Featured California 2035 BEV mandate dead

If Kamala Harris decides to run for Govenor next term, the Republicans say they will back her, so that might flip the gas powered car ban back into the spot light. I could see her doing it just to get up Trumps nose
I can't see the Republican's holding the senate in the mid terms, Trump has poisoned the Kool Aid so severely his fairytale promises and Elon's money won't buy many seats for the Republican Party, so I'd imagine that piece of nonsense will be one of the first things on the agenda to be overturned.

T1 Terry

 

California climate programs would lose billions in Newsom's budget - CalMatters

California's green dream confronts harsh realities | USA Solar Cell

California’s budget deficit has grown. Here’s Gov. Newsom's response - Los Angeles Times

State and local debt in California is over half a trillion dollars – Orange County Register

California's Nightmare: High Taxes, Homelessness, and Fleeing Companies! - County Local News

LA Fires -- One-Party City and State Blames 'Climate Change', by Larry Elder | Creators Syndicate
"As I point out in my latest book "As Goes California — My Mission to Rescue the Golden State and Save the Nation," the "stupid Republicans" neither run California nor Los Angeles. No Republican has held statewide office in California in 20 years. The last Republican mayor of Los Angeles left office in 2001. Of the 15 members of the Los Angeles City Council, none is a Republican. Of the five Los Angeles County Supervisors, one is a Republican. Democrats hold super-majorities in the California State Assembly and the Senate. Democrats can, and do, pass legislation without a single Republican vote."

"California voters have only themselves to blame for this man-made mess."

 

I can't say that this is a bad thing. California over reached with the waiver. A single state can't reduce the world's CO2, and that seems to be what california is trying to do. The Republican congress have put forth a titanic fraud of a bill that will crash the US economy. I can't give them much credit for quashing this government over reach in california, but it was the right thing to do.

 

which republicans would back harris? someone is getting fake news.

i doubt the democrats would back her again

 

massachusetts has followed suit on ev mandates. it has been obvious that we weren't going to make even the first goal.
we've also backed off energy efficiency programs. not because of trump, but because of economic policy failures

 

I am a big fan of efforts to help the environment, but I was never a fan of the EV mandate. I don't think governments should be deciding what technology consumers can buy if there are other strategies to achieve the same aim. The government should set standards and markets should determine what technology meets those standards with the least amount of drawbacks to consumers. For example, instead of mandating all new cars be EVs by 2035, you could say new vehicles need to average 60 mpge by 2035. If car manufacturers feel they can only sell big clunky vehicles, then they will need to sell a lot of EVs. Alternatively, they could build a bunch of small efficient hybrid vehicles and barely need to sell any EVs. Let the market decide. If 60 mpge is not aggressive enough, just raise the number. If it is not realistic, lower the number.

 

I'm not sure what the answer is. A lot of times those kinds of things backfire.

Take the current CAFE standards for an example. The idea was smaller cars and trucks need to get better fuel mileage. You can't expect a large work truck or van to get the same fuel mileage, plus that would make those vehicles much more expensive. So, the standard wasn't made as strict for those vehicles. The result? More incentive for manufacturers to try to sell bigger, fuel sucking vehicles by convincing the public that we all need as big of a vehicle as we possibly can afford. Some companies no longer even sell anything that isn't an SUV, pickup or at least a crossover. Bigger means they can make less fuel-efficient vehicles and still comply with the law.

Like, how do you implement a 60mpg average? What about companies that produce only commercial vehicles? Do Freightliner and Peterbuilt need to make a side product of 100mpg mopeds to meet the 60mpg average? But if we start separating between what is currently "consumer" and "commercial" vehicles, then when companies can't meet the 60mpg they start advertising bigger "commercial" vehicles to the general public as the you-need-to-have, family vehicle. Can you imagine a world where Ford and Chevy only sell 1-ton pickups and SUVs because they can get around the 60-mpg average and as a result that's all people buy? Where do you draw the lines so that companies actually conform to an ideology instead of them going for the loopholes and still doing what they want?

There is no simple solution. And even if you figure out a law that works today, things change and next thing you know there's a loophole and that is where the market ends up going. It's hard to coerce the market with soft laws meant to incentivize good actions and disincentivize bad ones without just making a plain law like "just make them all EVs." Not that "just make them all EVs" is the solution either. There is no solution.

And add to the fact the world is divided. Idealy, everyone would be striving for the same goals. But when two or more entities want very opposing goals, it becomes war. One makes some gain this way, then the other steps in and pushes it the other way. Next thing you know we got a mess that doesn't really cater to anyone.

 

That's a good point. The average mpg was just an off the cuff example, but I see what you are saying. I think I remember hearing that is why there are so few small trucks, something to do with the smaller frame or weight putting them into a different regulatory category for emissions.

 

problems can be solved easily by a cooperative government, which we have never had. it has always been contentious

 

Who is going to make these petrol guzzlers, GM sold it's sole to the Chinese company SIAC and nearly everything they sell in the US these days is rebadged SIAC vehicle. When trump slapped the tariff on imports from China and Mexico, GM was stuffed, Ford relied on at least half the vehicle components being imported, so they are either going to have to move shop or price themselves out of the market.
Like it or not, if you aren't already driving an import, you will be, unless you buy a Rivian or Lucid and they are EV manufacturers.

T1 Terry

 

unfortunately, there are a lot of 'mericans' who think that there are a lot of things made here.
or that we would actually want to make things here. r&d, raw materials, development, parts production, assembly, supply chains, it is all so convoluted these days. ignorance is bliss.

 

But was there an actual EV mandate or was it written as a zero emissions mandate? I think that hydrogen fuel cells qualified.

Certainly the money for fast DC chargers was picking a winner, in a sense. But then the government did not pick this winner, IMO. It was acknowledging the first place on the winner's podium and 2nd and 3rd place didn't show up after more than two decades of competition with 2nd place being about 0.0001% of zero emissions sales

Mike

 

California 2035 BEV mandate dead

Good.

 

to each his or her own

 

Mandates specifically mean..."not"...to each their own.

 

right, and we each have opinions on them. i prefer clean air and renewable energy

 

Yep.

 

Sorry. There is no place on Earth where you can find that. People have the right to pollute.

 

Great. We have more choices of grey, marshmallow-shaped tablets-on-wheels. Hurray.