Tesla Motors Pays Fine For Lacking Emissions Certificate Of Conformity... Even Though It Lacks Emissions
from the funny-how-that-works dept
A few of you sent over this bizarre story of how famed electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors apparently need to pay a $275,000 fine for lacking a "Certificate of Conformity" from the EPA, needed to comply with the Clean air Act. As is noted in the article, it doesn't seem like Tesla should have to get such documentation in the first place, seeing as it doesn't even have a tailpipe, but such is the nature of regulations being a bit behind the technology times.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: emissions, fines, regulations
Companies: tesla
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People discovered the Number Zero by the 9th century AD, get with the times.
In Tesla's Case, I disagree with the whole "Zero Emissions" notion, its only a marketing buzz word. Sure the car doesn't produce anything directly, but charging it does, if you drive your car 100 miles the oil / coal power plants still worked a little bit harder for you to do that... (The exception here being hydro, solar, wind, and other renewable energies, but they count for 10%ish that means 90% of drivers are still creating carbon.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So if the Tesla were built overseas and imported to the US, it would not have needed a certificate - it would have been excluded by the express provisions of the regulation because it has no tailpipe. Obviously, requiring domestic electric car makers to comply with regulations that foreign ones do not undermines the competitiveness of domestic producers. Either the regulation is intended to put US companies at a disadvantage, or it is archaic. Makes one sympathize a bit with the "Who Killed The Electric Car" crowd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regardless, how crazy is it that you are suggesting that the way to balance out a stupid law that hinders domestic manufacturers by adding another stupid tax on foreign manufacturers? I understand your thinking, but shouldn't we simply remove the first stupid tax rather than adding a second stupid tax?
Oh, and let's not get into what these dollars are spent on. I assure you it is not making sure the air is clean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its nonsense. If the car doesn't generate the regulated pollutants, the regulation doesn't apply. Its a an entirely new, and permitted (due to the fact that this same Gov. is giving out loans and credits for same) classification. The left arm once again is completely unaware of what mayhem the right one is committing. More VIVID illustration, at least to me, that we have much more government than we need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The *car* has zero emissions. The generation is all up to the power companies, and should not be a factor. Electricity can be generated by wind, photovoltaics, geothermal, nuclear, or solar-thermal plants. The fact that it isn't is the fault of the companies generating the power.
90% of electric car drivers wouldn't be generating emissions, 90% of *power plants* would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
None of this is cheap, all of them have environmental issues of space.
If we could build a self contained forge in space, build orbital solar collectors from space rock then beam the power via microwaves then we "could" have something thats truly zero emission after the vast up front capital cost of getting to space.
so.. not in my life time.
Sadly, if we did manage to build such an insane device, eco nuts would claim we are causing climate change by intercepting the suns rays in space and that microwaves are destroying our atmosphere.
That and the giant death ray problem :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the Article
Ouch. While it may seem as if Tesla shouldn't need such documentation since its products don't even have a tailpipe, the fact that the company had the proper certification in '08 means it should have known better in '09. Live and learn, eh?
It's one thing to never have the certification because of a lack of a tailpipe. Is another thing to have it and then let it lapse. This has less to do with behind the times than with due diligence to maintain something that you've already started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read the Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read the Article
Let's not confuse the fine with what it costs to get certified. They're being fined because they didn't comply. It's especially bad because they obviously knew they had to comply already, having been certified the year before. That fine is likely going to have a great deal of punitiveness included in it. It doesn't mean that's what it costs to get regularly certified (though, admittedly, I don't know what that cost is).
The question is: should they have to get certified if they don't have a tailpipe? I'd probably say yes. The powers that be have placed trust in the EPA to certify that vehicles are safe for the air. To do that, they must test the vehicles and then certify them. If they don't do the test, how does the EPA have any oversight? What if there was another part of the vehicle that was bad for the air? Maybe it had no tailpipe, but the electric motor spit out noxious fumes as a byproduct?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read the Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the Article
Sometimes you just have to accept the bad with the good. I think this is one of those cases....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read the Article
Er,.. I think this is more a matter of officials in government offices having absolutely no idea what any of the legislation they pump out actually applies to. They probably don't have collectively, enough technical knowledge to pass an elementary physics exam.
I'm surprised they have the wits to make a decent legal case!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read the Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read the Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So should lawn mowers (those really guzzle gas)
Crap humans need the cert too, you eat hydrocarbons (food) and output methane and other crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And are you suggesting that some bureaucrat attach some kind of meter to MY tailpipe? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One of the most important health tips that I can give to everyone that is highly overlooked is to reduce indoor air pollution and that very much includes the pollution that your body creates.
When at home, OPEN A WINDOW AT ALL TIMES!!!!
First of all oxidative phosphorylation is a much more efficient means of energy production than is lactate fermentation. Secondly, the toxins your body releases are very bad for you. Thirdly, diffusion forces will make viruses and bacteria go outside and hence will reduce your exposure rate to harmful micro organisms, not to mention these organisms often don't like oxygen rich environments very much (but your body thrives in such an environment). Fourthly, your body is meant to handle cold weather, it is not meant to handle unventilated air.
Burn energy more efficiently, keep a healthy weight (lose fat, gain muscle, get stronger and improve your athletic performance. Also make sure you drink plenty of water, avoid unhealthy tap water), improve your intelligence, sleep better, heal faster (ie: your ligaments heal slow because of reduced oxygen exposure. Likewise, exposing your body to less oxygen also causes it to heal slower in general), get sick far less often (and get over sickness much faster), allow your body to better regulate its potential hydrogen (good quality oxygen is a necessary component of pH regulation, and, by extension, you can potentially reduce your chances of getting cancer). It costs you nothing and the benefits are tremendous.
Diet, sleep, exercise, and high quality air. I say this because I love mankind and I sincerely want everyone to benefit from the air that God provides us to breath.
and, while anthropogenic pollution is less prevalent than naturally produced pollution, I see that as no excuse for humans not to take care of our environment.
(if you live next to one of those petroleum refinery, you're in trouble. That hydrogen sulfide is very bad stuff. You can either move or somehow figure out a way to filter that stuff out of your incoming air).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"It is the anaerobic form of respiration that occurs in some bacteria and animal cells, such as muscle cells, in the absence of oxygen.[1][2][3] If oxygen is present in the cell, many organisms will bypass fermentation and undergo cellular respiration;"
You are not going to run out of oxygen sitting in your house, they are not airtight. Have you ever seen a candle in a house go out because it ran out of oxygen? Have you ever passed out in your home because you had the windows closed and used up the oxygen? Of course not. Neither will your muscles switch to fermentation to produce energy due to lack of oxygen. This happens during heavy exercize, when the muscles are using so much energy that the bloodstream can't supply them enough oxygen for oxidative phosphorylation.
It does not happen when the windows are closed.
Secondly, the toxins your body releases are very bad for you.
What toxins, exactly?
Thirdly, diffusion forces will make viruses and bacteria go outside and hence will reduce your exposure rate to harmful micro organisms,
No. No, they won't. Opening a window will not cause "diffusion forces" to eject microorganisms out onto the surface of your skin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion
these organisms often don't like oxygen rich environments very much (but your body thrives in such an environment)
Opening a window or going outside is not going to turn your body from an oxygen-poor to an oxygen-rich environment.
good quality oxygen
Oxygen is oxygen, it's all the same.
anthropogenic pollution is less prevalent than naturally produced pollution
Natural pollution, isn't that an oxymoron? Anyway, how do you define that?
By all means, open your windows. Enjoy the fresh air, and get some of those indoor pollutants aired out. But don't fear that you're not getting enough oxygen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said you will run out, but that doesn't mean you won't have less oxygen.
"This happens during heavy exercize, when the muscles are using so much energy that the bloodstream can't supply them enough oxygen for oxidative phosphorylation."
Yes, I know. But to some degree some level of lactate fermentation is always happening.
"What toxins, exactly?"
The toxins your body releases, like methane among others. You don't think your body releases toxins? Of course it does, your skin and body releases waste into the air and it releases them because they're bad for you.
"Opening a window will not cause "diffusion forces" to eject microorganisms out onto the surface of your skin."
It will cause diffusion forces to more effectively get those microorganisms outside of your house which means you will breath fewer of them.
For instance, if you run the shower and you keep the windows and doors closed the air will stay moist and so will the window/mirror. If you open a window diffusion forces cause the moisture to go outside. Same principle.
"Opening a window or going outside is not going to turn your body from an oxygen-poor to an oxygen-rich environment. "
It will raise the partial pressure of oxygen in your body now that you're breathing fresher air.
"Oxygen is oxygen, it's all the same."
Of course, but by oxygen quality I am referring to its concentration gradient.
"Natural pollution, isn't that an oxymoron? Anyway, how do you define that?"
Volcanos also release carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere compared to inside a typical house?
But to some degree some level of lactate fermentation is always happening.
What percentage is it happening with the windows closed, and what percentage with them open?
The toxins your body releases, like methane among others.
If you're releasing enough methane to make the air toxic, you have way bigger problems than opening a window will solve. Seriously.
Of course it does, your skin and body releases waste into the air
Other than methane, methyl mercaptan, and hydrogen sulfide, released in very small quantities in flatulence, what toxins does the body release into the air? And in the quantities it releases them, what harmful effects do they have?
It will raise the partial pressure of oxygen in your body now that you're breathing fresher air.
Again, by how much? I mean, you have information to back up these claims, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here is a google search.
"The measured co2 in my living area ranges from approximately 500 ppm to over
2000 ppm. The higher concentrations generally occur during the winter
months when I am spending more of my time indoors, and am preserving the
heat by running the forced air intake fans less."
http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/chem/6069/Oxygen-percent-in-a-room
While the above doesn't seem to indicate that the theoretical decrease in oxygen is all that much (21% to 20.8%, though I think that even that, over a prolonged period of time, can have a huge impact), it does seem to indicate that CO2 levels can be a problem. Also see
"CO2 can build up in buildings that house a lot of people or animals, and is a symptom of problems with fresh air circulation in the building or home.
...
High CO2 levels, generally over 1000 ppm, indicate a potential problem with air circulation and fresh air in a room or building. In general, high CO2 levels indicate the need to examine the HVAC system. High carbon dioxide levels can cause poor air quality and can even extinguish pilot lights on gas-powered appliances. "
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/ChemFS/fs/CarbonDioxide.htm
Also see
http://www.aces.edu/dept/poultryventilation/documents/MgMnVPVP.pdf
"If you're releasing enough methane to make the air toxic, you have way bigger problems than opening a window will solve. Seriously."
The toxins that your body release isn't toxic in the sense that it will immediately kill you, but it is toxic enough to be detrimental to your health if not ventilated.
"What is the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere compared to inside a typical house?"
There are studies on indoor air pollution, many of which have found that the level of pollution indoors is far greater than that outdoors. Some of those toxins also come from your body.
"(NaturalNews) Indoor air pollution is arguably one of the most overlooked threats to human health, particularly affecting young children who spend an estimated 80% of their time indoors. Studies released in the past few years demonstrate clearly that poor indoor air quality not only increases asthma symptoms but can also be responsible for headaches, fatigue, nausea, allergic reactions, hormone imbalances and liver, kidney or central nervous system damage. Evidence has even been found that it causes cancer."
http://www.naturalnews.com/025772_pollution_health_indoor_air.html
"A committee of the World Health Organization estimates that as many as 30 percent of new or remodeled buildings may have unusually high rates of sick building complaints. While this is often temporary, some buildings have long-term problems which linger, even after corrective action. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reports that poor ventilation is an important contributing factor in many sick building cases"
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ventilat.html#Health%20Problems%20and%20Ventilation
"Influe nza transmission occurred from one index case to 72% of the 54 passengers aboard an airliner, on the ground in Alaska, while the ventilation system was turned off (Moser 1979). This outbreak is widely thought to represent a second piece of evidence for airborne transmission and it is also thought that the high attack rate was due in part to the ventilation system not being in operation (Moser 1979). "
http://www.sanuvox.com/PDF%20Brochures/ASHRAE_position_on_Airborne_Infectious_Diseases.pdf
" There is evidence that low ventilation rates and other building characteristics can lead to increased incidence of
respiratory diseases caused by viruses (Brundage, et al., 1988; Fisk, 2001). "
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ie/pdf/LBNL-48287.pdf
"What percentage is it happening with the windows closed, and what percentage with them open?"
I don't know exactly but it would naturally be higher with the windows closed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(form above Naturalnews link).
Opening a window will substantially solve these problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, submarines have huge CO2 problems and methodologies are implemented to reduce those problems. Granted, submarines probably have less ventilation than your house but that still doesn't mean that your insulated house doesn't have excessive CO2, and other toxic, problems if you don't ventilate it every once in a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The rest was about CO2, indoor pollution, and influenza, when your main point that I was questioning was about oxygen levels in the bloodstream from having windows closed vs. open.
Again, I agree with you that having windows open from time to time is common sense and a good idea, but I question whether blood oxygen level is a reason why. But in the end I guess it doesn't matter. Go ahead and open your windows. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think everyone here could be forgetting that charging and discharging the batteries can release fumes. Are those fumes counted as emissions??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does my cars alternator need a permit every time it charges the battery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Tesla uses lithium-ion batteries, rather than the lead-acid battery in an ordinary car. So their behavior during charge and discharge is not necessarily the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as electric cars go, dollar for dollar, they beat gas, as long as you have a quick charging station like Rayovac's AA batteries used to have where they charge in an hour. The EV1 got something like 300+ MpCharge... I'd put an outlet in my Driveway for that with a Credit Card slot on it too. Plus the fact that they CUT CARBON emmisions and require about a 10th of the maintenance that a Gas powered car needs. That is a fact. When's the last time you saw a dry run 11" 42v DC motor ever leak oil all over the ground. Plus there's no need for a conventional transmission, so no more ATF you can use Vegtable Oil in a standard trans.
All in all, I don't think they should have to pay it. And I think OUR country is trying to kill itself with all this crap about =Forign Imported cars can be COMPLETLY exempt... What?!? Why the hell do we have to pay??= Our government is getting more idiotic everyday, and I'm not helping things with my inability to spell, sorry about the rant,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because it's electric doesn't mean it doesn't emit...
There are several sources of pollution emissions onboard a modern automobile and an engine is only one. For instance, all of the plastics, resins, and glues used in the car also emit polutants (and continue to after the car is sold) and EPA regulations control these emissions too.
Therefore, it is not out of the question for an electric car manufacturer to have to prove that it meets these regulations as well.
Boost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just because it's electric doesn't mean it doesn't emit...
If this was the case you'd have a highly EnFV ((c) Copyright ME) ... I also realize most of you know how photo synthisys works I'm just explaining it for those who dont. http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/g-m-en-v-sharpening-the-focus-of-future-urban-mobility/
A tiny EV (if it did 90 or better I'd get it hopefully by 2030 we have better batteries) Random.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you mean? So you're a woman, and what..? Which part of "everybody" you did not understand?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our government's filled with idiots...
-This was probably entirely off toppic, but not really. Tesla is an American product. Lithium Ion batteries are an American product - and again farmed out to japan. I don't hate the Japanese at all either. But, they bombed us once. Now we GAVE them all of our technology. GE is an American company, White Westinghouse/Nash, We have the resources, we need to quit all the importing junk. Things are already more expensive, why dont we see any real progress. Everything stays the same untill we build it and spend an extra buck on US. I'm out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]