OPALCOGRAM 116
5/26/94
|
|
Doug Bechtel
|
|
The OPALCO annual meeting is tomorrow (as I write this), so I can’t
share what happened.
Each year before the annual meeting, I get nervous and I worry about
not having a quorum at the meeting and having to reschedule the
meeting all over again. By tomorrow at this time, I will know whether
we squeaked through another year.
It continues to surprise me how few members attend our annual meeting
and how few ballots are returned. Most co-ops end up with 30-40%
of their mailed ballots being returned. As of today, we have fewer
than 10% of the ballots mailed out returned to us. We get a big
slug right after we mail out our annual meeting report, and then
they seem to trickle in right up to the meeting.
One of the things I have been meaning to bring you up-to-date on
is our experience with our electric vehicles. The primary impetus
behind electric vehicles is the decision by California and several
other states to require 2% of the vehicles sold in 1998 to be “zero
emission” (ZEV). This number goes up to 10% of the cars sold by
2003. The big three American auto makers have tried to get California
and other states to defer this requirement so that electric vehicle
technology can become more cost-competitive.
Last week the California Air Resources Board refused to change their
schedule for requiring ZEVs. Even though the big three American
manufacturers claim they will not be able to meet the requirements,
several foreign automobile manufacturers assured the board that
they would have suitable vehicles at competitive prices.
One thing I did learn from these meetings was a significantly different
definition of “zero emission” than I had previously understood.
I understood that ZEVs were just that, and electric vehicles are
currently the only alternative that does not produce any emissions.
Under the revised definition, a ZEV is a vehicle that does not emit
any more pollution than the alternative. While this sounds confusing,
the California Air Resources Board is acknowledging the fact that
the electricity to power electric vehicles is coming from power
plants that themselves emit pollutants. Under this definition, if
you can build a car that does not emit any more pollution than the
power plants that make electricity, it is a ZEV. Rather than helping
the matter, I think this new definition confuses the issue because
allowed emissions will not vary by what part of the country you
are in.
The Northwest continues to get a large portion of its power from
the Columbia River, which under California’s definition does not
generate any pollution (salmon are not considered). In other parts
of the country, coal and oil provide the basis for most electric
power. I am not certain how you factor in radioactive waste from
nuclear power plants when determining the amount of pollution that
will make a car “zero emission”.
Anyway, our two electric vehicles continue to do well. They are
fun to drive and if you would like to try one, stop by. We will
be glad to give you a ride.
Next time I will bring you up-to-date on our annual meeting.
Doug Bechtel
|
|