSA said it could use to improve fuel efficiency on several models in 2005.

"To develop such a design and apply it across the fleet would take many engineers and years of dedicated effort. Yet this is the change that NHTSA deemed the ‘easiest to introduce by model year 2005’," GM said.

GM also said NHTSA’s estimate that GM’s costs for meeting the rules would total about $678 million was far short. While GM did not give a specific estimate, the tables in its comments suggest GM’s costs would be at least $400 million more than NHTSA’s estimates.

But what about the hope that hybrid and fuel cell SUVs and light trucks would help automakers meet higher fuel economy standards?

DaimlerChrysler addressed that point by saying, hybrids "have no hope in the near term, of reaching high volume, or of making a significant impact."

And while GM was touting its plans to offer up to 1 million fuel efficient gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles over the next several years, it warned NHTSA not to rely on hybrids for higher overall fuel economy. "These programs are forecast to be a substantial economic burden, with costs far larger than any possible recovery through pricing," GM said.

Other Detroit automakers did not follow GM’s hard line, but still offered some complaints about the proposal. Ford called the levels "technically challenging," and warned NHTSA’s cost estimates were low, but said it was committed to meeting the standards.
DaimlerChrysler offered the briefest comments of the Big Three, but suggested NHTSA lower its proposal to 20.9 mpg for 2005, 21.1 mpg for 2006 and 21.5 in 2007. It also said its costs for meeting NHTSA’s current proposals would be four times higher than NHTSA’s estimate of $11 million.

In short, the Big Three automakers think requiring better fuel economy by trucks and SUVs will hurt them, mainly by forcing them spend more on developing and building vehicles that have to get better gas mileage
http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news200203-02

Big Three Slam Fuel Standards

GM, leading protest, says regulators too optimistic, costs of tougher rules outweigh the benefits.

Source: Reuters

[Feb 20, 2003]

DETROIT (Reuters) - U.S. automakers, led by General Motors Corp., have fired back at a federal proposal to raise fuel economy standards for trucks by 1.5 miles a gallon, claiming regulators overestimated the companies' ability to meet higher targets and that the costs of tougher rules outweigh the benefits.

In a 127-page filing with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), GM suggested that meeting the rules would cost it more than $1 billion, and could force it to cut weight from its trucks, a move GM has long argued would make them less safe.

"We believe that a more accurate assessment of our capabilities will show that the proposed standards are significantly too high," GM said in its comments, filed with the agency last Friday.

In December, NHTSA proposed an increase in fuel economy standards for pickups, vans and sport/utility vehicles, from 20.7 miles a gallon to 22.2 miles a gallon in model year 2007, starting with 21 mpg in model year 2005 and 21.6 in 2006.

NHTSA chief Dr. Jeffrey Runge has said he would support even higher increases beyond 2007 to reduce dependence on imported oil, calling it an issue of national security.

In its own analysis of automakers' confidential data, NHTSA found that GM's truck fleet would fail to meet the new standards by as much as 3 mpg, while Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG would meet or be just below the standard.

But GM contends NHTSA's analysis was riddled with flaws, double-counting some improvements, skipping others, and ignoring time and engineering constraints. In one case, GM said it didn't even have a working version of a technology that NHTSA said it could use to improve fuel efficiency on several models in 2005.

"To develop such a design and apply it across the fleet would take many engineers and years of dedicated effort. Yet this is the change that NHTSA deemed the 'easiest to introduce by model year 2005'," GM said.

The world's biggest automaker also said NHTSA's estimate that GM's costs for meeting the rules would total about $678 million was far short. While GM did not give a specific estimate, the tables in its comments suggest GM's costs would be at least $400 million more than NHTSA's estimates

And while GM was touting its plans to offer up to 1 million fuel efficient gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles during the next several years, it warned NHTSA not to rely on hybrids for higher overall fuel economy.

The Bush administration has whittled back proposed regulations whose costs were greater than their economic benefits. NHTSA's own estimates found that the societal benefits of its higher fuel economy standards surpassed the costs imposed on automakers and society as a whole by $824 million.

The industry's lobbying group and Detroit's Big Three automakers all contend NHTSA underestimated the cost of improving fuel economy and overestimated the benefits.

While other Detroit automakers did not follow GM's hard line, some still offered some complaints about the proposal. Ford called the levels "technically challenging," and warned NHTSA's cost estimates were low, but said it was committed to meeting the standards.
http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news200203-06