Yes, that's the ideal: don't claim that you've achieved the impossible. I don't want to see folks marketing "perpetual motion" machines for the same reason.
For a detailed comparison:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhau...
Seems fair to call these vehicles "zero exhaust." Electric rail vehicles have extremely low emissions -- if the rails and wheels are carbon steel without added heavy metals, then the direct emissions are relatively benign. Maglev vehicles are even better -- but even so, there's friction with air, moving parts such as doors and lynch pins. Still not zero.
But I stand by my previous comment - you can't treat a phrase or term as meaningless just because you refuse to acknowledge the context.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents...
So in my opinion, this is where the context is being misapplied - you want the CARB terminology to match the EPA. Neither one was handed down on stone tablets though.
- partial zero emissions vehicles
- transitional zero emissions vehicles (plug-in hybrids)
- advanced technology partial zero emissions vehicles
All of these have tailpipes!
To the extent that "zero emissions" does mean "no tailpipe" it's pretty straightforward and reasonable.
If something has zero emissions, but it's not a BEV, then maybe you should say what and why the correct definition excludes BEVs.