CA zero-emissions vehicles by 2035

seems like a doable goal. all ev by 2050 hopefully, if the planet hasn't exploded by then.

 

How many of us will be left by then?

Let's hope phase 2 has a lower mortality rate than the 1918 pandemic .

As long as the smart folks survive, this is a doable goal.

 

I wouldn’t plan to throw away that spark plug wrench just yet.

If you look past the press release, the Governor’s executive order (PDF) actually does none of what’s in the headlines. It sets some non-binding policy goals, which I can’t help but imagine are likely to join many other goals that have been announced with great fanfare, found inconvenient, and then ignored, and it directs CARB to propose some regulations, qualified by such words as “towards the target” and “feasible,” and by the limitations of state and federal laws.

It’s far from clear what those regulations, if ever adopted, would actually require. Indeed, California’s ability to set its own vehicle emissions standards at all is the subject of pending federal litigation (Union of Concerned Scientists, et al. v. NHTSA, Case No. 19-1230 (D.C. Cir.)), and by 2035, both the Governor’s office and every seat in the Legislature will have turned over more than once.

Whether or not you think it’s a good policy to phase out the sale of highway vehicles that use petroleum fuels, today’s action doesn’t do much towards that end. Wake me up when they publish a Notice of Proposed Action.

 

Perhaps, but it is a lot better than if they used the same language to say by 2035 all environmental regulations would be removed. I take it as a positive next step.

 

when the movie came out, "Who Killed the Electric Car", viewers saw how CARB quickly caved into the oil & auto manufacturing Lobby's. Money buys a lot of persuasion, & if you have a massive moneystream, why wouldn't you want to keep the status quo. Even if our illustrious governor Gavin Nuisance actually had authority to put teeth behind this proposal, and having a passion for history, it would just mean the industry infighting would start heating up - just like last time. Even so, from governor's position, it's good Optics. God forbid he should be dealing with something that he might be able to control, like the millions of homeless lining the streets, often sleeping next to their own feces and urine in the gutters.
.

 

That's a change then. PHEVs were originally in a transitional ZEV category with hydrogen ICE. Vehicles in that category would eventually lose ZEV status.

 

don't forget - Toyota - Hyundai - et al carved out exceptions for hydrogen cars as electrics, despite needing fossil fuels to effectively reform hydrogen** ..... so you can be sure they're going to fight tooth and nail to keep plugins in California, especially since they're not building any electric cars for the u.s. . Hopefully that will change.

**supposedly a certain percentage hydrogen reforming was to be done through the much more expensive process of PV solar electrolysis, but although years have passed, that goal has never been achieved. Perhaps legislation change, but in any event .....
.

 

For the large car companies(BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen), only a portion of the ZEV credits they need can come from TZEV vehicles like PHEVs. Itt is now less than half, and the relative portion shrinks each year. It appears to grow some, but the ZEV car requirement grows more. Currently, the program plateaus in 2025.


Zero-Emission Vehicle Program | California Air Resources Board
What is ZEV? | Union of Concerned Scientists
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Zero%20Emission%20Vehicle%20Mandate%20Briefing%20v2.pdf
The last link also covers China's EV program.

 

The ZEV program quota system isn't straight forward. For the number of traditional cars a car maker sells, they need a percentage of credits. Each ZEV car type worth worth more than one credit. PHEVs are worth the lease, and FCEVs the most. So a car maker needs to sell less FCEVs than BEVs to meet the requirement.

I've seen 33% renewable quoted for California. Have they not reached that amount?

 

California's grid can't even keep the frigging lights on, but they going to be able to charge all these cars?

about 18 million cars in CA now, with about 2 million new cars bought per year.

daily brownouts for eternity?

 

I hate to speculate on what political climate they will be in 2035. I don't even know what they will be after Nov. Is any of them going to be binding? Yeah, I hope that will help the outcome of the climate changes, but sad to say, I don't think even if the announcement becomes reality, no big impact on global climate.

 

They won't need to. CARB is a big hydrogen proponent. They will be hydrogen FCEVs by then.

 

Charging EVs has little impact on the grid as EV demand can very easily be time shifted.
California’s grid problems are much deeper and require systematic changes as well as throwing a few power company CEO in jail.

 

it's likely more.peeps have hair dryers than people have cars. More people have microwaves then people have PHEV's .... The L1 portable charger draws similar amount of 120v power. No one fears having to throw out their toaster or hair dryer or microwave. Our 240V central air draws ~8KW - which is higher than most plugin L2 chargers. Yet no one fears building new homes with central air in cali .... especially when more and more are using solar to assist with charging and sssociated costs. Our screwed-up grid was screwed up long before plugins came along and that amount in other words is not much worse.

 

Implication with everyone driving plug-ins, free HOV incentive goes away, assuming not everyone fits.
Somehow I was not shocked that 90% of diesel emission are caused by diesels.

 

Whereas diesel is probably a large part of the problem, Gavin never says cars are causing the smog...
He says "transportation sector" is causing pollution and dlesel is causing 90% of diesel emissions. But we never hear why hybrid Prius is so deadly to human race.

I would submit hybrid Prius - just sold mine at 14 years - is among the kindest and gentlest to the planet. So if you are banning that, you are probably pursuing a political agenda of some kind.

 

If you want to cut carbon and smog emissions, while allowing current cars to stay on the road, and allowing cars bought out of state in, you need to cut the sale of any ICE. It's not saying the Prius is bad. It is saying a switch to hybrids isn't enough with all the non-hybrids and low efficiency cars already on the road

Or convert your entire ICE fuel structure over to some thing carbon neutral, though that won't address smog. Addressing the fuel does address the entire fleet, which many proposed policies don't. Clean the fuel or get the cars off the road, but buy back programs don't seem to gain traction.

The real purpose of this EO, as I see it, is to allow CARB to increase the required ZEV ratio of car manufacturers going past 2025. The current program plateaus at that time.