California passes landmark rules to curb auto emissions

1,290,920 sales this year. They'd need 193,638 each year. That seems pretty extreme, but we're talking about California, a state where the Prius was the 4th best-selling vehicle of 2011, with 34,129 sold, 2.64% of sales and that was in a year HOV lane access was lost.

A big obstacle for California is that they have high electricity prices, but if the expected happens and solar prices keep falling, more manufacturers add PHEVs and BEVs, the cost of PEV drops and gas prices rise, then the combination of factors would help push electrified vehicles. Besides EVs some of the sales could include NG.

 

There are still many entities trying to get the new rules tossed ... Honda being one of the largest anti-advocates. But there are several that are passively dismantling clean car reg's. Take my favorite for example, the University of California, at Irvine. UCI charges such a high rate just to park at one of their charge stations - that it would cost $15 for a re-fill ... and that's presuming they never charge a fee to plug in. If I were low on juice ... it'd literally be cheaper for me to throw the EV on the back of the Auto Club's flat bead tow truck, than it would to charge at places that gouge. One could literally get down the road in a Hummer for $15 as far as an EV could on a charge ... and the Hummer wouldn't have to wait for several hours. Geee .... thanks for the chargers, UCI ... I'm sure THEY will see a lot of use.

At the same time, UCI REFUSES to let ANYONE even USE any single one of the chargers at the Irvine train station. I stopped there just to look at 'em and the security guard could hardly run out there fast enough to kick me out. The station has a couple spots with the 15+ year old yazaki style plugs ... and there haven't even been any vehicles on the road that can use this s style of plug any more. Not for 15 years!

Yet UCI refuses to share. I haven't given up fighting with their phony, "zevnet" group yet ... but it's really a battle. Once again UCI, thanks for all the cooperation. IMO, organizations like this, do as much harm as Honda. At least Honda is facing you while they screw over the infancy stages of clean car infrastructure.

Don't get me wrong. If you can afford a PHEV or EV ( NO one can afford Hydrogen rides, nor the trillion $$ infrastructure), you can afford 15 bucks. But even $5 will allow for charge port cost recovery (1/2 already paid for by CA), and leave room for profit ... even in high dollar areas like Irvine. It's just such a waste to see chargers like the ones at UCI languishing away from non-use, during these early implementation years and months. People still want value ... some kind of reasonableness. I can hear the logic now ... "we tried to implement infrastructure ... but there seemed to be no takers". duaah.

.

 

did that same control board not do the same thing in the 90's
where by the year 2000 or so also a lot of cars would be EV
and thats where the GM EV1 came from ..... and what happend to that car...
and now where in 2012.. and we set a goal for 2025.................. thats not setting goals ...thats a big shame!

 

what else can they do? it's a democracy, they don't have ultimate power. you have to have goals. i give them credit for trying. and where they succeed, other states follow. look at the great warranties we have in carb states, thank you california!

 

My main complaint with CARB's approach is they tend to pick technology winners rather than simply place pollution caps or fines for excessive emissions. Let the consumer and manufacturer figure out how to be in compliance, or face the consequences.

 

CARB board members know what side of the bread that the butter is on. The energy and auto lobby bankroll much of the system's paychecks. They expect a return on their investment. Believe it or not, "what's fair" is not at the top of the energy industry's agenda. As the system stands, the only "consequences" to be faced, are to those who fail to go along with the agenda. It's a miracle CARB got this far, again.

.

 

lol. Its the best air resources board money can buy.

The difference this time on the mandate, is that the policy is aligned with federal policy and technical abilities of the manufacturers. This was the case with catalytic converters and electronic ignition, but not in the earlier ZEV mandate.

 

We are the auto emissions beta testers for the rest of the country.

 

There was good reason and success for this on catalytic converters. Not a pretty story for mbte. The hydrogen beta test doesn't seem to be going well. California because of its weather and population density does make it a good beta tester for bev and phev vehicles Texas will also be a beta test case, but with only incentives and not mandates.

 

I went back and edited post #3
Most will never even see a PICTURE of extinct charge plugs that I mentioned, much less the actual plug ... so I posted a picture that I took, just a few months ago .... (after wiping all the cob webs off of it) - in case anyone was interested.

.

 

They put a loophole in that law.

Plug In America: California Created Giant Loophole in New Electric Car Rule | PluginCars.com

 

That's a mighty big "if". How soon do the road taxes for electricity start? Nothing to prevent them taxing the juice from solar panels that's used for BEV's either. So owning your own panels won't necessarily be the solution. You are correct that in parts of California electric rates are so high as to make EV ownership a luxury to most even without any additional taxes. When you add EV charging to your normal electric consumption and it comes at a cost of 40 cents per kwh hour it doesn't make economic sense.

Quoting the original article "People are spending way too much for gas, and they wish they didn't have to spend as much," he said. "The fact we are going to change what consumers can buy and what they can drive -- which is really what they want -- is one of the most important things we are doing."

I love the way the unelected have the power to dictate what we can buy and drive and think they are doing us a favor. So much for letting the market decide. So you won't spend too much on gas, you'll spend it on electricity instead, how does that help solve that problem?

 

I like how people think they have the right to drive whatever they want despite the negative health effects and externalized economic costs to society and taxpayers.

 

I generally like the idea of more clean energy production but there are so many hurdles to overcome such as the wind power vs. birds issue. I just read a good article in Forbes on the issue.

Revival Of Iconic California Condor Threatens State's Wind Farm Boom - Forbes

 

...in the past CARB have done some regs with targets instead of telling how to do it. In this case, the target is zero emissions, which makes some sense if you have the ability to import elec. But it's like the proverbial left-handed-smoke-shifter we used to look for on Boy Scout camp outs.

Zero might be justified in this case if it REALLY solves the CA smog problem, which I have to leave up to CARB to calculate. If it's more like ethanol, fake cleaner burning argument for political justification, then I'd be concerned. I also feel GHG reduction per se is a political goal, if its smog reduction that's one thing re: health impact, but GHG is national policy matter, I feel.

 

That was troubling. Does this mean the main thing they passed was spending $100M for hydrogen fueling stations? If the plug-ins come, that is great, otherwise CARB will just get rid of the goal..

+1

 

+1

I am in the camp that believes in the science behind climate change and that GHGs are an important issue but I also agree with the above.

 

My problem was with the "unelected" aspect of those who are dictating what's available. I'm not in favor of legislation by regulators.

 

Gotcha.