Charge times will continue to be an issue, less so for cars and increasingly more for all of these vehicles that this law wants to replace, A 70-100kwh batteries are one thing but when you need the energy density of 300kwh+ you're running into Tesla Semi requirements on a pickup. Sure it will eventually get there but how does legislation guarantee it will be 2040 or sooner like you think, and why is legislation needed if the tech already is or will be so great? Why spend funds sorting registrations and denying them or whatever? if the tech is there, people will use it. And this proposed law does nothing to stop someone from bringing in a car from out of state.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
California AB 1745 -- "Clean Cars 2040 Act"
- Thread starter ohmman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- California legislation Policy USA
So answering this oft-repeated claim, I'll give an example. The way legislation often works is that it pushes the market to develop solutions, and even if the goal isn't met on time, it moves the needle in the direction desired. In 2010, Seattle passed an ordinance to eliminate plastic utensils and straws at restaurants. Because there were poor substitute options at the time, an exemption was put in place and renewed. This year, however, a full 8 years later, the exemption is set to expire and Seattle is set to go straw and plastic utensil free after June. It didn't happen on time, but it's happening.
If there are no feasible alternatives because of cost, convenience, or other factors by 2040, it's quite likely there would be an exemption put in place to push back the phase-out. But the market will have been motivated and will have been developing solutions more rapidly than if the legislation wasn't on the books. The goal is to move things forward.
Wrong argument. Consumers consider what’s good for them, not for society.
ICE vehicles don’t pay for their external costs, so they’re artificially cheap. Like I said, I prefer to incorporate external costs into fuel and the vehicles. Then consumers would be rushing to EVs.
Who do you think should pay that $15B/year in California?
Again, this isn’t the argument for EV adoption in the context of the bill. It’s your tangential argument.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
So, what's wrong with doing studies? They are cheap and can point out potential issues.
Millions of dollars isn't cheap, governments have a habit of wasting money. You know California launched a $5.3 million media campaign to let people know college is affordable and they should contact their local college for more information. Think about that $5.3 million telling people to use common sense and contact their local college about costs.
You're the one saying that legislation is needed to benefit society because consumers only care about themselves. But everything EVs stand for benefits the consumer. So why does California need to waste time and money on something that already benefits consumers?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Texas gives out $19 billion a year in business subsidies. (More than any other state)
Texas Business Incentives Highest in Nation
That's real money compared to a few million for consumer education.
Do you think this is a wise use of taxpayer funds?
Nice effort at redirection. The best summary I can find of consumer complaints against EVs is available here.
It's not redirection you're the one who said it. Here, let me highlight your own words.
People state in every single thread on here that EVs are cheaper to fuel and maintain than an ICE. That's good for consumers, is it not? If it is good for consumers, and consumers consider what's good for them like you said, they don't need legislators telling them what to do, they'll do it on their own. So which is it, will they be selfish and gravitate towards EVs which benefit them or not?
Your article also states that Texas has created half of all private sector jobs. More jobs equals more property/income tax, more payroll tax, more sales tax, more revenue altogether.
Texas paid for the F1 racing commission fee of $25 million to host the race at the Austin track. The City of Austin (overwhelmingly democratic if it matters) Chamber of Commerce estimated the economic impact of the event at $597 million. Just the state sales tax alone is $49million plus hotel tax, and income/payroll tax paid on all of that. The special events funding the State provides was the deciding factor in building the track in Texas If not the builders planned a track in New Jersey. So it seems that a 25mil investment paid 20X to economy and more than paid for the tax revenue.
Look at Cali debt vs Texas and tell me whose model works better.
Your redirection is putting those words in my mouth. I said the former, not the latter
I can’t tell if you’re purposefully using a gish gallop in this conversation or if this is just your way of discussing things.
Either way, it’s interesting to hear your take, which is probably not unique. I hear you saying that things should be better for the individual, i.e. the EV should be better for the driver. Whereas I think this proposed bill is looking at the betterment of society overall, even if there are drawbacks to some individuals.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
T34ME
Active Member
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
Governments job is to incentive manufacturs and buyers to encourage the production and adoption of this new clean technology. Our cities cannot continue to become more and more polluted by burning coal, oil or even natural gas.
As this developes, electric vehicles will cross that threshold where they are less expensive to buy and drive than ICE vehicles.
At that time the marketplace will take over with fewer and fewer ICE vehicles being purchased.
As this developes, electric vehicles will cross that threshold where they are less expensive to buy and drive than ICE vehicles.
At that time the marketplace will take over with fewer and fewer ICE vehicles being purchased.