New Bill Proposed In California Requires All New Passenger Vehicles To Be ZEV By 2040

2 weeks ago by Mark Kane 79

Electric Cars

Chevrolet Bolt EVs

California state assembly member Phil Ting has introduced a bill AB 1745 Clean Cars 2040 that requires all new passenger cars to be Zero Emission from January 1, 2040 on.

Tesla

Tesla Model S & Model X

It will be still possible to use non-ZEV cars within the state, but the new ones need to be ZEV (mainly all-electric or hydrogen fuel cells) to be registered and even plug-in hybrids won’t qualify.

The bill concerns passenger cars with weight up to 10,000 lbs (heavier commercial vehicles will not be required to be ZEVs).

California Governor Brown already set a target to have 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025, but this bill is an even more serious assault on all the internal combustion engine powered cars.

“AB 1745 requires all new vehicle registrations in California on and after January 1, 2040, to be zero-emissions vehicles. The bill defines zero emissions vehicle as “a vehicle that produces zero exhaust emissions of any criteria pollutant (or precursor pollutant) or greenhouse gas, excluding emissions from air conditioning systems, under any possible operational modes or conditions.” The bill does not apply to commercial motor vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds, and allows people moving into California to keep their vehicles, whether ZEV or not.”

We are eager to see what will be the response to the idea and the time frame.

AB 1745:

AB 1745 Clean Cars 2040

Press release:

AB 1745 Puts California on the Road to a Zero Emissions Future

SACRAMENTO – Governor Brown set a goal for California to have 1.5 million zero emissions vehicles on the road by 2025, and our state’s climate change prevention policies project the need for 5 million zero emissions vehicles by 2030. Introduced today by Assemblymember Phil Ting, AB 1745, the Clean Cars 2040 Act, will set the next critical goal for California by requiring all new passenger vehicles sold after January 1, 2040 to be zero emissions.

“California has long led the nation in promoting environmental protection and public health through visionary policies and technological innovations,” said Assemblymember Ting (D-San Francisco), and author of the legislation. “It’s time that we clear the path for emissions-free transportation and take significant steps to achieve our ambitious emissions reduction goals. AB 1745 does just that by requiring that all new cars registered in the State of California –after January 1, 2040 – be zero emissions vehicles. We’re at an inflection point: we’ve got to address the harmful emissions that cause climate change. Achieving the goal of electrification of transportation is crucial for the health of our people and the planet. Vehicles run on fossil fuels are responsible for nearly 40 percent of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. By spurring the use of zero emissions vehicles, we’re creating a mechanism to ensure a healthier future for Californians, and the entire region.”

“If we want to seriously combat climate change, protect our clean air and water, and ensure a just transition to clean energy, we need to invest in clean, zero emission transportation,” said ​NextGen America President ​Tom Steyer, a supporter of Clean Cars 2040. “Dirty vehicles are the largest source of carbon emissions in California –polluting the air and water for millions across the state– so we must take action to accelerate the transition to 100 percent clean vehicles. Now more than ever, this legislation is needed to protect Californians’ health, create good-paying clean energy jobs, and reinforce our state’s role as a global climate leader.”

“Reducing fossil fuels emissions should be California’s highest priority,” added Adrian Martinez, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice. “With this legislation, California will be taking combustion polluting vehicles off the road and advancing zero emission vehicles – helping us to finally address air pollution and better equipping us to combat climate change. I urge our State’s leaders to pass this important legislation.”

“Clean Cars 2040 will help ensure that our communities reap the myriad benefits of zero emission vehicles,” said Eddie Ahn, Executive Director of Brightline Defense, a public policy organization dedicated to environmental justice issues. “Greater use of electric vehicles provides us with a tremendous opportunity to decrease air pollution and combat climate change that disproportionately affect low-income and underserved communities.”

“Over-reliance on fossil fuels in transportation damages the air, our health, the environment, our society and our economy,” noted Ting. “The transition to zero emission vehicles is underway, promising myriad health, environmental and economic benefits. Clean Cars 2040 is a powerful policy initiative that’ll set us on the correct course for achieving clean air and climate targets that prioritize public health.”

As introduced, AB 1745 requires all new passenger vehicles to be zero emissions vehicles after January 1, 2040. For the purposes of the bill, zero emissions vehicles cannot produce exhaust emissions of any criteria pollutant or greenhouse gas under any operational mode or condition. The bill does not apply to large commercial vehicles (larger than 10,000 pounds) and does not apply to vehicles owned by people moving into California from other states.

California has set ambitious goals to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. There are nearly 300,000 EVs on California roads today. In 2016, approximately 2.09 million new cars were sold in California, and 1.9 percent were EVs. Over 20 EVs are now on the market in subcompact, hatchback, sedan, luxury, and SUV/minivan models.

Further information about Clean Cars 2040 is available here: AB 1745 Clean Cars 2040 Fact Sheet.pdf AB 1745 Bill Text.pdf

Source: Assemblymember Phil Ting via Green Car Congress

Tags: , ,

79 responses to "New Bill Proposed In California Requires All New Passenger Vehicles To Be ZEV By 2040"

  1. Warren says:

    By 2040, nobody will be driving there. The asphalt will be melted from constant fires. 🙂

  2. ffbj says:

    A lot of parked Bolts. I am waiting for the drive across America in a Bolt in the dead of Winter. Oh, wait, that’s the Model 3.
    Nevermind.

    1. Warren says:

      While we wait for enough $35K Model 3’s to put in a line like that, Bolt’s are driving every day in the worst winter in years, in Canada, Butte, Montana, and the frozen northeast.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        But you can put a line of TM3’s that can go 310 miles that can supercharge > 50Kw TODAY!

        I’ll hold my breath for the Bolt to be able to do that……..lol……NOT!

        1. Warren says:

          Great for you 1% folks. Sadly, most of the folks who can afford the LR Model 3 would rather drive a diesel SUV.

          1. William says:

            That’s a bit too “FACT” based for my tastes.

          2. Nick says:

            [citation needed]

        2. Gazz says:

          The long range Model 3 is a much more expensive car. You really need to compare the Bolt to the short range Tesla.

          1. Warren says:

            No one will be happier to see thousands of $35K Model 3’s on the roads than me. I have my fingers crossed that it actually happens.

            1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

              I predict end of Feb for these thousands to be on the roads.

              1. Texas FFE says:

                Yeah, righ!! Try February 2019. until then all Model 3s will be the higher priced version.

                1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

                  You’re right!
                  I totally misread that……lol

          2. Recoil says:

            You do know the average cost of the bolt is around 43k.

    2. WadeTyhon says:

      I can’t imagine anything worse than driving across the country in the dead of winter in any EV. XD

      Could you imagine driving from Portland to New York in the winter for instance? 3,000 miles of snow and mountains and hour-plus charging stops (even in a Tesla).

      Doing so in either car would be nothing but a stunt. But if you really wanted to, you could do it in a Bolt. Someone did it in Canada just this year. And their charging infrastructure is far more sparse than ours.
      https://www.boltacrosscanada.com/

      Just DC Fast charge while in major cities. Stay in hotels with EVSE or RV parks the rest of the time.

      It would be a waste of your time no matter what car you drive, but you could do it.

      1. Mark.ca says:

        “It would be a waste of your time no matter what car you drive, but you could do it.”
        For some reason people keep forgetting this. Why would you want to do that is beyond me. Few months back i took a 7 hour drive…after 2 hours I wanted to kill myself.

        1. WadeTyhon says:

          ” Few months back i took a 7 hour drive…after 2 hours I wanted to kill myself.”

          Yeah, in October we took our Bolt on vacation from Dallas to Austin and then San Antonio. On our last day we drove from San Antonio to far North Dallas.

          It was about a 300 mile drive. Took about 6 hours since we spent an hour stuck in traffic in Austin. One long charge session and 2 small 15 minute charging sessions while we grabbed a meal. It was a reasonable trip through populated areas but is right on the edge of how long I want to drive.

          Driving for thousands of miles non-stop for days on end in sparsely populated areas? I couldn’t even imagine. I would need to spread it out over a few weeks. Give myself a few days in the major cities or national parks along the way.

          1. warren says:

            Cross country is what trains are for. In a parallel universe, the US would have a real passenger rail system.

            If you ever get to ride the Shinkansen. your head will explode!

            1. WadeTyhon says:

              Totally. A company in Texas is trying to build such a system using Japanese rail tech. And they are promising to do so using no public funds. But local property owners are slowing down the process.

              Dallas and Houston have been working with the company on station plans for a while now. I hope they succeed in building it!

    3. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “A lot of parked Bolts. I am waiting for the drive across America in a Bolt in the dead of Winter. Oh, wait, that’s the Model 3.
      Nevermind.”

      So, when it has NOTHING to do with model 3 vs. Bolt, you have to be the stupid prick to pick a fight between the Bolt and Model 3 here?

      Seriously, some of you (Bolt haters) out there are literally some of the biggest A-hole in the EV community. Get a freaking life!

  3. Alaa says:

    CA and other states in the US should start to help GM and Ford to make battery factories first. By that date there will not be enough batteries, and Tesla is already buying even the future Lithium contracts from say Chile. So these other boys like GM and Ford have no chance.

    1. mxs says:

      The sky is always falling with your posts, right?

      You honesty believe that the current battery chemistry will be the path of choice even 10 years from now? Forget 2040 …

      1. Alaa says:

        I suspect that the chemistry will change. But you need a place to make these batteries. I think Elon mentioned a while back that they are aware of the this point. The Anode Cathode and the Electrolyte can all change. So they built that factory with that in mind. Note that this factory will produce and store the energy it needs from the sun. So the others need to catch up as fast as possible. No matter how optimistic we are there is no way out from it. You must have a lot batteries if you are going to build a lot of EVs. Agree?

      2. Some Guy says:

        Although tech is evolving, I think lithium ion will be around for years to come. The competing battery technology is similar to fusion power. Just 5-10 years around the corner for many decades, now.
        First, the lithium ion tech works, and second it is getting cheaper every year, making it harder for competing battery technology. Think about gas cars, still running on the same fuel as the first one did 132 years ago, only different state of purification with some fancy additives, but mostly still gasoline / diesel. >99% have a lead acid starter battery which is even older tech.

        1. mzs.112000 says:

          Exactly.

    2. G2 says:

      Sounds like more ‘Corporate Welfare’ for the public to bail out companies who actively buried EV tech amd lied through their teeth. Whatever happened to the ‘dog-eat-dog’ of Capitalism?

      1. scott franco says:

        The dogs all ate each other.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “By that date there will not be enough batteries, and Tesla is already buying even the future Lithium contracts from say Chile.”

      Why in the world would anyone need to plan for battery factories 22 years from now? It only takes about 2 years to build a factory and fine-tune it for mass production.

      And regarding the possibility of a lithium shortage… well, P.T. Barnum said it best: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Those fake-news articles about a supposed coming “lithium shortage” are just promoting (mostly worthless) speculative mineral exploration stocks.

      Lithium is not rare, nor is it either hard to find or hard to refine. Perhaps more importantly:

      The lithium raw material in a Li-ion battery is only a fraction of one cent per watt, or less than 1 percent of the battery cost. A $10,000 battery for a plug-in hybrid contains less than $100 worth of lithium. Shortages when producing millions of large batteries for vehicles and stationary applications could increase the price, but for now this is not the case.

      http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/availability_of_lithium

      1. scott franco says:

        Its not a problem. We are soon going to announce that we are invading Bolivia due to their support of terrorists.

        An amphibious landing force has been arranged. And will probably get “dearranged” when we figure out that Bolivia has no coastline (yep, Chile took it from them).

        1. William says:

          It won’t be the first time that Bolivia has had their resources plundered right out from underneath their own feet. Maybe this time around, they will take a page out of “The Art of the Deal”! Bolivia might have China do all their heavy lifting if they can negotiate favorable terms for their White Gold!

          This would be in keeping with The Donald’s delusional Chinese Global Warming fabrication narrative. Out POTUS perpetuates the myth that AGW is fabricated by the Chinese, to make our US manufacturing at home non-competitive. This is due to the outsourcing of US manufacturing jobs to China, to prevent and mitigate climate change. And, I thought it was just old fashioned capitalism, seeking cheaper labor and materials, no matter what the circumstances are, this whole time.

          https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

      2. Some Guy says:

        Those numbers are a bit outdated.
        A 10 k$ PHEV battery? That OEM either got taken to the cleaner, or has built a prototype by hand only (or built a PHEV with a 50+ kWh pack).

  4. joelado says:

    2040? Really? So this mandate will require all cars to be immition free 10 years after all cars are immition free. Who is going to violate this rule in 2040? Classic car collectors? Make it 2030 and I may take this rule as serious instead of the way I feel now about it, and that is that it is a joke.

    1. Dave86 says:

      I wasn’t very impressed with 2040, either. Technology is moving fast than that, and the bill doesn’t push automobile manufacturers at all.

      The bill should be “all new cars sold by 2030 must be emissions free” along with “all cars operating on California roads by 2040 must be emissions free”.

      1. terminaltrip421 says:

        unfortunately as progressive as California is they still have ties they’re afraid to sever. we’ll call them the ‘GM’ of statehood.

    2. John says:

      ‘Immition?’

      BRILYUNT!

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Yeah, that’s a perfect example to show why the idea that “Spelling doesn’t count in internet posts”… is completely wrong!

      2. terminaltrip421 says:

        no need to be cruall.

    3. scott franco says:

      “So this mandate will require all cars to be immition free 10 years”

      We should certainly be immition free.

      Just as soon as someone figures out what “immitions” are…

  5. Texas FFE says:

    This is fantastic, I hope the bill gets passed into law. If this bill passes other compliance states and then the nation will follow. Not only will zero emission vehicles help eliminate air pollution they can run on inexhaustible energy sources.

    These kind of laws will ensure a clean, healthy and secure future for generations to come. I glad to see this kind of progress happen in my lifetime. But it does make me sad to think I had to live through the most polluted time in human history.

    1. Scramjett says:

      Don’t hold your breath. Most people outside California don’t realize this, but Big Oil owns the Cal Leg. There will be no 2040 fossil fuel ban for cars.

      1. Texas FFE says:

        All the California legislature has to do is pass the law. The price of EVs is supposed be comparable with smokers by 2025 and manufacturers will start focusing on EVs instead of smokers. By 2040 most manufacturers will probably be all in on zero emission vehicles anyway and the smoker ban will come and go without notice.

        I do agree that there is going to a big fight to get this bill passed. But backers of the progressive movement in California are also very powerful. Besides, any politicians living in pollution prone areas like the LA Basin are going to vote for zero emissions no matter who is backing them.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “All the California legislature has to do is pass the law.”

          Nonsense. Politicians can pass all the laws they want which won’t take effect for 20+ years. Nobody should care, other than concern over the time wasted on passing them and then more time wasted in repealing them, a repeal likely to happen as the actual date in question approaches.

          This is nothing more than an expression of wishful thinking by some California politicians. It’s even more pathetic when you consider that by 2040, it’s likely to be so outdated it will look ridiculous!

          1. Scramjett says:

            I honestly think the faith that you and many others in this forum have in the perceived progression of vehicle electrification is misplaced. Sure, it has happened in the past where such paradigm shifts have happened in less than a generation, however, most of these shifts were not within industries that had extensively established infrastructure and supply chains that felt their existence under threat. Such is most definitely the case today!

        2. Scramjett says:

          They already tried a 50% reduction of fossil fuel usage from transportation by 2030 in SB 32. That got soundly defeated in 2016 by WSPA and ExxonMobil/Chevron.

          Also, the crap and charade bill that recently passed was basically written by WSPA. Nothing in California passes that has not been vetted by WSPA first. If you look past the veneer, then you’ll see most laws that have any impact on WSPA are either all flash and no substance or suffer from lax enforcement. Even Federal laws suffer from lax enforcement.

          I stand by my assertion. I strongly suspect that the bill will die in committee, get modified so badly that it’s toothless, or get voted down.

      2. terminaltrip421 says:

        “Big Oil owns the Cal Leg.” the legislature is indebted to be sure but owned is an absolute reach. competing interests among investors/ “donors” is hardly anything new in politics. just look at the donation history of all of the tech companies, wall street investors, etc. who seemed to go hard left this past year.

    2. Windbourne says:

      In terms of pollution, America was far far more polluted in the 60s, than today.
      For china, they have had high pollution for over 30 years, and the West’s pollution is but a fraction of what they did and continue to dump in the air and water.
      And of course, Europe has been heavily polluted for several centuries, with the most clean up occuring over the last 20 years.

  6. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    2040……..lol, let’s quote a goal that’s the natural progression of EV’s and make it a “look i’m doing something for the environment” kind of crap.

    Political BS.

    1. Texas FFE says:

      They want to go from a small percentage of zero emission car sells to 100% zero emission car sells in twenty two years. Even if this bill does pass into law some very powerful groups, like the oil companies, are going to be fighting very to prevent the goal from occurring. Twenty two years is not that long in terms of the evolution of transportation and California is going to have an extremely hard time achieving this very important goal.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        New York City went from a city mostly served by horse-drawn vehicles to one served mostly by motor vehicles, in the space of 13 years.

        22 years is going to be a very long time indeed in the EV revolution. If you think that most vehicles traveling on public roads will still be powered by burning fuel in 22 years… then you’re going to be very surprised at what happens in the next 20 years!

        1. scott franco says:

          The horses come back???

          1. Warren says:

            Nope. Camels. Horses won’t be able to handle the desert conditions.

            1. Warren says:

              Oops! That would be California. New York City will need dolphins. 🙂

    2. Dav8or says:

      Agreed. By 2040 the vast majority, if not all of the new cars sold will be electric by demand, not mandate. I’m driving an electric car now and won’t be buying any more gas powered new cars, I’ll be an old man by 2040 and I won’t be living California anymore by then, so I really don’t car if this bill passes or not.

      It is political grandstanding and feel good legislation. Something California politics is well known for.

      1. scott franco says:

        Only San Fransico politics:

        Philip Y. Ting is an American politician currently serving in the California State Assembly. He is a Democrat representing the 19th Assembly District, which encompasses western San Francisco and northern San Mateo County.

        San Fransico, generally know for growing mixed nuts, is overwhelmed in population by Los Angeles:

        SF 864,816
        LA 3.976 million

        And even its nearest neigbor, San Jose at 1.025 million.

        Ie, what legislators do in SF ain’t all that representative of California, the USA, or even our planet or even reasoning carbon life forms.

  7. I know Phil Ting and have worked with him previously on Solar and electrical safety issues. He’s a sincere, analytical and thoughtful guy. The kind of politician we actually want.

    Here’s a link to sign to support the legislation (actually TWO bills). Please share and encourage others.

    Remember that 13 other states by statute automatically adopt California’s clean air regulations so a win in CA is a win for half the country’s population. (Aka the Rule 177 States or CARB states)

    https://a19.asmdc.org/help-me-expand-californias-fight-against-climate-change

    1. Mark.ca says:

      I signed…but ain’t waiting until 2040. This year i will replace my last gasser (a conventional hybrid) and will be 100% ev + pv. Yo’all wanna keep your monthly OPEC and utility payments…be my guest.

  8. Ron M says:

    Go California lead the way 2040 is do able. Other countries China, India, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway are planning on phasing out sales if new ICE.

    1. Windbourne says:

      Ron, this is not leadership.
      CO2 is building up and nations like China continue to actually the co2, not lower it.
      If CA had any leadership left, they would kill new ice passenger vehicles by 2030, along with all new commercial vehicles.

  9. Texas FFE says:

    The complaint states include close to fifty percent percent of the population of the United States. If California passes this law and all the compliant states follow then I think the major auto manufacturers are going to have no choice but to stop building and selling diesel and gasoline burning light vehiclesin the United States. I don’t think the auto manufacturers are going to want to build vehicles they can only sell to half the population.

    This law might really shake things up. If Joe Q Public realizes that fuel burning cars are going out of production then he may start taking EVs seriously. Smart has already stopped production of fuel burning vehicles and they may be just the first of many auto manufacturers to do so.

    1. WadeTyhon says:

      “Smart has already stopped production of fuel burning vehicles and they may be just the first of many auto manufacturers to do so.”

      Only in the US and only because the brand has been a failure here.

      They probably would have killed Smart ED sales here as well, but Mercedes doesn’t currently have any other BEV on the market. So Smart is their only ZEV model after the death of the B250e.

      In 2-3 years time Mercedes will have actual capable BEVs on the market. And then they will most likely kill Smart for good in the US.

      1. Texas FFE says:

        Much of what you said is not true and rest is highly suspect. I don’t personally want a Smart EV but I can definitely see the attraction. The best thing about the Smart EV right now is that it’s the lowest cost EV on the used EV market, something I’m sure Mercedes is not very happy about.

        1. WadeTyhon says:

          I’m not sure what I said that is not true? Although I admit that the death of the brand is speculation on my part, I cannot imagine any other reason.

          http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/smart/

          The car does great in Europe. And I am not saying the Smart ED isn’t a capable ev. I know someone who has it as his second car and loves it. But it has a limited appeal to US buyers. If they wanted to improve sales they would have introduced the forFour here.

          The entire Smart line up combined has sold less than 10,000 units per year.

          Just for a random comparison, the Ford C-Max Energi outsold the entire Smart lineup (Ice and ED) the past 3 years. And the ED is the lowest selling version of the Smart.

          The only logical reason to keep the ED around is to fill in the gap until Mercedes has a new lineup of BEVs on the market. Then they will most likely kill it.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “I’m not sure what I said that is not true?”

            Don’t worry about it, Wade. “Texas FFE” is one of our resident eccentrics, and his flight from reality seems to be progressing rapidly these days.

            1. WadeTyhon says:

              He just really loves his low volume ICE conversion EVs. 😉

          2. Texas FFE says:

            Have you ever heard of the B250e? It doesn’t look like. Mercedes sold 744 of them in 2017, that’s more than the 544 Smart EDs they sold.

            So the Smart ED is not the only all electric Mercedes sells and with all the PHEVs they sell Mercedes does not need the Smart ED for compliance.

            1. WadeTyhon says:

              https://insideevs.com/mercedes-benz-b-class-electric-drive-dead-no-replacement-planned/

              I already mentioned the B250e in my comment. It has been killed already. They’re just selling off their remaining inventory.

              Both the smart and the B250e are low sales models. They are also low EV range so they are not worth nearly as many ZEV credits as a Bolt or next gen leaf.

              Mercedes future BEVs are a ways away. From 2018 on, 45% of their ZEV credits need to come from pure electrics (not PHEVs).

              Going EV only restricted availability of the Smart ED in most states. Now it is really only available in CARB states. Before it was more widely sold. Smart dealers that used to sell the ICE and ED variants are now shut down.

              For instance we can no longer buy one here in DFW. The Smart dealers used to have the ED available to order. But now they are service only. No inventory whatsoever of any model. The Spark, 500 and Mini Cooper all sell more cars in a month than the smart brand will sell all of next year.

              Once Mercedes has a higher volume BEV or two I am pretty much positive they will let smart die in the US. It is the merciful thing to do at this point. 😛

    2. menorman says:

      What we really need to do is get all the other states onboard with the CARB ZEV mandate. States like Illinois and Virginia are prime targets for such an initiative.

  10. Windbourne says:

    Such courage and leadership by California. LOL.

    Just 10 years ago, CA was still a leader in dealing with pollution.
    Now, they are a joke.

  11. menorman says:

    Don’t do it, it’s a trap.

    1. William says:

      Which did you mean? Was that a mouse or rat trap you were referring to?

  12. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    A cheap and easy way for CA to make EV’s and even PHEV’s more attractive is make all 3 & 4 lane freeways where lane 1 allows HOV & EV only and lane 2 EV & PHEV’s only.

    All revenue from those that get tickets for violating the lanes should go to EV L2 (10kw) and DCFC chargers…… 😛

  13. DJ says:

    Bravo CA, way to address the real problem. Just like how you banned talking on your cell phone but didn’t ban texting on one. Because we all know it’s much more safe to text while driving than simply hold up a phone to your ear for a few minutes…

    Why does this only address passenger vehicles when trucks account for more smog generating emissions than passenger vehicles?

    https://www.scpr.org/news/2017/06/05/72578/big-trucks-may-pollute-way-more-than-previously-th/

    Forcing commercial vehicles to be EVs or FCEVs seems like it would actually have more of the desired benefit and likely at an even reduced cost!

  14. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Does anybody really care about what current politicians say they want to happen 22 years from now? It’s completely absurd. Future politicians certainly are not going to feel themselves bound by aspirational goals set two decades before!

    And personally, I hope and believe that by 2040, economic factors will have convinced most car buyers to convert to BEVs without needing any government incentives, mandates, or bans. Economic factors trump political ones; always have, always will.

    BEVs becoming less expensive to buy and to operate will almost certainly happen before 20 years from now. Some think that’s going to happen in 5 years or even a bit less. I think that 22 years from now, the ban California politicians are proposing now is going to look rather outdated and quaint. At least I hope so!

    1. MangoKid says:

      You nailed it better than anyone else. Feel good legislation that with TDS rampant in CA just might pass.

  15. God/Bacardi says:

    And Mitsubishi starts to plan for their pure EV Outlander, launch date for the UK, 2020…Launch date for the U.S., 2045…

    1. William says:

      Ouch, that additional 25 year N. A. Mitsubishi EV Outlander delay, will be a long tough wait.
      🤓

  16. Ron M says:

    I’d like to see California reach all new cars be EV sooner than 2040 but if we can get to 100% EV by then it still would be great. Need to include a mandatory percent increase each year of EV’s to ICE sold until 2040 or sooner.

  17. Terawatt says:

    Any regulatory initiative to ensure it won’t be legal to keep poisoning the air unnecessarily should be met with support. But there are serious weaknesses with this proposal.

    Omitting trucks is baseless, unprincipled, and would make the bill much less effective.

    2040 is perhaps too far into the future.

    But worst: is not realistic to impose a massive shift in regulations 22 years in the future with no steps in between. The industry will fight the bill, and can quite rightly point to the fact that nobody actually knows how this market will develop for decades. If it passes, they’ll have many administrations and congresses to lobby to block it, by repeal or enforcement. If all that fails, they can still win by doing nothing. If in 2039 they haven’t done anything, politicians would be forced to postpone since the consequences of no more cars are far too serious.

    Obviously it’s not likely that nothing is done before 2039. But that’s not because of this proposed regulation.

Leave a Reply