Two recent lemon law buybacks of Nissan Leaf vehicles in Arizona have Leaf owners in California questioning whether their vehicles can be repaired, replaced, or bought back under the California lemon law.

Approximately 400 Nissan leaf owners in Arizona are claiming that after only a year of driving in warmer than normal temperatures have contributed to a significant loss of driving range in their electric vehicles (EV). One owner said that after only 15 months, his vehicle lost almost 30% of battery capacity giving him a maximum of only 42 miles on a single charge.

In a statement released by David Reuter, Nissan’s vice president of corporate communications, the problems are limited to “a small handful” of Leaf owners, and the vehicles in question were impacted by extreme heat, high speeds, high mileage, and charging method and frequency. He added that there is no defect in the Leaf, but in the interest of customer satisfaction, Nissan bought the cars back. According to Reuter, there have been over 38,000 Leafs sold around the world and the majority customers are very satisfied owners.

The potential sale of U.S. automotive battery maker A123 Systems to China’s largest auto components company, Wanxiang Group Corp., is raising security concerns among U.S. lawmakers. The $450 million deal would see Wanxiang taking control of 80% of A123 Systems which supplies lithium-ion batteries to luxury car makers like Fisker Automotive. A123 received funds from the Energy Department in 2009 which was used for battery research advancements and job creation programs for batteries used in hybrid and electric vehicles.

Opposition to the sale reports growing concern about foreign controlled or owned companies gaining a niche in the United States supply chain. According to U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, “We need to make sure the Federal government isn’t giving away our own national secrets by providing Chinese automobile manufacturing companies with million dollar government grants and loans.” Under the terms of the grant, the company agreed to use funding to support U.S. manufacturing facilities. Changes to the agreement of the grant would first have to be approved by the Department of Energy (DOE) who does not approve grant money being used for anything other than investment in the manufacturing and job creation here in the United States.