Back

PROPOSAL:

Execute Contract to Cost-Share a Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles Relative to Internal Combustion Engines

SYNOPSIS:

Various studies have focused on quantifying the exhaust and evaporative emissions benefits expected with the implementation of the ARB’s ZEV program, leaving detailed examination of other environmental factors less well quantified. ARB intends to conduct a study to compare the life-cycle environmental impacts, excluding exhaust and evaporative emissions, of electric vehicles relative to conventional vehicles. ARB has invited the AQMD to co-sponsor this project. This action is to execute an agreement with ARB in the amount of $100,000 out of a total budget of $200,000.

COMMITTEE:

Technology, June 26, 1998 and July 17, 1998, Recommended for Approval

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the Chairman to execute a contract with ARB in an amount not to exceed $100,000 to cost-share a comparative life-cycle assessment of the environmental impact of electric vehicles relative to internal combustion engines.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Acting Executive Officer

Background

California’s zero emission vehicle (ZEV) program requires that ten percent of light-duty vehicles offered for sale in California be free of tailpipe emissions, beginning in 2003. In the early years, these vehicles are likely to be electric vehicles powered by batteries. The ZEV program will result in exhaust and evaporative emissions benefits, which have been largely quantified. Other environmental residuals (e.g., intentional or unintentional emissions to the air, discharges to water media, and deposits of solids and liquids to the land) have been less well quantified, and many have not yet been addressed.

In addition to environmental residuals directly associated with providing motive power (fuel production, exhaust emissions, and electricity production, for example), there are also basic differences between electric and conventional vehicles that can affect total air, water, and land residuals, and hence, environmental and health impacts. For example, an electric vehicle contains many of the same types of systems as are found in a conventional vehicle (e.g., brakes). However, these may be modified to be more responsive to the electric vehicle application. These modifications could take the form of different materials, different chemical compositions, and modifications in component size or design. Even assuming an identical design, the different demands placed on vehicle systems by use with electric vehicles, as opposed to conventional vehicles, may increase or decrease the life span of the components. These and other differences will result in different environmental impacts from the production, use, and ultimate disposition of the spent components.

The ARB has invited AQMD participation in a project entitled, "Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles Relative to Internal Combustion Engines." On November 26, 1997, the ARB released Request for Proposals (RFP) 97-06 to select a contractor for the project. In March 1998, before the contractor selection process could be completed, the ARB received new guidelines from the State of California which eliminated preferences for qualified minority- and women-owned business enterprises. As a result, the ARB intends to reissue the RFP for this project.

Proposal

The objective of this proposed project is to compare the life-cycle environmental impacts, excluding exhaust and evaporative emissions, of electric vehicles relative to conventional vehicles. This proposed project will result in a detailed and comprehensive report presenting the various environmental residuals, including a listing and qualitative evaluation of environmental and health impacts associated with conventional and electric vehicle technologies and recommendations for mitigating the negative impacts of both.

In this project, the contractor will compile and assess available information for electric vehicles and conventional vehicles relating to their total life-cycle environmental residuals and will fill information gaps. The life-cycle analysis shall range from materials mining or extraction to the ultimate disposal or recycling of spent components. The impacts on air, land, and water media shall be evaluated and quantified. The ultimate fate of the residuals will also be considered.

Based on the types and quantities of environmental residuals, the contractor will perform a comprehensive qualitative comparison of total environmental and health impacts expected over the vehicle’s life, including impacts from systems used by conventional vehicles that are not likely to be utilized in electric vehicles and vice versa. In addition, recommendations on lessening or mitigating significant impacts from the use of electric and conventional vehicles will be provided.

The proposed project addresses technologies that are included in the September 1997 update of the Technology Advancement Plan under category 97T3-1, Advanced Transportation Systems Research, Development and Demonstration.

Anticipated Benefits

Implementation of this project will not result in any direct emission reductions. However, identification and quantification of environmental and health impacts associated with the production, use, and disposal of electric and gasoline vehicles will assist the ARB and the AQMD in establishing policies in areas such as penetration of EVs into the market. Successful completion of this program will assist in assuring the implementation of the ZEV mandate; and it will assist the implementation of the 1997 AQMP Measure M2. Implementation of this control measure will change the fleet average NMOG emission standard from 0.062 gm/mile in 2003 to 0.035 gm/mile in 2010, resulting in 10 T/D ROG and 13 T/D NOx reduction. This reduction may easily require the introduction of additional ZEVs into the market, which can be assisted by the completion of this project. In addition, measures will be evaluated to mitigate possible negative impacts from the life cycle of motor vehicles.

Sole Source Justification

Section VIII, (B)(2) of the Procurement Policy and Procedure identifies four major provisions under which a sole source award may be justified. This request for a sole source award is made under provision B.2.d.: Other circumstances exist which in the determination of the Executive Officer require such waiver in the best interests of the AQMD. Specifically, the reason is B.2.d.(1) projects involve cost sharing by multiple sponsors.

The ARB will cost-share this project, as well as serve with AQMD as overall manager for the resulting contracts. To date, AQMD technical staff have been involved with the ARB RFP process for this project. In addition, because ARB is in the process of conducting a competitive bid, a sole source award to ARB is justified because a separate AQMD competitive bid would be duplicative.

Resource Impacts

AQMD funding of $100,000 out of a total of $200,000 is requested. Sufficient funds are available in the FY 1998-99 Budget from revenues received from the state-mandated Clean Fuels Program. The Clean Fuels Program, under Health and Safety Code Sections 40448.5 and 40512 and Vehicle Code Section 9250.11, establishes mechanisms to collect revenues from mobile and stationary sources to support projects to increase the utilization of clean fuels in both sectors, including the development of the necessary advanced enabling technologies. Funds collected from motor vehicles are restricted, by statute, to be used for projects and program activities related to mobile sources that support the objectives of the Clean Fuels Program.

/ / /