California AB 1745 -- "Clean Cars 2040 Act"

[ohmman]

In January, Assemblyperson Phil Ting introduced this bill which intends to limit original registrations of vehicles after the year 2040 to Zero Emissions Vehicles only. It is intended as a phase-out bill and therefore doesn't currently place limitations on people bringing an ICE from out of state or renewing existing registrations.

The intent of the bill is to drive market forces to recognize the need for transition. If the bill becomes law, manufacturers will, in theory, be motivated by a large car buying market in California and will be pushed to develop alternates to ICE.

Currently the bill is headed to the Transportation Committee. Indications are that if the bill passes committee, it will likely become law. Six swing votes on the Transportation Committee have been identified, as follows:

• Assemblymember Jim Frazier, AD11: Vacaville, Fairfield, Oakley, Antioch, Brentwood
• Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, AD4: Napa, Davis, Clearlake, Rohnert Park, south Santa Rosa, American Canyon, Woodland, Kenwood, and Glen Ellen
• Assemblymember Jose Medina, AD61: Moreno Valley, Riverside, Perris
• Assemblymember Patrick O'Donnell, AD70: Long Beach, Signal Hill, Los Altos, Belmont Shore, San Pedro, Bixby Knolls, Vista Del Mar
• Assemblymember Mike Gipson, AD64: Compton, Watts, Carson, South Los Angeles, Keystone, Wilmington
• Assemblymember Tom Daly, AD69: Anaheim, Santa Ana

Jim Frazier is the chair, and will vote first. He will bring some votes along with him, so he's the most important member to convince.

The Center for Climate Protection would like to get signatures on a petition for two reasons. First, to present the petition to Phil Ting as support of the bill as it makes its way through committee. And second, to reach out to EV enthusiasts and clean air activists at crucial times to get phone-in and email support as the bill approaches committee.

The CCP petition is available at the link below, and includes references and support for the bill. Any support is welcome, if you believe in the mission of the bill. Residents in swing districts, especially Jim Frazier's, are of high importance.

Petition Link

 

[ohmman]

Follow-up note: If you'd prefer not to sign the petition but still support the bill, you can call or email your Assemblymember and voice support. Likewise if you're opposed.

 

[SMAlset]

Wow, 2040. Pretty far out.

BTW always appreciate your keeping an eye on the legislative bills for us.

 

[ohmman]

ow, 2040. Pretty far out.

Yes, but there is an opportunity for amendment after committee. Most groups who support this are pushing for 2030 (which I support), especially considering it is a phase-out bill and not a ban.

 

[Ardie]

Nah. It'll never pass. There's no enough money in it. (Hey, this *is* California. Nothing happens in Sacramento unless the figures have at least six zeros)

Certainly assemblyman Ting knows this, so the bill may simply be an opening gambit. I would go out on a limb and predict that the bill will die in some committee, but another may rise instead -- such as a bill that imposes a registration surcharge (No! Not a tax!) on vehicles that rely solely on gasoline or diesel fuels. There you go -- a bill that "encourages" the populace to embrace the future, and those who don't will help fill the perpetually hungry coffers of the State of California.

Tinkering with the vehicle registration fees is a time-honored tradition in California, although Toll Roads have quietly become the fair-haired boy when it comes to extracting dinero from drivers.

-- Ardie
Um, how much revenue will the State of California get from the sales of Gasoline in 20 years? What do you mean, "less?" That's not acceptable.

 

[ohmman]

Thanks for the response. I disagree, of course, but you’re not the cynic I expected first!

 

[McRat]

You rang?

Step one: Get the EV infrastructure already promised and paid for back on schedule. Heck, get it AHEAD of schedule.

Step two: Knock it off with the City of the Future and Diversity Electricity boondoggles. Stop backing H2. It lost. It's a parasitic drain. It's GHG dirty.

Step three: Why forbid Hybrid and EREV technologies? By doing that, he could be banning light pickups in California. Or doesn't Phil Ting know what GVWR is? Does he realize his real estate speculation developments depend on pickups and other sub 10k GVWR vehicles? Or is he forcing 4x4 duallies on everybody to deliberately increase pollution and business costs? While our EV technology will improve, a real work truck will need the equivalent of 400kWh of battery to do similar work to gasoline assuming we get the weight of a 400kWh battery down to 600lb and the price down to $6k. Perhaps it will happen. Mandating it as Law in 2018 is sort of dumb at the point.

Step Four: Yes, dump the stupid bullet train idea. When engineers, architects, financial planners, and other educated folk are telling you it's dumb DO SOMETHING. Either Climb On The Highest Horse and campaign harder for it (ie- commit suicide), or admit Sacramento makes mistakes.

Ting could actually DO something great if he studied a little and stopped playing Trump Enterprises while in office. Yeah, in 2014 he supported a $100 million tax giveaway to SF real estate speculators which just happens to be the family business. He tried to run for mayor. On our dime. Yeah, taxes paid for his campaign which set a record of over $500 a vote. Seriously. Not even questioned on it. He probably thinks that's the way it should be for the elite, an entitlement for the well-to-do.

The best I can tell, he's poorly-informed greed wrapped in a free-range baby seal robe.

 

[ohmman]

You rang?

Step one: Get the EV infrastructure already promised and paid for back on schedule. Heck, get it AHEAD of schedule.

Step two: Knock it off with the City of the Future and Diversity Electricity boondoggles. Stop backing H2. It lost. It's a parasitic drain. It's GHG dirty.

Step three: Why forbid Hybrid and EREV technologies? By doing that, he could be banning light pickups in California. Or doesn't Phil Ting know what GVWR is? Does he realize his real estate speculation developments depend on pickups and other sub 10k GVWR vehicles? Or is he forcing 4x4 duallies on everybody to deliberately increase pollution and business costs? While our EV technology will improve, a real work truck will need the equivalent of 400kWh of battery to do similar work to gasoline assuming we get the weight of a 400kWh battery down to 600lb and the price down to $6k. Perhaps it will happen. Mandating it as Law in 2018 is sort of dumb at the point.

Step Four: Yes, dump the stupid bullet train idea. When engineers, architects, financial planners, and other educated folk are telling you it's dumb DO SOMETHING. Either Climb On The Highest Horse and campaign harder for it (ie- commit suicide), or admit Sacramento makes mistakes.

Ting could actually DO something great if he studied a little and stopped playing Trump Enterprises while in office. Yeah, in 2014 he supported a $100 million tax giveaway to SF real estate speculators which just happens to be the family business. He tried to run for mayor. On our dime. Yeah, taxes paid for his campaign which set a record of over $500 a vote. Seriously. Not even questioned on it. He probably thinks that's the way it should be for the elite, an entitlement for the well-to-do.

The best I can tell, he's poorly-informed greed wrapped in a free-range baby seal robe.

Long response. Why is the bill itself a bad idea? Or are you supporting it? Sorry, hard to read between the shaking fists.

 

[McRat]

Long response. Why is the bill itself a bad idea? Or are you supporting it? Sorry, hard to read between the shaking fists.

Hehehe...

It's a bad idea because it does nothing for the foreseeable future. A mock gesture. OK, let's get down to the content.

Let's say it does affect our xgrandkids. It's written to eliminate commercial vehicles under 10k GVWR unless there is a massive change in technology. That's most commercial vehicles you see, all the vans and nearly all the pickups. Ting does not have a path right now to get there. It's a burden he will put in place for others to fix.

It would force some to buy heavier, thirstier vehicles than they need just to exceed the 10k. The Hummer Syndrome.

Heck we have roads here that ban 10k GVWR trucks and so do you. Ting does also, he just doesn't know it.

What's wrong with fixing the sink today, instead of ordering a kitchen remodel in 22 years?
The sink does need fixing.

 

[ohmman]

Hehehe...

It's a bad idea because it does nothing for the foreseeable future. A mock gesture. OK, let's get down to the content.

Let's say it does affect our xgrandkids. It's written to eliminate commercial vehicles under 10k GVWR unless there is a massive change in technology. That's most commercial vehicles you see, all the vans and nearly all the pickups. Ting does not have a path right now to get there. It's a burden he will put in place for others to fix.

It would force some to buy heavier, thirstier vehicles than they need just to exceed the 10k. The Hummer Syndrome.

Heck we have roads here that ban 10k GVWR trucks and so do you. Ting does also, he just doesn't know it.

What's wrong with fixing the sink today, instead of ordering a kitchen remodel in 22 years?
The sink does need fixing.

Ah, got it. So it’s a matter of perfect being the enemy of the good.

 

[McRat]

Ah, got it. So it’s a matter of perfect being the enemy of the good.

It a matter of rolling up your sleeves and doing something today. That's his job description. Not to collect brownie points.

Perfection is certainly not required of Sacramento. 50% competency would be a great start.

If you are working, and you miss a deadline, is there a downside? Absolutely. But not in Sacramento apparently.

 

[ohmman]

Currently all of the Republicans and probably the lead Democrat on the transportation committee are intending to vote against it. Why? Because they’re going to introduce more specific and broad legislation? Hell, no. This bill is one that can get support because it has simplicity and doesn’t have an enormous ask. Maybe that’s because politicians are on the lazy side. Who cares? I’d love a comprehensive bill that addressed all segments of the population, but do you really think that’s a feasible ask?

And if you’re seriously concerned about edge cases like a few people buying bigger trucks vs. the vast population of new passenger vehicles being EVs?

Perfect vs. good.

 

[McRat]

Currently all of the Republicans and probably the lead Democrat on the transportation committee are intending to vote against it. Why? Because they’re going to introduce more specific and broad legislation? Hell, no. This bill is one that can get support because it has simplicity and doesn’t have an enormous ask. Maybe that’s because politicians are on the lazy side. Who cares? I’d love a comprehensive bill that addressed all segments of the population, but do you really think that’s a feasible ask?

And if you’re seriously concerned about edge cases like a few people buying bigger trucks vs. the vast population of new passenger vehicles being EVs?

Perfect vs. good.

I'd rather my taxes be spent on what was already promised. Ahead of time, under budget. with a heavy concern for pragmatism.

Until they make good on their old promises, don't let them change the subject by making another promise.

There are not enough Republicans in California to influence anything. It's Democrats fighting over who gets the biggest slice of cake for themselves that stalls things.

 

[ohmman]

I'd rather my taxes be spent on what was already promised.

The cost of the bill being...?

 

[FlatSix911]

I'd rather my taxes be spent on what was already promised. Ahead of time, under budget. with a heavy concern for pragmatism.

Until they make good on their old promises, don't let them change the subject by making another promise.

There are not enough Republicans in California to influence anything. It's Democrats fighting over who gets the biggest slice of cake for themselves that stalls things.

The truth ...

 

[McRat]

EVs are going to take over most passenger cars no matter what California does. It is a superior technology. Folk don't realize it until they drive one.

Tesla's mission is to provide EVs that people want MORE than they want ICE cars. It's a valid idea. It will happen when people get more EV exposure and prices achieve parity.

If a government wants to people to adopt EVs, reestablish public school driver's education using electric cars. In 22 years, you'll have drivers who refuse to buy ICE cars, and if you do it correctly, you'll have much better drivers too. Or do the totalitarian thing. Folks just LOVE that. Especially when it's usually hypocrites who are the totalitarians like Ting.

If Ting wants to leave a legacy, have him freeze California's Daylight Savings Time year round. More solar output when it's needed will save GHGs today. Cheap easy immediate.

Or tell your grandkids they must wear helmets before crossing the street or be arrested. It's his choice.

Trivia - California has a motorcycle helmet law. I agree with wearing a helmet. I've always ridden with a bucket since before it was a Mandate. But I don't agree with the helmet law. Not Big Brother's job. However, you'd save MORE lives by making car drivers wear helmets. I've spent literally thousands of hours with a helmet on in a CAR. So at least I would not be a hypocrite if I forced it down my neighbors throat. But I'd never do that. It's not what a government is for. A government is necessary to protect freedom, not to enforce slavery.

Carrot or stick. Hypocrisy or personal choice.

 

[ohmman]

Trivia - California has a motorcycle helmet law. I agree with wearing a helmet. I've always ridden with a bucket since before it was a Mandate. But I don't agree with the helmet law. Not Big Brother's job. However, you'd save MORE lives by making car drivers wear helmets. I've spent literally thousands of hours with a helmet on in a CAR. So at least I would not be a hypocrite if I forced it down my neighbors throat. But I'd never do that. It's not what a government is for. A government is necessary to protect freedom, not to enforce slavery.

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.

 

[RubberToe]

There are not enough Republicans in California to influence anything...

I'm more or less an atheist, but when I wake up in the morning and wrap my head around this thought, I really think there may be a God.

Whether this specific bill passes or not, eventually market forces will come into play as McRat points out. 2030 will eventually be the new target. Patience

RT

 

[jasonb]

when i first saw mention of this in jan my first thought was 2040 is a long way away. but then i warmed to it after listening to brown speaking at various climate change conferences. essentially 2040 is emerging as a united front of states/countries for a sustainable future. the date is less important than the notion i would say.

current tally is china, uk, india(maybe),france,norway

 

[EV-lutioin]

EVs are going to take over most passenger cars no matter what California does. It is a superior technology. Folk don't realize it until they drive one.

Tesla's mission is to provide EVs that people want MORE than they want ICE cars. It's a valid idea. It will happen when people get more EV exposure and prices achieve parity.

If a government wants to people to adopt EVs, reestablish public school driver's education using electric cars. In 22 years, you'll have drivers who refuse to buy ICE cars, and if you do it correctly, you'll have much better drivers too. Or do the totalitarian thing. Folks just LOVE that. Especially when it's usually hypocrites who are the totalitarians like Ting.

If Ting wants to leave a legacy, have him freeze California's Daylight Savings Time year round. More solar output when it's needed will save GHGs today. Cheap easy immediate.

Or tell your grandkids they must wear helmets before crossing the street or be arrested. It's his choice.

Trivia - California has a motorcycle helmet law. I agree with wearing a helmet. I've always ridden with a bucket since before it was a Mandate. But I don't agree with the helmet law. Not Big Brother's job. However, you'd save MORE lives by making car drivers wear helmets. I've spent literally thousands of hours with a helmet on in a CAR. So at least I would not be a hypocrite if I forced it down my neighbors throat. But I'd never do that. It's not what a government is for. A government is necessary to protect freedom, not to enforce slavery.

Carrot or stick. Hypocrisy or personal choice.

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.