California AB 1745 -- "Clean Cars 2040 Act"

[McRat]

Hey, we agree on something! I’m so appreciative of my freedom, too. Freedom from higher insurance premiums and from having to see heads cracked open in accidents, for instance.

Glad the government is there, because insurance companies were charging all of us for others’ bad decisions.

And now I’ll report this and your post so they can be moved away.

You missed the point. Forcing car drivers to wear helmets will save lives and money. Most deaths and injuries in cars are head injuries.

It saves more lives than MC laws.

So why not force car drivers to wear helmets? Because it's not why we need government.

Force people to drive EVs or let them them choose. You want force, I want choice.

I believe in the Tesla model. Not your CARB model.

 

[McRat]

Hey, we agree on something! I’m so appreciative of my freedom, too. Freedom from higher insurance premiums and from having to see heads cracked open in accidents, for instance.

Glad the government is there, because insurance companies were charging all of us for others’ bad decisions.

And now I’ll report this and your post so they can be moved away.

BTW, I assume if you want safety you do drive wearing a helmet right? You've got the EV without the mandate, now get the helmet before the mandate. Or would you think it should be your decision?

 

[McRat]

I'm not so sure about the, "EVs are going to take over" statement. There's a fair amount of wishful conjecture in that statement considering only 5% (1.2% U.S.) of cars presently sold in CA are EVs. Personally, I Iike the heavy hand of government, it's what has made California a leader of environmental and safety rules world wide. Were it not for California, the rest of the U.S, and the world for that matter, would be much more polluted and less efficient.

I do agree the train is starting to look like 19th century technology compared to new mobility options. The rest of the world has trains figured out, the U.S... not so much. In hindsight, I wish we had spent that money on EV adoption, but as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

Britain in 1952 is when the first Killer Smog caused significant government action. California started killing people later then took action. IIRC, New York was actually the first state to ban leaded gasoline. California has done a lot, but we are just part of the puzzle, and we actually get a little nuts. Gas cans that are legally required to leak fuel, an attempt to outlaw black cars, an attempt to outlaw grilling in your backyard, warning labels on 2x4 lumber as being carcinogenic, attempt ban on switching tire sizes or types, etc, etc. A bureaucracy must grow to survive, this is why you see these dumb things mixed in with the good ideas.

People will chose EVs for same reason they want air conditioning and backup cameras. Basically the same reason they want cars. It's a better way to travel.

 

[FreeOfPge]

A bureaucracy must grow to survive, this is why you see these dumb things mixed in with the good ideas.

Just a quick note, bureaucracy is the slowest part of society to change and those changes are driven mostly by the size of the population. More population = more laws. Laws are a supply and demand of-sorts. If just 1 person lived alone in a state no laws would be necessary, add a second person, opinions clash and laws form. California has a population of 35.5 million and it would seem a law for each of us. We add 900 new laws a year - its estimated that the average person unknowingly breaks at least three federal laws every day. Criminals we are.

 

[EV-lutioin]

You missed the point. Forcing car drivers to wear helmets will save lives and money. Most deaths and injuries in cars are head injuries.

It saves more lives than MC laws.

So why not force car drivers to wear helmets? Because it's not why we need government.

Force people to drive EVs or let them them choose. You want force, I want choice.

I believe in the Tesla model. Not your CARB model.

Ok, lets take away seatbelts, airbags, ABS braking, side mirrors, crumple zones, collapsable steering wheels, head restraints, emissions controls, catalytic converters, diesel emissions fluid, mufflers, safety glass, bumpers, backup cameras, collision avoidance systems etc. Let's let people choose instead. There are some wonderfully unsafe, highly polluting cars in India if you looking for a deal.

 

[McRat]

Ok, lets take away seatbelts, airbags, ABS braking, side mirrors, crumple zones, collapsable steering wheels, head restraints, emissions controls, catalytic converters, diesel emissions fluid, mufflers, safety glass, bumpers, backup cameras, collision avoidance systems etc. Let's let people choose instead. There are some wonderfully unsafe, highly polluting cars in India if you looking for a deal.

Yes, I believe people should be able to choose to drive a convertible that goes over 200mph and has nasty snap oversteer.

Yes, I believe we should be able to ride bicycles and motorcycles.

174 deaths a day from drug overdoses and our state governments are endorsing drug use. That I don't agree with.

Cellphones are killing more people than drunks now. That I don't agree with.

Mandates forcing more air pollution by wildly increasing vehicle weights I don't agree with.

Having a choice when I go to buy a car is something I agree with, which is why 3 of our cars run on electricity.

 

[EV-lutioin]

Yes, I believe people should be able to choose to drive a convertible that goes over 200mph and has nasty snap oversteer.

Yes, I believe we should be able to ride bicycles and motorcycles.

174 deaths a day from drug overdoses and our state governments are endorsing drug use. That I don't agree with.

Cellphones are killing more people than drunks now. That I don't agree with.

Mandates forcing more air pollution by wildly increasing vehicle weights I don't agree with.

Having a choice when I go to buy a car is something I agree with, which is why 3 of our cars run on electricity.

Thanks to government regulations and incentives, you have the option to purchase an EV. Without them you would be trying to un-crumple an EV-1 to get your car of choice.

 

[cpa]

We interrupt this debate to return to the proposed legislation. I did not read the bill, only Ohmman's synopsis. I quit reading proposed legislation when tax law changes emerged into law that were nothing like the original version debated in the legislatures.

These politicians really need to get away from the coastal areas and tour the "real" California. The California that is rural and heavily dependent upon farming, ranching, tourism, and outdoor activities. They should spend time in the putative State of Jefferson. They should not rely upon the three representatives who are elected from about 18% of the area of California. I wonder if Ting even knows where Alturas or Hayfork are.

You will not get forced cooperation from the rural population of this state. It has to be like McRat says: The products must be more compelling and affordable for EVs to work statewide. People will go out of their way not to conform. They will avail themselves of every possible loophole (I have a few decades' experience in taxpayers finding loopholes.) Manufacturers will game the system by producing vehicles that are exempt. Instead of buying a new car with $7,500 down and monthly payments (or a lease), people will use that money and rebuild the engine and other major repairs/body work on their 10-year-old ICE.

Then, California has this propensity to draw a line in the sand. When the time gets close, they cave, and either extend the timeframe, or they soften the blow by reducing the full impact of the legislation.

My suggestion: Enact a surtax assessed to the manufacturer of all ICE vehicles, including semis. The higher the proportion of BEV vehicles sold in California by that manufacturer reduces the amount of the surtax. Hybrid sales will receive a partial credit. Each year after the initial year the rate of the surtax increases. I still have to figure out how to prevent people from buying cars out-of-state and gaming the system, but give me until after April 17. LOL.

I do not think it is feasible to ban a lawful product--ask Rep. Volstead and the ASL. But I do think that it might be feasible to increase the barriers to sale. And if a couple of other more progressive states jump on California's bandwagon, that is when there will be a wholesale shift in the locomotion of vehicles that are sold throughout the nation.

 

[ohmman]

We interrupt this debate to return to the proposed legislation. I did not read the bill, only Ohmman's synopsis. I quit reading proposed legislation when tax law changes emerged into law that were nothing like the original version debated in the legislatures.

These politicians really need to get away from the coastal areas and tour the "real" California. The California that is rural and heavily dependent upon farming, ranching, tourism, and outdoor activities. They should spend time in the putative State of Jefferson. They should not rely upon the three representatives who are elected from about 18% of the area of California. I wonder if Ting even knows where Alturas or Hayfork are.

You will not get forced cooperation from the rural population of this state. It has to be like McRat says: The products must be more compelling and affordable for EVs to work statewide. People will go out of their way not to conform. They will avail themselves of every possible loophole (I have a few decades' experience in taxpayers finding loopholes.) Manufacturers will game the system by producing vehicles that are exempt. Instead of buying a new car with $7,500 down and monthly payments (or a lease), people will use that money and rebuild the engine and other major repairs/body work on their 10-year-old ICE.

Then, California has this propensity to draw a line in the sand. When the time gets close, they cave, and either extend the timeframe, or they soften the blow by reducing the full impact of the legislation.

My suggestion: Enact a surtax assessed to the manufacturer of all ICE vehicles, including semis. The higher the proportion of BEV vehicles sold in California by that manufacturer reduces the amount of the surtax. Hybrid sales will receive a partial credit. Each year after the initial year the rate of the surtax increases. I still have to figure out how to prevent people from buying cars out-of-state and gaming the system, but give me until after April 17. LOL.

I do not think it is feasible to ban a lawful product--ask Rep. Volstead and the ASL. But I do think that it might be feasible to increase the barriers to sale. And if a couple of other more progressive states jump on California's bandwagon, that is when there will be a wholesale shift in the locomotion of vehicles that are sold throughout the nation.

As always, I appreciate your cogent and focused response, even if we disagree. No bizarre fist shaking necessary.

I do disagree specifically with the suggestion that land mass might carry similar weight to population density. Yes, rural areas must be considered and incorporated in any legislation. But empty acreage shouldn’t outspeak citizens.

 

[McRat]

Thanks to government regulations and incentives, you have the option to purchase an EV. Without them you would be trying to un-crumple an EV-1 to get your car of choice.

Mazda doesn't sell EVs in the US, yet I could buy a Mazda in late 2010 just like today.

Lots of companies don't sell EVs. Honda and Toyota do once and awhile, but in very small numbers and those companies outsell EV producers in California by a wide margin.

And the dead horse - The EV1 was an engineering marvel at the time, and a very, very bad automobile.

Maybe Ting will mandate EV1's?

 

[mspohr]

Mazda doesn't sell EVs in the US, yet I could buy a Mazda in late 2010 just like today.

Lots of companies don't sell EVs. Honda and Toyota do once and awhile, but in very small numbers and those companies outsell EV producers in California by a wide margin.

And the dead horse - The EV1 was an engineering marvel at the time, and a very, very bad automobile.

Maybe Ting will mandate EV1's?

So, looks like we need more government intervention to drive manufacturers to offer more and better EVs.

 

[cpa]

As always, I appreciate your cogent and focused response, even if we disagree. No bizarre fist shaking necessary.

I do disagree specifically with the suggestion that land mass might carry similar weight to population density. Yes, rural areas must be considered and incorporated in any legislation. But empty acreage shouldn’t outspeak citizens.

I agree with you, Ohmman. I must have failed in how I expressed myself: The 120 legislators need to get out of Sacramento, get out of their cozy urban districts and see how the rest of the state lives among the empty acreage. If they did that, they might have a better idea on how to implement such a drastic change in new car sales without foisting legislation upon our rural citizens that could be problematic to their livelihoods or necessities.

If you have not looked into the State of Jefferson, it is a fascinating history. Partly in jest, partly in earnestness, this movement started in 1941 and was interrupted by Pearl Harbor. It has had traction on and off in the ensuing 75 years. There have been grumblings about of late, now extending further south into the Mother Lode counties.

The only fist shaking I am doing is rock-paper-scissors.

 

[ecarfan]

Moderator note: please keep the discussion in this thread focused on California AB 1745. Digressions on tangentially related political topics are unnecessary, and will be subject to removal. Thank you.

 

[jasonb]

out of curiosity, who thinks we can get something like 1745 passed? i dont think its particularly controversial when it comes to actual implementation. how many ice will there be in 2040? as a message to auto industry i find it quite helpful.

 

[McRat]

So, looks like we need more government intervention to drive manufacturers to offer more and better EVs.

AB 1745 had a grandfather. It's why the EV1/S10EV appeared. People who were not engineers made a decision of what was practical from an engineering standpoint. People who had no background in marketing made a decision on what people would buy. People who were not accountants made a decision on what the costs would be.

You can't mandate something 22 years in the future without knowing what technology will be available at that time and what options car buyers will have available.

Already we know they did not consider what commercial trucks are and how necessary they are. We know they did not consider any vehicles that have virtually zero emissions "at the tailpipe". What if there is a breakthrough in FCEV technology that allows them to run natural gas directly, instead of turning it into power externally? It would be "cleaner" in the real world than H2 or EVs. But it would be banned because the CO2 is emitted at the car and not the utility company or refinery.

One thing you can say about California, our government seems to be unable to learn from past mistakes.

 

[ohmman]

out of curiosity, who thinks we can get something like 1745 passed? i dont think its particularly controversial when it comes to actual implementation. how many ice will there be in 2040? as a message to auto industry i find it quite helpful.

I think it’s possible. Truthfully I doubt it’ll pass transportation committee this year, but it’ll be reintroduced next legislative session if it doesn’t. If Frazier can be convinced, and he has a certain very specific set of reasons he’s involved in transportation unrelated to actual vehicles, the bill has a good chance.

A number of countries have passed very similar legislation. Washington State is working on a 2030 bill. They’re statements, as you mention, but there is a message buried in them that tells the auto industry to take EVs seriously.

 

[mspohr]

AB 1745 had a grandfather. It's why the EV1/S10EV appeared. People who were not engineers made a decision of what was practical from an engineering standpoint. People who had no background in marketing made a decision on what people would buy. People who were not accountants made a decision on what the costs would be.

You can't mandate something 22 years in the future without knowing what technology will be available at that time and what options car buyers will have available.

Already we know they did not consider what commercial trucks are and how necessary they are. We know they did not consider any vehicles that have virtually zero emissions "at the tailpipe". What if there is a breakthrough in FCEV technology that allows them to run natural gas directly, instead of turning it into power externally? It would be "cleaner" in the real world than H2 or EVs. But it would be banned because the CO2 is emitted at the car and not the utility company or refinery.

One thing you can say about California, our government seems to be unable to learn from past mistakes.

From what I know, everyone who had an EV1 loved it. GM had to pry them away from owners.
Natural gas is methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and emits CO2. Not suitable.
The bill doesn't specify technology. It just specifies zero emissions. Let the best technology win.

 

[McRat]

From what I know, everyone who had an EV1 loved it. GM had to pry them away from owners.
Natural gas is methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and emits CO2. Not suitable.
The bill doesn't specify technology. It just specifies zero emissions. Let the best technology win.

Natural gas is where California gets it's electricity from. And where we get hydrogen from. EVs in California run on natural gas, FCEVs run on even more natural gas. If you cut out the middleman, the CO2 is released at the car, in lessor amounts than releasing it at the utility company.

You watched a movie, you did not poll owners. 1100 cars, 40 people wanted to keep them. Many were still on the lots when the program ended. Many owners took the option of early lease return. It was rated as one of Time Magazine's 50 Worst Cars of all Time. I don't remember them noting that in the movie.

It was an engineering masterpiece of it's time developed by the company with more EV experience than any other company in the world. But like a flying car, it COULD be built, it just was not viable in the market.

At an estimated cost of $100,000 per car and not enough demand, it was doomed from the start.

But really, if you would LOVED a $100k 80 mile EV years ago, you should love it today. Sales do not support that theory.

 

[mspohr]

Natural gas is where California gets it's electricity from. And where we get hydrogen from. EVs in California run on natural gas, FCEVs run on even more natural gas. If you cut out the middleman, the CO2 is released at the car, in lessor amounts than releasing it at the utility company.

You watched a movie, you did not poll owners. 1100 cars, 40 people wanted to keep them. Many were still on the lots when the program ended. Many owners took the option of early lease return. It was rated as one of Time Magazine's 50 Worst Cars of all Time. I don't remember them noting that in the movie.

It was an engineering masterpiece of it's time developed by the company with more EV experience than any other company in the world. But like a flying car, it COULD be built, it just was not viable in the market.

At an estimated cost of $100,000 per car and not enough demand, it was doomed from the start.

But really, if you would LOVED a $100k 80 mile EV years ago, you should love it today. Sales do not support that theory.

Natural gas needs to die and it will. It's a potent greenhouse gas with substantial leaks throughout the distribution system. Makes CO2 when it's burned. Remember, we shouldn't specify technology, just the desired results (zero emissions).
Just like today, GM didn't want to make or sell EVs. Predictable result.

 

[ohmman]

Less than half of California's power comes from natural gas. It's the largest chunk, for sure, but to say that it's where we get our electricity isn't honest. It's where we get less than half of our electricity, which is significant and not to be dismissed, nor is it to be overstated.