Here we go again: California Banning Sales Of New Gasoline Cars By 2035

pointofdeparture said:

Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:

What California really wants to do is ban cars in the cities and suburbs.  They want Everyone  on public transit, bikes, walking, etc.

As someone who actually lives here I can assure you that will never be the case.

Play into the confusion of those unable to conceive the future.  Tell them they have to buy a Tesla 3 Plaid.  If they are short the $130,000+  Tell them the Nissan Leaf. Sells for as little as $23,300 after the $7500 Fed  How much does California offer?   

Starting 2023 the rebates can be used as cdiscounts and some cars which have exceeded their production Chevy Bolt and Tesla  are once again eligible. 
( if they are made in America.). 
   Used EV cars are eligible for a $4000 rebate. 

In reply to mtn :

It's not that we can't. It's that nobody wants to actually pay for it. The big difference between gas and electric is oil is a publicly traded profit center whereas electric is a public utility- keeping accessibility at 100% over massive profits. 
 

That's why it's impossible to compare gas stations to charging stations. Tesla does not make money on charging stations, they make charging more available to make their cars more attractive. 
 

This is the same reason our bridges and roads don't get the maintenance they should. 
 

So it not can/can't, it's paying for it. 
 

And I still see this as car companies just passing the buck right back to the states to solve that problem.  

OK, someone needs to help me out here.  The local news (Southern California) had the big story of: 

 https://ktla.com/news/california/california-air-resources-board-expected-to-ban-gas-vehicle-sales-by-2035/

California Air Resources Board expected to ban gas vehicle sales by 2035 with a link to the CARB related document: 

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii

All New Passenger Vehicles Sold in California to be Zero Emissions by 2035 within that document, THE FIRST LINE is:

"By 2035 all new passenger cars, trucks and SUVs sold in California will be zero emissions"

and yet, in the doc, is the same chart shown on the first page that clearly shows:

"ZEV and PHEV"

So... what is it?

In reply to frenchyd :

You do realize those rebates are limited in number, right?  And given all of the distaste for the bail outs, it's not likely they will expand much, since raising taxes will be needed to pay for them. 

frenchyd said:

Starting 2023 the rebates can be used as cdiscounts and some cars which have exceeded their production Chevy Bolt and Tesla  are once again eligible. 
( if they are made in America.). 
   Used EV cars are eligible for a $4000 rebate. 

My understanding is that none of the current EVs actually would qualify for the new tax credit. IMO it should apply to every electric car not dependent on where it is made.

In reply to aircooled :

From the main page:

Proposed Regulations

The Advanced Clean Cars II proposal would rapidly scale down light-duty passenger car, truck and SUV emissions starting with the 2026 model year through 2035.

The proposal is two-pronged. First, it amends the Zero-emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles, and relies on advanced vehicle technologies, including battery-electric, hydrogen fuel cell electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, to meet air quality and climate change emissions standards.

From their FAQs section:

ZEVs as discussed below include battery electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV).

But... a PHEV is not a zero emission vehicle, nor does it not have an IC engine... right?

(something is very wrong here)

The damn title says:  "All New Passenger Vehicles Sold in California to be ZERO EMISSIONS by 2035"

WTH?!

Should it say "capable of moving with zero emissions"?   (even if it's not for very long)

In reply to aircooled :

Couldn't tell you why they decided to lump in PHEVs with ZEVs, but don't overthink it. They count PHEVs as ZEVs in the current rebate program too. Probably just giving themselves a fallback.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero-emission-vehicle-program/about

To be fair, for most people's typical commutes a PHEV would only ever operate on the battery if used in that mode, but I digress, it's not truly a ZEV.

In reply to aircooled :

It's just a terminology thing. There is no consensus on what is or is not an EV. For example, the Federal Government considers PHEVs and even standard hybrids to be EVs:

"All-electric vehicles—also referred to as battery electric vehicles (BEVs)—plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) all use electricity to improve vehicle efficiency. In colloquial references, these three vehicle types are sometimes called electric cars, electric vehicles, or simply EVs even though some of these vehicles still use liquid fuels in conjunction with electricity. BEVs and PHEVs are also referred to more specifically as plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs)."

For the purpose of this mandate, it appears that BEVs, PHEVs, and Fuel cell EVs will all be allowed. It is poorly worded. And the media is just being too lazy to read the mandate, or they're being intentionally sensational.

alfadriver said:

In reply to frenchyd :

You do realize those rebates are limited in number, right?  And given all of the distaste for the bail outs, it's not likely they will expand much, since raising taxes will be needed to pay for them. 

At the risk of triggering Margie's cement mixer, I will merely point out that we don't raise taxes to pay for things anymore. We just add to the debt and let future generations worry about it.

93EXCivic said:

frenchyd said:

Starting 2023 the rebates can be used as cdiscounts and some cars which have exceeded their production Chevy Bolt and Tesla  are once again eligible. 
( if they are made in America.). 
   Used EV cars are eligible for a $4000 rebate. 

My understanding is that none of the current EVs actually would qualify for the new tax credit. IMO it should apply to every electric car not dependent on where it is made.

The new tax credits will benefit domestic makers, while hurting most of the Korean and European models. 

STM317 said:

In reply to aircooled :

It's just a terminology thing...

OK, thanks for the clarification (!)   Clear as mud 

So.... CARB says all cars will be ZEV (!) with some sort of electrical drive.... the news say no more GAS powered cars... which is demonstratively false.... nice.

In reply to aircooled :

In theory a PZEV pollutes less than thr equivalent energy from a coal plant or somesuch.

I am not sure what they are doing with PHEVs unless the whole idea is that all new cars can be charged from the grid.

Are the new California regs the same as what the EU is trying to do ?

 I look at it as a goal , and not set in stone ,  

As far as the Federal tax credits ,  As I read it Toyota Prius , Nissan Leaf  and many more made in Japan EV are not eligible . And that is as of the day the bill was signed.

 I can see Toyota building the Prius in North America , 

aircooled said:

STM317 said:

In reply to aircooled :

It's just a terminology thing...

OK, thanks for the clarification (!)   Clear as mud 

So.... CARB says all cars will be ZEV (!) with some sort of electrical drive.... the news say no more GAS powered cars... which is demonstratively false.... nice.

To be fair, I'm sure they'd prefer 100% electric propulsion. So there may be some spin, or some effort to dis-incentivize PHEVs while getting people used to the idea that all electric is going to happen.

But PHEVs are likely included in the mandate to give both OEMs and consumers stepping stones along the path to 2035, and to provide an option for people without access to easy charging at home or work. So on the chart, I'd expect the mix of EVs and PHEVs to have more PHEVs sold in 2025 than it might in 2035.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

bobzilla said:

So let me get this straight. The state that has almost constant rolling brown and black outs because their electrical grid is already strained is now going to require that millions of new cars also be connected to this grid. Am I correct? Are they planning on upping their power output to handle the current load? Because if not, this isn't going to go like they think it will. But this is a political thing and most politicians don't have enough active brain cells to follow a thought through to completion. 

You're talking about Texas right? Cause that sounds like Texas. 

I don't know about the rest of the state but we don't have rolling brownouts and blackouts in Dallas. I can crank the a/c all I want and the power never goes out here. I have two Siberian Huskies who like the a/c on all the time. I do have to admit that my electric bill has gone up in the last year.

I also see a lot of solar panels in my neighborhood and there are 150 wind farms in Texas producing more electricity than any other State including California. There are charging stations in the parking garage in the building where I work. Only five of them, but that's a start. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

alfadriver said:

In reply to frenchyd :

You do realize those rebates are limited in number, right?  And given all of the distaste for the bail outs, it's not likely they will expand much, since raising taxes will be needed to pay for them. 

At the risk of triggering Margie's cement mixer, I will merely point out that we don't raise taxes to pay for things anymore. We just add to the debt and let future generations worry about it.

Federally, sure. California can't. And state incentives are being thrown into the argument. 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to aircooled :

In theory a PZEV pollutes less than thr equivalent energy from a coal plant or somesuch.

I am not sure what they are doing with PHEVs unless the whole idea is that all new cars can be charged from the grid.

PZEVs are why the first EV mandate failed.  They were cleaner as well as cheaper than an EV mandate was. 
 

The PHEVs will be cleaner than PZEV, but I don't know is they will be SULEV 10 or 20. PZEV is now SULEV30. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Fueled by Caffeine MegaDork 
8/25/22 6:27 a.m.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

n reply to Boost_Crazy :

But what if they're right and it works out better for this state than others.  Somebody has to move first. You're just not happy it's you

I sell all of the equipment for electrical infrastructure. From the transformers to EV chargers themselves. The amount of infrastructure needed would make me very wealthy and lead to an early retirement. I'll be okay, but thanks for worrying about me. If the manufactures could produce it. They can't. If there were enough contractors to install it. There aren't. If the property owners had the money to invest. They don't. 12 years is nothing when planning something of this scale. 

Cool you've just defined the problem.  Due to this policy change more people will be trained as electriciains, companies producing infrastructure will increase output etc. 

cslifornia is following the ethos of America here. Set big goals. If you miss no one cares if you missed because you've moved the needle so far in the direction you want to go  it'll be amazing. 
 

this is how Tesla and amazon work. No one cares in those companies if you missed on delivering your crazy idea.  They love the fact that you discovered x y and z along the way.  
 

we shouldn't be afraid of missing goals. We should be afraid of failing to change. 
 

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you demonstrated that you have any knowledge or experience in this area. Please enlighten me. Where are we getting these electricians? How do we get these companies to increase production? Because we could use a lot of that right now, just to take care of business as usual. I've got dozens of contractors and manufacturers waiting on your reply, you can really help us out. 
 

I'm not against change, I'm just the voice of reason to explain the consequences and costs of change. Talk is cheap, actually achieving goals requires work and investment. Ignoring those factors doesn't make you enlightened, it just makes you ignorant. But ignorance is bliss, so who am I to argue. 

To your point, all of these challenges are solve able. But to just gloss over them with no plan, this just tells me that they have not thought this through or are not really serious. Plus who says that we don't already have change? There are numerous examples in this thread (though many are flawed) that we are already on our way to the goal. Barring the obstacles that we have ignored. 

In reply to alfadriver :

I'm too dense for the current acronyms... what are they?

SV reX said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

I think it is distasteful to respond to people's legitimate questions and concerns by calling them fetishists.

Its a discussion. Let people speak. 

That's their MO. When they don't want to address the valid questions they go on the offensive. See the post directly below yours. Same E36 M3. Different day. Some people will never change. 

03Panther said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I'm too dense for the current acronyms... what are they?

PZEV is Partial Zero Emissons Vehicle, which was a 5:1 replacement for the EV mandate back in the early 2000's. That agreement came about via a lawsuit. 
 

PHEV is Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle. 
 

SULEV is Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle. We have had LEV and ULEV before, but soon everything will be a SULEV something.  The number following that is the emissions standard in NMOG + NOx. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

The market will solve the issues.  It's the American way. 

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

At the risk of triggering Margie's cement mixer, I will merely point out that we don't raise taxes to pay for things anymore. We just add to the debt and let future generations worry about it.

Almost right. And I think allowable, since both sides do the exact same thing:

raise the taxes to supposedly pay for  (insert pet project here), line their pockets, and then add to the deficit 

In reply to alfadriver :

That's kinda like "W. M. D. " sounds important, and means absolutely anything, which translates to actually meaning nothing!

But, thanks for the break down of the acronyms.