California Bill Would Ban Gas/Diesel Car Sales By 2040


“Until you set a deadline, nothing gets done”

California may be the first U.S. state to place a ban on combustion engines. With bans on fossil fuel-powered cars already being advanced in territories ranging from cities to entire countries — something we’ve been discussing on the InsideEVs Forum — it only makes sense that legislative action is being considered in a U.S. state with historic air pollution problems.

Smog envelopes LA

Representative Phil Ting from 19th Assembly District — an area that includes western San Francisco and the northern part of San Mateo County — reportedly plans to introduce a bill that would effectively ban internal combustion vehicles in 2040. It would only allow vehicles with no tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions to be registered in the Golden State. Currently, that would leave the door open to only electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Ting, who plans on tabling a bill in January, explained his reasoning behind the move to Bloomberg in a phone interview:

“Until you set a deadline, nothing gets done. It’s responsible for us to set a deadline 23 years in advance.”

News of the effort comes on the heels of an earlier report that California Governor Jerry Brown had been asking officials at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) why a legislative approach hadn’t already been tried. The State has already targeted an 80 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels before 2050, and with transportation pollution now overtaking that of electricity production as the largest source of the greenhouse gas, it makes sense to target this source.

With the target date being so far in the future, it’s unlikely the bill, if passed, would have any real effect in the next decade or so. Some might argue that given the pace of advance in electric vehicle technology, the legislation might be a moot point come 2040. We certainly hope so.

Source: Bloomberg

Categories: General


Leave a Reply

66 Comments on "California Bill Would Ban Gas/Diesel Car Sales By 2040"

newest oldest most voted

Nothing gets done until politicians set a deadline? Why don’t they set a deadline for something really important like cure for cancer. This just shows how moronic the politicians are. They are worthless.

Even without this mandate, gassers will be obsolete by 2040 (or sooner). Like many things, politicians will claim they did this when in fact it’s a natural progression. If anything, they’ll push crappy tech like H fuel cell to hinder the real progress.

I was laughing about the politician thinking that nothing gets done until they set a deadline, too. I remember when low flow toilets were mandated several years ago. For 3 or 4 years, nearly all the toilets installed had to be flushed twice for #2, kind of eliminating the savings, so to speak. Now most of them work on the first flush, but they still aren’t 100% or even close.
Mandating electric cars will increase the push back more than it will increase the rate of adoption.
At least it is California that is doing it, though. If politicians did it in New York state, where batteries may still have cold weather issues, even in 23 years, it would a bit riskier. Electric cars are better in a lot of ways than ICE vehicles, but they aren’t better in all ways.

Considering some (or many) people drive half way across town and wait in long lines to get $0.01/gal cheaper gas, having cheaper to operate EV with just as convenient charging infrastructure will have people abandoning gassers even if they have minor inconveniences.

You’re very well informed.

I think you underestimate the impact that your knowledge has on your purchasing decisions.

It seems most people have weird psychological blocks to purchasing EVs. As long as you can use the atmosphere as a free sewer, this huge externality will keep people driving ICEs for a long time.

Going #2 and eating meat will also be banned by 2040.

If you going #2 affects the health of someone else that is illegal today…you don’t have to wait till 2040.

At least if they put it in it’s a line in the sand that subsequent politicians can move hopefully forward but at least the discussion has to then be had.

If they really wanted to “move forward”, they should be funding fusion research ($22B with cost overruns) instead of wasting $70B (or $150B with overruns) on high speed rail that’s going to be slower than most automobiles for end-to-end travel.

Fusion may work, but fission definitely will. More research of fission reactors, particularly thorium reactors, makes much more sense.

For $150B (or more) that rail will waste, CA can afford to fund fusion, fission, di-lithium crystals for warp engines, all at the same time.

I’m not 100% convinced of thorium, though; there’s probably a reason why not as much effort is being put into it as fusion that I’m not aware of. Still, it’s hell of a lot better than slow-speed-rail.

Even if we have fusion, we’ll still need something for overland travel. Rail seems to work everywhere else, not sure why it can’t work in Freedom Land(tm).

Thorium only makes sense when used in a LFTR. LFTRs are inherently safe and produce less than 1% radioactive waste compared to conventional uranium reactors.

The article states that CO2 emissions from transportation is overtaking power generation. While all reduction is good, clearly transportation emissions need to be addressed.

Once clean electricity is “too cheap to meter”, and cars like Tesla 3 become more widely available, energy research will offset both electric generation and transportation. Clean energy is just a matter of time, and when that happens, EV will dominate (cheaper to operate).

Careful about the “to cheap to meter” statement. They said the same thing about nuclear power plants 50 years ago.

“That’s the joke.” –McBaine

It will be to cheap to meter…just not for your meter!

It’s certainly a good idea to give automobile makers plenty of warning. It may well be totally moot by 2040, but it’s impossible to be certain about the future.

That “Smog envelopes LA” picture looks more like fog. It’s the wrong color and the edges are too sharp to be smog.

This is a pic that came up in our library when I searched for smog, but you may have a point.

In retrospect, I should have put a photo of the Assemblyman there.

Oh my, no! Then I wouldn’t have had anything to complain about!

They could do even better with a law saying that all new cars must be capable of 20 miles without burning fossil fuel by 2025 or so.

This is stupid. And accomplishes nothing.

I don’t agree with this at all but if this idiot really wanted to set a deadline that matters, make it so that by 2025 no new ICE cars can be sold in CA and only already owned ICE cars can continue to be registered.

There’s supposedly going to be about a hundred different electric models by then by a dozen different manufacturers. No new sales will ensure that within 20 years almost nothing but electrics will be on the road by then.

THAT would actually accomplish something. I’d argue not what they intend, but it would accomplish something.

What this idiot proposes though accomplishes nothing. He seams to have very carefully picked a date that annalists have already set as the probably date that no new ICE vehicles will be manufactured anyway. Another politician trying to claim credit for free market progress.

I’m wondering why the ice is not banned already. The conventional hybrids are plentiful and considering CA traffic in major cities they are a major impact on reducing pollution and saving gas. Many manufacturers actually price them close or at the price of the full ice version….so why not? What am I missing?

You do realize that a conventional hybrid *IS* powered by an ICE, right? I think you are missing that if you ban the ICE, you also ban all hybrids including plug in ones.

Yes, you ban ice in the future when ready. How about now? Aren’t we ready to go conventional hybrid now? Of course we are! Do you see my dilemma? The switch to conv hybrids should have been announced 15 years ago and done by now.

It will get killed on Sacramento capitol floor. All automakers will be lobbying it to die. Yes we should do deadlines but we have to fund this for it can happen. Just like going to the moon at end of 60s. We funded and support the programs and we got there

“fund” it?

We like your attitude. You have what it takes to join the California Assembly. Please apply today.

Yeah like a gas tailpipe tax. Lets say $30 for cars.$ 50 for trucks and SUV, $100 for gas and diesel exhaust semis trucks. Used and new purchases. Thats not hard to do.

Just raise the state gas tax slowly until it’s ~$20 dollars a gallon by 2040 or something.

Give it back as a tax return to the low income earners to keep it from being regressive, and the market will sort it out itself.

Do that and will get kick out of office in the next election

I don’t know the details of this, but a complete ban would also take out the many different styles of vehicles out there, a lot of which are far behind in technology development. Pickup trucks, SUVs, utility trucks, etc. It also sounds like getting millions of existing ice vehicles already on the road to convert. That is a huge turnover that would take 20 years assuming new ev’s were available for everyone starting today (which they aren’t).

Grandfather the existing fleets all the way to 37-38 model years. Boom your done

Ting needs to read the Constitution especially the inter-state commerce clause. As a Californian having to watch the ridiculous bills this guy has introduced, while comical, it’s also quite sad. If anything this will do more harm than good to both our liberty and to the cause of EV adoption. People and companies need to see an economic benefit and the adoption must be voluntary, not compulsory … unless you live in the Liberal Oligarchy that CA has become. As a Calif. EV owner and citizen, that our government can attempt to us rule by fiat rather than consensus or by the “will of the people” shows a truly elitist mentality.

The elimination (or even drastic reduction) of fossil fuel consumption is huge BOOST to local economies.

By eliminating the export of the 81% of every dollar we spend on gasoline/diesel we boost our local economies by that and more. Especially as the money saved re-circulates back into the local economy.

Here’s a link to study on this done by experts at LBNL/industry for the Governor of CA:

Bottom line: Reducing gasoline consumption by just 50% will BENEFIT California by appx. $51 billion/year.

If you go and smash every window, that will “boost the local economy”, too, with many more jobs created for making / installing windows and money changing hands (and handsomely taxed).

You must like the arabs grabbing by our american b**** when the oil embargo start because our president dont know forgien policy and juersulem embasssy crapp.

If a countries as large as China and India can ban ICE by a certain date. Then California a state as innovative and ahead of the curve compared to say Alabama can meet a 2040 deadline.

What a coincidence. That’s about the same year the state of California files for bankruptcy.

What a lame ass’d political attempt to make a feel good proposal. I guess they have to make it look like they’re doing.

Anybody can take a natural progression and make it look like your idea made it possible.

My first thought was “what about my Harley, I’d like to keep that”… then I did the math and realized that in 2140, I probably couldn’t even pick it up off the kick stand….. 🙂

Kosh, if you are still around in 2140, you must have been doing something right!
Sometimes I think I would kill for an edit function on this website! 😉

Doh! Maybe I should sell the H-D now!

Based on the various troll and small-minded thinking comments we are seeing here we can see how people like Trump get elected.

Basically 30 plus years of right wing-nut propaganda through Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, ALL the Koch Heads’ funded think tanks/foundations like ALEC etc–all demonizing the government and EVs/RE.

I have some news for you, our government is neither good or bad.

Instead it is what we make it through our voting choices.

I personally like the many positive things that government builds and does for us like roads, safety, public order, etc and I’m willing o pay for it.

If you listen to the right-wing propaganda machines then you get the Koch Heads funded libertariantard style of government like what happened in Kansas which was a total disaster:

While something like a carbon tax would be vastly preferable, because of the right-wing money against it it won’t happen so a 20 year deadline might be an ok alternative under the circumstances.

Speaking to several Dump voters, no one really wanted him, but he was the only alternative in face of She-lery and SJW anti-freedom political correctness.

I see bunch of left wing idiots protesting Dump, from pussy hats to black clad antifa. Dump is all but guaranteed to win the second term if libtards keep it up by reinforcing the reason why voters voted for him in the first place.

I was a Scott Walker guy. Donated to him for Governor and again when he was running for President.

I ended up voting for Trump as the lesser of two weevils. (Patrick O’Brian reference)

I can not imagine the US having two worse candidates for president than the two we had in 2016. The frightening thing is that Trump will probably run for re-election in 2020 and he may be opposed by a socialist. I could end up voting for that bullying, boorish loser a second time.

Vote for an independent. At least hilray wouldnt take your electric cars away

The federal tax credit has just about done what it was intended to do. If it goes away for everyone at the end of 2018, I figure that it will have died at an appropriate time. No need to reward laggards like Ford, BMW and Toyota when Tesla, GM and Nissan did all the hard work.
Voting for an Independent is throwing your vote away most of the time. If your state isn’t going to be close, though, it is worth it sometimes to make a statement and hope the Libertarian or the Green will do ok. But if your state is close, you just about have to vote for the lesser of two evils. JMHO

Im from ohio and voted for kaish. He was the adult in that race

By the way, you must love DUMP and the likes of him since you want to give even more money to his administration via “carbon tax”.

Get, so you don’t have a retirement savings account, and you must assume that no one on this web site does as well. Because all the people that have investment accounts will see their investments grow faster after the business tax get cut from 35% to 20%. Some corporations pay less than 35% but most pay more than 25% and their profits will rise after the tax bill is enacted, making all of us a little wealthier. Is that in our best interests? I would say it is. You also said that “You are so stupid that you have voted for the same people who are NOW GOING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES to give huge tax cuts to the Koch Heads and the other billionaires!!!” That is simply not true. The NYT and Forbes, those bastions of conservative thought, have said that 15% to 20% of the people making between $86,000 and $300,000 will see their taxes go up, the rest will see it go down or remain the same. Of households earning under $30k, only 3% will see their taxes go up, 36% will see their taxes go down. Of people earning $30k to $50, only 15% will see… Read more »

Tax cuts dont work, and most Americans dont care about corporate taxes because they dont have jobs that are able to put money in stocks, IRA, mutual funds, so thats mute. Kansas is a perfect example where they had tax cuts and it ended up in the pockets of business owners instead of job creation and trickle down economics. That is what will happen plus job cuts to improve the profit margin and tell wall street that they are making money but sacrificing the little guy in the process and making america more poorer. I smell Greece coming to us very very soon

You are easily duped, the tax cuts for working class are temporary the corporate tax cuts are permanent…wake up…if tax bill goes through you will see the conversation change to spending cuts to medicare, social security, Medicaid, education, health research etc.

A tax cut, even a temporary one, is a good thing both for the majority of the people getting their taxes reduced, it is also good for the economy of the US as a whole. Look at the multi year run for both businesses and the American tax payer after Reagan’s series of tax cuts. The thing is, Reagan knew how to play the game. He reduced the taxes in a huge way in 3 tax bills, and he also allowed 11 small and/or temporary tax hikes to go through giving the Dem congress people room to jump on board. The overall impact was reducing the taxes people paid, but given the growth that occurred, the Fed actually took in more money in every year from 1983 on than they had previously.

Yeah like when the government shut down in 2013 for a a couple of days and the economy lost 50 billion dollars. Thete certain the governmemt those that private company cant do. Keep on drinking the trump juice

Regan left us in deficits that Bush, Clinton and Republican Congress had to take us out of by cutting programs, tax increases and privitation of the internet

Make it a revenue neutral carbon tax with a refund to the poor.



If you think the likes of Dump will do that, you’re hopelessly delusional. Fact is, new administration comes to power, and they can swing it any way they want. You just have to look at the way gas tax is being siphoned to things not related to vehicles in CA, and then they want to increase taxes even more.

“Instead it is what we make it through our voting choices.”
JUST, NO! There are no voting choices where it actually matters. This illusion that you can actually go to vote and change things is just a myth. Money does the voting and regular people don’t have it.

It would be great if they would pass a bill to reform campaign financing, the average citizen doesn’t have a voice in congress. Congress does what the rich and corpoations want because that’s who pays to get them elected.
If you have Netflix watch Saving Capitalism. Shows how our government really operates.

Cant do , Citizen United vs US made corporation people

This will be a huge mistake to push forward in the current era unless California is really planning to secede. Enacting such a ban will trigger Congress to finally get around to revoking CARB’s ability to regulate independently and losing that will be far more consequential than banning ICE vehicles. There’s already an impending showdown between CARB and the EPA over the CAFE standards. This will only make it more likely to be unfavorable to CARB.

He is our president, but dont we got to like his anti gay, anti women, anti diversity, white nationalist, pedophile pussy grabbing president but he is one of us. Tells you alot about the US.

If there is a definite date set for banning ICE it will happen much sooner than 2040.

In the UK the diesel car trend is collapsing since the governments announcement to ban ICE vehicles here in the UK by 2040.

Diesel car sales for Oct 2017 down 29.9%
Diesel car sales for Nov 2017 down 30.6%

Resale value. If you were considering buying a new diesel, and you also knew that diesels were banned, even in 2040, you might think, hang on, if I buy a new Diesel today, and keep it 5 – 8 years, when I go to sell it / trade in, I might lose more money by having bought a diesel – maybe the buyers of my then “second hand diesel ” will be in very small numbers.

22 years from now is nowhere near enough time to move that fast in terms of vehicles.

Now, diesel removal I could see. But all gasoline as well would be ridiculous.

So the government’s pen is a kind of magic wand?