In March 2008, the ARB directed its staff to reassess the ZEV regulation, keeping in mind California’s long-term air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals, and to return to them with an update and recommendation by the end of 2009. On December 11, 2009, the ARB convened to review these materials. 212 In its report to the ARB, the staff outlined a series of potential revisions to the ZEV regulation to take place after model year 2014, including the following:
-
Closer alignment of the ZEV regulation with the state’s 80 percent GHG emission reduction target for 2050.
-
A renewed focus on pre-commercial development vehicle technologies (such as ZEVs and Enhanced PZEVs), rather than technologies that already have demonstrated their market potential (such as PZEV and AT PZEV).
-
Moving PZEV and AT PZEV vehicle technologies out of the ZEV program and into the criteria pollutant standard (also known as the Low Emission Vehicle [LEV] standard).
The idea is to develop early “hydrogen communities” for passenger vehicles with clusters of retail hydrogen stations in four Southern California communities: Santa Monica, Irvine, Torrance and Newport Beach, with additional stations to support the next identified communities and a network of connector stations. (See map below).
Placing the first wave of stations will impact the locations for the second wave. Vehicles may be more popular in one community than in another. With the help of automakers (annually surveys of information about numbers and locations of their newly deployed vehicles), it will be ensured that the next wave of stations is being constructed at the most desirable and effective locations.
Figure C-1: California Hydrogen Early Adopter Cluster Communities
Table C-1: Hydrogen Fuel Demand and Capacity
Year
|
Region213
|
Vehicle Rollouts (From Table 8)
|
Hydrogen Demand (Kg/day)
|
Hydrogen Capacity (Kg/day)
|
Add'l Hydrogen Needed (Kg/day)
|
2010
|
Santa Monica (cluster)
|
25
|
25
|
12
|
13
|
Torrance (cluster)
|
25
|
25
|
58
|
0
|
Newport Beach (cluster)
|
23
|
23
|
0
|
23
|
Irvine (cluster)
|
32
|
32
|
25
|
7
|
Los Angeles (non-clusters)
|
30
|
30
|
339
|
0
|
San Diego
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
4
|
Bay Area
|
20
|
20
|
150
|
0
|
Sacramento
|
17
|
17
|
158
|
0
|
Other
|
16
|
16
|
172
|
0
|
Total
|
192
|
192
|
914
|
47
|
2011
|
Santa Monica (cluster)
|
45
|
45
|
12
|
33
|
Torrance (cluster)
|
45
|
45
|
108
|
0
|
Newport Beach (cluster)
|
38
|
38
|
100
|
0
|
Irvine (cluster)
|
47
|
47
|
25
|
22
|
Los Angeles (non-clusters)
|
57
|
57
|
639
|
0
|
San Diego
|
8
|
8
|
0
|
8
|
Bay Area
|
34
|
34
|
330
|
0
|
Sacramento
|
25
|
25
|
158
|
0
|
Other
|
31
|
31
|
272
|
0
|
Total
|
330
|
330
|
1,644
|
63
|
2012
|
Santa Monica (cluster)
|
73
|
73
|
12
|
61
|
Torrance (cluster)
|
64
|
64
|
108
|
0
|
Newport Beach (cluster)
|
53
|
53
|
100
|
0
|
Irvine (cluster)
|
67
|
67
|
25
|
42
|
Los Angeles (non-clusters)
|
88
|
88
|
639
|
0
|
San Diego
|
8
|
8
|
0
|
8
|
Bay Area
|
48
|
48
|
330
|
0
|
Sacramento
|
38
|
38
|
158
|
0
|
Other
|
56
|
56
|
272
|
0
|
Total
|
495
|
495
|
1,644
|
111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013
|
Santa Monica (cluster)
|
107
|
107
|
12
|
95
|
Torrance (cluster)
|
91
|
91
|
108
|
0
|
Newport Beach (cluster)
|
70
|
70
|
100
|
0
|
Irvine (cluster)
|
104
|
104
|
25
|
79
|
Los Angeles (non-clusters)
|
117
|
117
|
639
|
0
|
San Diego
|
23
|
23
|
0
|
23
|
Bay Area
|
91
|
91
|
330
|
0
|
Sacramento
|
60
|
60
|
158
|
0
|
Other
|
106
|
106
|
272
|
0
|
Total
|
769
|
769
|
1,644
|
197
|
2014
|
Santa Monica (cluster)
|
193
|
193
|
12
|
181
|
Torrance (cluster)
|
180
|
180
|
108
|
72
|
Newport Beach (cluster)
|
208
|
208
|
100
|
108
|
Irvine (cluster)
|
268
|
268
|
25
|
243
|
Los Angeles (non-clusters)
|
382
|
382
|
639
|
0
|
San Diego
|
33
|
33
|
0
|
33
|
Bay Area
|
264
|
264
|
330
|
0
|
Sacramento
|
117
|
117
|
158
|
0
|
Other
|
194
|
194
|
272
|
0
|
Total
|
1,839
|
1,839
|
1,644
|
637
|
Share with your friends: |