CARB wants BEVs to maintain >= 80% of rated capacity for 15 years or 150,000 miles

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cwerdna

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,674
Location
SF Bay Area, CA
Learned of it from https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/carb-wants-bevs-to-maintain-%E2%89%A5-80-of-rated-capacity-for-15-years-or-150-000-miles.38716 (you will probably need an account there to see it). Has this been posted here already? I quickly searched and couldn't find a thread, besides search giving me problems.

From https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1132401_how-long-will-my-ev-battery-last-california-proposes-degradation-limits:
The rules, applying to the 2026 model year and beyond, would require that BEVs maintain 80% of their certified test-cycle range for 15 years or 150,000 miles, while fuel-cell models maintain at least 90% output power after 4,000 hours of operation.

The requirements would also include the explicit disclosure of that percentage threshold and a "customer readable state of health metric," according to the CARB draft. The state of health (SOH) needs to be readable by the driver without a tool and meet the "usable battery energy" as met by SAE J1634 standards, with the vehicle maker clearly laying out the SOH percentage that qualifies for warranty repair.
 
Well, it's proposal and i Just realized the deadline below is today.
don’t hesitate to check in with CARB, which is accepting written comments through June 11, 2021, prior to a vote on a more detailed version of this proposal expected later in the year.

If something like this passes, maybe we'll see BEV makers put in big buffers at the top that they open up access to over time, as the battery degrades? Someone here "loves" buffers. ;)
 
A 10 - 15% buffer would be enough for every EV not named 'LEAF', and it would let consumers charge to "100%" without damaging the battery for years.

It's a nanny state solution for ignorant consumers. An expensive one though.
 
How does an Air Pollution control board have any expertise for electric vehicles, especially batteries? Seems they have strayed out of their lane.
 
nlspace said:
How does an Air Pollution control board have any expertise for electric vehicles, especially batteries? Seems they have strayed out of their lane.
They've already mandated warranties for AT-PZEV and enhanced AT-PZEVs.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/california-vehicle-and-emissions-warranty-periods
https://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/16/new-enhat-pzev-chevy-volt-ready-for-california-hov-access-extra/

I had a gen 2 Prius (04 to 09 model year), which was counted and certified as AT-PZEV and thus was mandated to have a 10 year/150K warranty on the HV battery. And, PZEV cars (hybrid or not) are mandated to have 15 year/150K emissions warranties.

http://www.myrav4ev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=379 has a pointer to https://web.archive.org/web/20160224092814/http://www.toyota.com/esq/vehicles/regulatory/carb-mandate-for-zero-emission-vehicles.html w/some pointers to various CA gov material. You can probably find more background material by Googling for stuff like site:ca.gov 10 year 150,000 miles battery warranty at-pzev.

There's already https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-california-will-phase-out-gasoline-powered-cars-drastically-reduce-demand-for-fossil-fuel-in-californias-fight-against-climate-change/ "Executive order directs state to require that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles". So, something like the proposal could give consumers more piece of mind. That said, I don't personally believe the above will happen for too many reasons to list. I suspect it will need to be pushed out or lowered to a more realistic target, say 50% by 2035.
 
A mandated warranty for hybrid batteries makes sense because reduced hybrid battery capacity means more internal combustion engine use and more air pollution. The 80% requirement for BEV's will just force manufacturers to provide larger batteries and limit charge/discharge when new so that apparent capacity stays constant over time. Personally, I prefer to have full use of my car's battery when new and when degraded rather than paying for extra capacity that I cannot use.

Will CARB start mandating service life of other components such as onboard chargers, inverters, and motors? Failure of those expensive components may lead to removing the car from service even if the battery is still good.
 
I see nothing wrong with this, as long as they are mandating things that can be done. I'm inclined to believe that solid state batteries will be able to meet this requirement, but I do wonder about less expensive BEVs with lithium packs. The current generation of Leaf, unlike most previous years, seems to be able to deliver 10 years of service with no more than 30% loss - at least in non-Hot climates. I wouldn't want to see cars like the Leaf dumped in favor of $50k+ BEVs with higher capacity and TMS. The market needs inexpensive EVs as well as Teslas and Volvos.
 
CARB will also have to consider that a bigger (heavier) pack will increase energy consumption. That said, I imagine that battery degradation concern is the #2 reason people do not buy BEV.
 
SageBrush said:
A 10 - 15% buffer would be enough for every EV not named 'LEAF', and it would let consumers charge to "100%" without damaging the battery for years.

It's a nanny state solution for ignorant consumers. An expensive one though.

Preferable to "caveat emptor" for such expensive purchases, imho. Anyway, with improvements in battery tech it's likely to be no big deal by the time it's implemented, with Tesla and GM already talking about million-mile batteries. LEAF owners need to be careful to not evaluate EVs by personal experience alone.
 
Nubo said:
SageBrush said:
A 10 - 15% buffer would be enough for every EV not named 'LEAF', and it would let consumers charge to "100%" without damaging the battery for years.

It's a nanny state solution for ignorant consumers. An expensive one though.

Preferable to "caveat emptor" for such expensive purchases, imho.
If you think they are expensive now, add on 15% Nanny surcharge for everyone to lug around 15% more battery so that so that fools can abuse the battery without penalty.

Sans abuse, Tesla easily meets the bar and I don't think the other manufacturers (excluding LEAF) are too far away.
 
SageBrush said:
Nubo said:
SageBrush said:
A 10 - 15% buffer would be enough for every EV not named 'LEAF', and it would let consumers charge to "100%" without damaging the battery for years.

It's a nanny state solution for ignorant consumers. An expensive one though.

Preferable to "caveat emptor" for such expensive purchases, imho.
If you think they are expensive now, add on 15% Nanny surcharge for everyone to lug around 15% more battery so that so that fools can abuse the battery without penalty.

Sans abuse, Tesla easily meets the bar and I don't think the other manufacturers (excluding LEAF) are too far away.

This would force manufacturers to maybe think a second about making batteries fall into standardized families with a longer availability window for “aftermarket” repairs
with mechanisms to actually repair said batteries without immense cost and difficulty .

Best example is the $3 temperature sensors that fail and have no access point to rapidly replace resulting in good batteries become junk despite no functional defect with said battery.

Failed cells are another toss the whole thing scenario but on a diy car you just wire around it and reprogram the BMS and charger.

Pretty pathetic first world problems that would not need to be a big deal with proper design
 
rmay635703 said:
SageBrush said:
Nubo said:
Preferable to "caveat emptor" for such expensive purchases, imho.
If you think they are expensive now, add on 15% Nanny surcharge for everyone to lug around 15% more battery so that so that fools can abuse the battery without penalty.

Sans abuse, Tesla easily meets the bar and I don't think the other manufacturers (excluding LEAF) are too far away.

This would force manufacturers to maybe think a second about making batteries fall into standardized families with a longer availability window for “aftermarket” repairs
with mechanisms to actually repair said batteries without immense cost and difficulty .

Best example is the $3 temperature sensors that fail and have no access point to rapidly replace resulting in good batteries become junk despite no functional defect with said battery.

Failed cells are another toss the whole thing scenario but on a diy car you just wire around it and reprogram the BMS and charger.

Pretty pathetic first world problems that would not need to be a big deal with proper design
Where Tesla goes, everybody else follows to try and remain competitive. Tesla is choosing to make the battery a non-repairable part. Actually, they have chosen manufacturing that makes a battery defect a throw-away car. It seems to me that can only fly if battery defects are rare and battery QC is extremely high. A side effect of this strategy though is that batteries successfully made this way pass the CARB demand easily.

I call this the "don't repair, recycle" approach.
It has clearly worked for the consumer electronics industry for the 'don't repair' part.
 
Nubo said:
LEAF owners need to be careful to not evaluate EVs by personal experience alone.
I was going to ask someone who has read the proposal, does it contain the sentence "We're looking at YOU, Nissan!" ? :shock:
 
Given the ease of replacing the Leaf battery, I was kind of hoping that someone would have built an aftermarket battery for the Leaf with at least active ambient air cooling.

I think even forced air inside the pack would make a difference.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
Given the ease of replacing the Leaf battery, I was kind of hoping that someone would have built an aftermarket battery for the Leaf with at least active ambient air cooling.

I think even forced air inside the pack would make a difference.

Or someone would build a COTS inverter and software and box to hook up Leaf / EV batteries to your house as a power wall.

I figure my current 2018 Leaf KBB is less than what it would cost me to get two power walls, and I'd get a lot more storage. Even if my 2018 Leaf battery has degraded down to 85% that would be 34 kWh of storage, lets say 30 if I leave a buffer.
 
cwerdna said:
The rules, applying to the 2026 model year and beyond, would require that BEVs maintain 80% of their certified test-cycle range for 15 years or 150,000 miles, while fuel-cell models maintain at least 90% output power after 4,000 hours of operation.

The requirements would also include the explicit disclosure of that percentage threshold and a "customer readable state of health metric," according to the CARB draft. The state of health (SOH) needs to be readable by the driver without a tool and meet the "usable battery energy" as met by SAE J1634 standards, with the vehicle maker clearly laying out the SOH percentage that qualifies for warranty repair.

I'm not in favor for the first. It is putting an unrealistic goal as a legal requirement.

If the idea was to get the most economical use of batteries, 70% or lower should be the rule. Of course, this can be handled by just derating the advertised range. And where does the 15 years come from? Better to make the rules match the technology rather than make rules ignoring the technology.

The used car market is likely to more accepting of less range as long as the car is reliable. This isn't the same as an ICE, and making rules to try to make it the same as an ICE isn't wise.

I think that perhaps multiple thresholds would be worthwhile. Something like 80% for 5 years, 60% for 15 years, 40% for 20 years. Driven by technology, not by aspirations.

A customer readable state of health metric as an actual percentage sounds like a good requirement.
 
WetEV said:
The used car market is likely to more accepting of less range as long as the car is reliable. This isn't the same as an ICE, and making rules to try to make it the same as an ICE isn't wise.

I think that perhaps multiple thresholds would be worthwhile. Something like 80% for 5 years, 60% for 15 years, 40% for 20 years. Driven by technology, not by aspirations.

A customer readable state of health metric as an actual percentage sounds like a good requirement.

Transparency is always good

As Wisconsin has shown used buyers are only tolerant of less range if the EV taxes and insurance reflect this reduction

If a gas car pays $37 in annual taxes
An EV pays ~$200 in taxes
A degraded leaf should probably pay little of anything extra on taxes similar to a moped

Otherwise buyers on the low end see the fee and continue owning old econo boxes
 
Back
Top