Quote:
Originally Posted by tiburonh
You said there was no such law in the US, but there clearly is. And the CARB rules have been fully embraces by several other states (including New York and even your apparent home state of Maryland). The CARB rules are the standards that the manufacturers most care about.
BMW wants the i3 to be treated differently from the Volt, and has gone to great lengths to persuade CARB to create this new category of BEVx. By getting significantly more range on the battery alone than the Volt, and by being at the same limited to getting significantly less range on the gas motor than the Volt, the i3 should be a significantly greener car and thus should be treated differently -- or so goes BMW's argument anyway.
|
Okay so you want to play the game of semantics, fine. However, you said "by US Law", which means the Federal Code of U.S. Regulations. What you really cited was a California State law, which constitutionally has no effect at the Federal level, regardless of how many other States in the U.S. decide to adopt similar legislation. In reference to your statement I said there is no such law; there is none in the Federal Code, my statement is accurate. Sorry.
Had you said "By State law of California" that would have been accurate. And finally, if there is such a law in California, it was written around the design of the car, rather than the design of the car influenced by adherence to the law. Meaning, that in the case of the U.S. Federal law regarding the tax break given to consumers who buy EVs, the maximum tax break of $7,500 is applicable to those vehicles that have at a minimum battery size of 16KwH. The Volt is one such design, as is the Nissan Leaf; the Tesla S meets the requirement as well. I doubt BMW designed the i3, which is a car intended for world-wide distribution, was specifically influenced by a CARB emissions law. Your statement implied that the design of the i3 was influenced by the CARB law, which by your own admission above, it was not.