California Governor Wants All New Cars To Be Zero Emissions By 2050

2 years ago by Mark Kane 34

Audi A7 Sportback h-tron

Audi A7 Sportback h-tron

Chevrolet Bolt EV - Will The Moonroof Make It To Production?

Chevrolet Bolt EV concept

California Governor Jerry Brown wishes to make all new cars only zero-emissionby 2050.

The goal was set prior to COP21, which makes us wonder whether it’s real or just pure policy, especially since the agreement with other governments are nonbinding.

“As the state’s top climate officials prepare to join world leaders at the U.N. Climate Change Conference this week, California today announced an effort by 13 North American and European governments to make all new passenger vehicles sold in their jurisdictions zero-emission by 2050. Additionally, it was announced that eight new signatories have joined the Under 2 MOU climate pact.

With more than 190 nations convening in Paris to negotiate a landmark climate agreement, the announcements demonstrate the growing momentum among national and sub-national governments for ambitious goals to reduce climate-disrupting greenhouse gas emissions.”

ZEV Alliance

ZEV Alliance

International Zero-Emission Vehicle Alliance (ZEV Alliance) was established by 4 members – California, The Netherlands and Québec, Canada. With 8 new members there are now 13 in total with Germany surprisingly joining the cause:

  • California (U.S.)
  • Connecticut (U.S.)
  • Maryland (U.S.)
  • Massachusetts (U.S.)
  • New York (U.S.)
  • Oregon (U.S.)
  • Rhode Island (U.S.)
  • Vermont (U.S.)
  • Québec (Canada)
  • Germany
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • United Kingdom

“International ZEV Alliance partners are already leaders in the rapidly growing market for ZEVS, which include battery electric, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Together the jurisdictions account for about half of zero-emission vehicle sales worldwide.

Large-scale adoption of electric vehicles, in concert with increasing renewable energy sources, is not only essential for limiting climate change impacts, but will also improve air quality and public health, end global dependence on petroleum, and grow the low-carbon economy.

In 2012, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order directing state government to help accelerate adoption of zero-emission vehicles in California toward a goal of 1.5 million ZEVs by the year 2025. Since then, the California market has grown significantly, with California now accounting for about 50 percent of ZEVs nationwide.”

Tags: , , ,

34 responses to "California Governor Wants All New Cars To Be Zero Emissions By 2050"

  1. Someone out there says:

    2050 is way too easy and too late. Set the goal to 2030 and it might mean something.

    1. alain says:

      Yup,2030 would mean something,chance is this will be done by 2037 or so .But hay,the good news is we started (ten years late ,but still great and it going faster than i though it would!

    2. Mikael says:

      It really is, it’s like knocking in open doors. 2050 is way too late.

      It also doesn’t force manufacturers to do anything today. I’d much rather see a law of at least xx% by 2025 or 2030 to push them hard today.

      1. Lindsay Patten says:

        I think that is exactly what the CARB ZEV mandate does.

        1. energymatters says:

          Current requirements schedule is: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevregs/1962.2_Clean.pdf

          Model Year Percentage Requirement
          2015 thru 2017 4.0%
          2018 4.5%
          2019 7.0%
          2020 9.5%
          2021 12.0%
          2022 14.5%
          2023 17.0%
          2024 19.5%

        2. Mikael says:

          If only it had higher percentage, being more stringent and with less loopholes.

    3. jerryd says:

      That is too late as FF’s will have been played out by then anyway, priced out of the market.
      Fact is in 20 yrs oil will be, NG and coal mostly dead in 25 yrs worldwide, all priced out of the market by lower cost clean
      power.
      In transport you’ll only need 25% of the power to replace oil with clean electricity and that power will be fairly cheap because the equipment is cheap, simple that most will just make their own.
      Clean fuels too for what little needed will be locally made from local biomass, crops, recycled wastes, etc by small
      businesses.
      What is needed is the full cost of FF pollution, healthcare, military, etc costs in them and mass production of the equipment like solar already is.
      Then we’ll be in a long term low cost stable energy prices as anyone can just make their own saving FF, utility material and corporate costs.
      And make 3x’s the jobs doing it.

      1. Ambulator says:

        What we REALLY need is the full cost of removing the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels from the air, and then doing it. If that makes fossil fuels too expensive, then we do without.

  2. GSP says:

    Good news.

    Maybe California will start installing DC fast chargers for their portion of the West Coast Electric Highway? With more than one DC fast charger at each location? And maintence to keep them operational, so EV drivers can count on them to complete their trips?

    Now is the time for action, instead of just rhetoric (and useless H2 filling stations).

    GSP

    1. Tech01x says:

      Instead of wasting money into obsolete DC EVSE, how about incentive programs to install chargers including demand charge rebates for L2 chargers at every hotel and motel? Then every mall and shopping plaza. Also at workplaces if they also install solar.

    2. Fail Cells says:

      they dont have any money left after blowing a huge load on Fail Cell Hydrogen stations.

  3. SparkEV says:

    If Gov Brown wants to have more ZEV in CA, give more tax breaks / rebates to EV (not FCV) rather than spending $70,000,000,000 on slow speed rail. That’s not high speed!

    He can subsidize 2.7 million SparkEV at 100% with that much money, or 5.4 million SparkEV at 50% subsidy or combination of EV + charging stations. With autonomous driving coming soon, that will be far more useful and quicker than rail.

    1. M. St. J. says:

      Wrong people getting the money.

      1. SparkEV says:

        So true. All the money for rail is now going to politically connected people (eg. consultants). With SparkEV subsidy, it will go to the poor who have no choice but to drive gas guzzlers (and polluters). Rich won’t be seen driving SparkEV; they’d rather have Tesla or BMW.

    2. Richard Gozinya says:

      I don’t think Chevy can even build that many Sparks.

    3. super390 says:

      We need to electrify freight rail first. Diesel trains and trucks hauling endless crap to Wal-Marts sprawled out like slime mold contribute plenty to emissions. Other major nations have had electrified freight rail for years. It’s not rocket science.

  4. M. St. J. says:

    That would be way to expensive.No single company could have the resources to install a network of chargers. If Gm, Ford, Nissan can’t then who? It probably wouldn’t help sell a well built car anyway. TESLA

    1. SJC says:

      All EV makers and utility companies could put fast chargers at every Starbucks.

  5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “The goal was set prior to COP21, which makes us wonder whether it’s real or just pure policy, especially since the agreement with other governments are nonbinding.”

    No government, anywhere, ever, makes a binding decision for something to happen 35 years in the future. Heck, I question that even the pharaohs of Egypt planned that far ahead when building the Pyramids.

    The Governor might just as well have said “I’d like for all new cars to be only zero-emission by 2050.”

  6. SJC says:

    I am sure Governor Brown wants this, but what is he doing to make this happen? We should see progress every year towards this goal.

  7. Richard Gozinya says:

    Tough goal to achieve, and I’m not sure the current path is the best way to get there. Those compliance EVs just suck, and nobody wants them. Which in the long run hurts the image of EVs.

  8. ffbj says:

    Governor ‘Moonbeam.’ I sort of like that name.

  9. Erwin says:

    Announcing a goal that doesn’t go into effect until after most of us have died of old age and only our grandchildren are in office is a waste of time. Why is this even news? This is so far off in the future it’s meaningless.

    1. mr. M says:

      I dont think it is waste to do something good to our children in the future.

      1. Erwin says:

        If it was a plan that WOULD actually do something good for our children’s future,then yes, I would agree. However this is basically announcing that we really aren’t going to do anything meaningful anytime soon. That instead, we have this far off goal that our children will have to implement. He could just as easily anounce that by 2050 we have this goal that nobody will own an automobile and we’ll all teleport to wherever we’re going.

        What I would prefer to see instead is real goals, that take effect now, and make a difference. ie, by 2020 10% of all vehicles in California are zero emission, by 2025 25%, etc. and then followed up with some sort of action plan for how to get there.

        1. Lindsay Patten says:

          California is mandating for major manufacturers 2% of vehicles in 2018 and that is increased by 2% each year up to 16% in 2024. They have to reach an additional 6% by 2024 that is either ZEV or TZEV (plug in hybrids).

          http://transportpolicy.net/index.php?title=California:_ZEV

          1. Erwin says:

            Yes i am aware of this plan, However even if i agreed that 16% plug ins and bev’s by 2024 is good enough, why should it take an additional 26 years to go from 16% to 100% of new cars being zero emission? We have the technology right now to make 100% of all new passenger vehicles zero emission, why must we wait 35 years to produce them?

  10. Bill Howland says:

    So I guess California is going to get alot of Hydrogen Dispenseries courtesy of Moonbeam.

    (Well, not really him, he’ll just increase taxes on those who haven’t left yet).

    I just saw in SF they will allow a zero-down-payment $2 million Mortgage. – Maybe that guy can afford the taxes.

    1. Three Electrics says:

      California spends 1/4000th of it’s budget on hydrogen. It’s a shame it’s so low.

  11. Three Electrics says:

    The California Legislature recently tried to pass a similar measure with a similar deadline, but was fiercely opposed by the big oil and gas lobby. I’m glad the governor hasn’t let the issue die.

  12. Epicurus says:

    A CAFE standard of 100 miles per gallon in 2018 would be a better idea.

    The carmakers would then be forced to shift to PHEVs now as well as developing BEVs.

    1. Epicurus says:

      Companies that don’t even have a plug-in product might be forced out of business but that’s the penalty for running behind technologically. It’s not like the climate crisis wasn’t foreseeable.

      1. super390 says:

        Once there were hundreds of car companies and most of them died. Once there were hundreds of computer companies, which were replaced by other companies whose names you can’t pronounce, and companies that just make tablets.

        We’re down to only a dozen or so major automakers that people in the 1st world have heard of (GM, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, VW Group, Peugeot, Toyota-Subaru, Nissan-Renault, Mazda, Honda, Hyundai-KIA, Tata-Jaguar). Of course they’re politically powerful and their workers will be devastated by layoffs, but a few of those going broke won’t have wide-ranging effects unless it’s part of a general financial crisis that threatens a domino effect against the parts supplier companies that they all depend on. All the hyphens in that list tells you what would happen in a more orderly ICE phaseout: mergers, mergers, mergers.

  13. Craig Capurso says:

    Governor Moon beam is a nut, delusional and a liar, if he wanted electric cars then he would push of charging station all over California not just in north and south right now only the rich with there teslas can drive from San Jose to L.A. he is a joke.