California to end gasoline car sales by 2035

[uujjj2]

California will ban sale of new ICE cars in 2035. Why not sooner? - Electrek

Unfortunately, medium and heavy duty ICE vehicles can continue to 2045. I'd prefer if medium/heavy duty vehicles were also required to be zero emission by 2035

 

[glide]

California will ban sale of new ICE cars in 2035. Why not sooner? - Electrek

Unfortunately, medium and heavy duty ICE vehicles can continue to 2045. I'd prefer if medium/heavy duty vehicles were also required to be zero emission by 2035

It’s an executive order issued by Newsom, does not carry the weight of law, and he will be long gone and retired in his vineyard by then.

California cannot even keep the lights on *today*. How are they going to supply power for the infrastructure required to make this level of change

Do you really think this is anything more than a PR stunt?

 

[Lloyd]

It’s an executive order issued by Newsom, does not carry the weight of law, and he will be long gone and retired in his vineyard by then.

California cannot even keep the lights on *today*. How are they going to supply power for the infrastructure required to make this level of change

Do you really think this is anything more than a PR stunt?

What? you dont think that the Brown, Newsom, Pelosi, and Getty will continue to 'keep it all in the family'?

Gavin Newsom's keeping it all in the family

 

[Vinc]

It’s an executive order issued by Newsom, does not carry the weight of law, and he will be long gone and retired in his vineyard by then.

California cannot even keep the lights on *today*. How are they going to supply power for the infrastructure required to make this level of change

Do you really think this is anything more than a PR stunt?

Probably it will never happen (we cannot even ban filament lightbulbs in this country of ours) but it does put pressure on manufacturers and oil distributors. They are starting to get the memo that putting all their eggs in the ICE basket might not be fully safe.

 

[uujjj2]

This is not a law and not a ban, per se, since that would require either new laws or at least new regulations through the regular rule-making process. The executive order is really an internal memo to California's executive branch to work towards zero emissions vehicles by 2035.

And remember, this is California, so everything is subject to a referendum. I guarantee any gas car ban will come before voters at some point.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. It shall be a goal of the State that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035. It shall be a further goal of the State that 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the State be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks. It shall be further a goal of the State to transition to 100 percent zero-emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 where feasible.
   
   
2. The State Air Resources Board, to the extent consistent with State and federal law, shall develop and propose:
   
   1. a) Passenger vehicle and truck regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission vehicles sold in the State towards the target of 100 percent of in-state sales by 2035.
      
      
   2. b) Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission trucks and buses sold and operated in the State towards the target of 100 percent of the fleet transitioning to zero-emission vehicles by 2045 everywhere feasible and for all drayage trucks to be zero- emission by 2035.
      
      
   3. c) Strategies, in coordination with other State agencies, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and local air districts, to achieve 100 percent zero-emission from off-road vehicles and equipment operations in the State by 2035.
      

 

[glide]

Probably it will never happen (we cannot even ban filament lightbulbs in this country of ours) but it does put pressure on manufacturers and oil distributors. They are starting to get the memo that putting all their eggs in the ICE basket might not be fully safe.

I don’t even think it’s doing that. It has no teeth and is completely unrealistic on its face.

Valero isn’t sweating this one bit.

 

[Vinc]

I don’t even think it’s doing that. It has no teeth and is completely unrealistic on its face.

Valero isn’t sweating this one bit.

In the 60s there was some noise indicating that convertible cars might be banned for safety reasons. It never happened, but this was enough for many companies to rethink convertibles. And it also gave us the lovely Porsche 911 Targa

The Porsche 911 Targa was created because the US wanted to ban convertibles

Not saying that it is the same, of course, but...

 

[SageBrush]

California government is a monster sized consumer. The executive order matters. A lot

 

[nwdiver]

California cannot even keep the lights on *t̶o̶d̶a̶y̶* *Between 5pm and 9pm*.

There, fixed if for you. The answer is obvious... don't charge your EV between 5pm and 9pm

Numerous studies have shown there is already enough off-peak capacity. By 2035 CA will probably be curtailing enough renewables to charge every car in the state.

 

[bruce4000]

If battery day projections come true by 2026 (2 times Elon’s 3 years), nobody is going to want to buy a new ICE because EVs will be cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, more useable space, safer, and more fun to drive. Long distance towing will take longer but once the bean counters at trucking companies are able to save money by going EV, it will happen quickly.

 

[nwdiver]

nobody is going to want to buy a new ICE because EVs will be cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, more useable space, safer, and more fun to drive.

.... oh you sweet summer child...

 

[uujjj2]

California cannot even keep the lights on *today*. How are they going to supply power for the infrastructure required to make this level of change

Let me address this point specifically. Here's the thing about investment in infrastructure. Getting funding for investment in a market with shrinking demand is a big problem, but getting funding for investment in a market with growing demand is NOT a problem. I've worked at three different tech startups, and I can assure you this is the case.

Take a look at California's electricity market in particular. After the 2001 power crisis, California went on an aggressive power plant building boom. We added, over the last 19 years, about 40GW of new generating capacity to a grid that had 45GW of capacity at the time. But in addition to the new power plants we also implemented a lot of energy efficiency programs. Overall electricity demand in California today is less than it was in 2001, even with all the population and economic growth that's taken place.

Well, you can't add that much generating capacity to an electricity market with shrinking demand without something giving way. The new power plants (gas, solar, wind) have much lower operating cost than the older gas power plants. So the new plants got all the business, and the old plants saw their revenue crash. Tons of older gas power plants have been retired in the last few years, along with one 2.4GW nuclear plant, so net generating capacity (especially after sunset) has barely grown. And investment in transmission line maintenance has been especially bad.

This is a business reality: a market with shrinking demand will face underinvestment.

Nobody in California is going to revive inefficient old power plants.

To solve the problem with underinvestment in the grid, California needs to boost demand for electricity. Ok, how do we do that? Tell people to rip the insulation out of their walls? Replace their new refrigerators with old refrigerators? Get real. California isn't going to fix the electricity problem with inefficiency.

Electric cars, charged at off-peak hours, are perfect for boosting electricity demand with the least need for new infrastructure. Right now, when people buy gas cars, they send a bunch of money to Valero and Chevron. With electric cars, all that money goes to PG&E instead! But because they are charged off-peak, the amount of new generating capacity and transmission capacity that EVs will require is much smaller than an equivalent demand boost at peak hours. For utilities, EV charging has a very high return on investment, and that's exactly what's needed to boost grid investment in California.

 

[Vinc]

If battery day projections come true by 2026 (2 times Elon’s 3 years), nobody is going to want to buy a new ICE because EVs will be cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, more useable space, safer, and more fun to drive. Long distance towing will take longer but once the bean counters at trucking companies are able to save money by going EV, it will happen quickly.

Although your argument may have a bit of wishful thinking (which I fully embrace), I have some perspective to back it up. I was in Europe during the late 80s and 90s, and I saw the car market move from gas to diesel almost overnight.

In the 80s, diesels in Europe were pretty similar to what EVs are today. Each brand had at most a couple of models to offer, with worse specs and at higher prices than the gas versions. But as diesels became faster and more comfortable, with their fuel cost still staying lower than that of gas cars, sales boomed. By the turn of the century, diesels where everywhere.

The funny thing is that the change is now happening again, in reverse and almost as quickly. After diesels became mainstream, fuel prices went up significantly (I may be making this up, but I believe that in some places diesel got to be at times more expensive than gas by a few cents). This, added to the upcoming regulations that, among other things, will limit access to some cities for diesels, is making diesels disappear again as fast as they took over.

So in 15 years Europe not only had time for a transition, but for a round trip almost. Although unfortunately, as @nwdiver hints, the US is... especial. Some people here would be using whale oil powered cars had the whaling industry known about the power of marketing and lobbying.

 

[Pilar Beckner]

We'll wait and see.

 

[glide]

Let me address this point specifically. Here's the thing about investment in infrastructure. Getting funding for investment in a market with shrinking demand is a big problem, but getting funding for investment in a market with growing demand is NOT a problem. I've worked at three different tech startups, and I can assure you this is the case.

Take a look at California's electricity market in particular. After the 2001 power crisis, California went on an aggressive power plant building boom. We added, over the last 19 years, about 40GW of new generating capacity to a grid that had 45GW of capacity at the time. But in addition to the new power plants we also implemented a lot of energy efficiency programs. Overall electricity demand in California today is less than it was in 2001, even with all the population and economic growth that's taken place.

Well, you can't add that much generating capacity to an electricity market with shrinking demand without something giving way. The new power plants (gas, solar, wind) have much lower operating cost than the older gas power plants. So the new plants got all the business, and the old plants saw their revenue crash. Tons of older gas power plants have been retired in the last few years, along with one 2.4GW nuclear plant, so net generating capacity (especially after sunset) has barely grown. And investment in transmission line maintenance has been especially bad.

This is a business reality: a market with shrinking demand will face underinvestment.

Nobody in California is going to revive inefficient old power plants.

To solve the problem with underinvestment in the grid, California needs to boost demand for electricity. Ok, how do we do that? Tell people to rip the insulation out of their walls? Replace their new refrigerators with old refrigerators? Get real. California isn't going to fix the electricity problem with inefficiency.

Electric cars, charged at off-peak hours, are perfect for boosting electricity demand with the least need for new infrastructure. Right now, when people buy gas cars, they send a bunch of money to Valero and Chevron. With electric cars, all that money goes to PG&E instead! But because they are charged off-peak, the amount of new generating capacity and transmission capacity that EVs will require is much smaller than an equivalent demand boost at peak hours. For utilities, EV charging has a very high return on investment, and that's exactly what's needed to boost grid investment in California.

Startups and state government are very different entities. You do not seem to be factoring that in.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The funny thing is that the change is now happening again, in reverse and almost as quickly. After diesels became mainstream, fuel prices went up significantly (I may be making this up, but I believe that in some places diesel got to be at times more expensive than gas by a few cents). This, added to the upcoming regulations that, among other things, will limit access to some cities for diesels, is making diesels disappear again as fast as they took over.

The gas v diesel fuel price was largely a function of policy, controlled by relative fuel taxation.
European governments encouraged diesel for energy efficiency, only later realizing that they'd been duped by the murderous liars of the automotive industry.
Some governments had already shifted policy and diesels sales were already falling when Dieselgate exposed the lies. At that point more Western European governments moved the last of their eggs to the electrification basket.

I'm sure that it helped transportation policy in the UK and France that their capitals are large stinking cities. You need the politicians to feel the filth to make them think that Something Must Be Done.

 

[zecar]

Unfortunately, medium and heavy duty ICE vehicles can continue to 2045. I'd prefer if medium/heavy duty vehicles were also required to be zero emission by 2035

They don't want to freak everyone out all at once. It battery price fall enough to make a profitable $25K Tesla most trucks will be substantially cheaper to run on electric. Like wind and solar the economics will crush fossil fuels. Combine favorable electrification economics with a pollution tax on diesel and an outright ban won't be necessary.

 

[mspohr]

. Feds slam Newsom’s car ban

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a press conference on Sept. 23, 2020, at Cal Expo in Sacramento where he announced an executive order requiring the sale of all new passenger vehicles to be zero-emission by 2035. Photo by Daniel Kim, The Sacramento Bee via AP/Pool
Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a press conference on Sept. 23, 2020, at Cal Expo in Sacramento. Photo by Daniel Kim, The Sacramento Bee via AP/Pool
If there was any doubt about how the Trump administration would react to Newsom’s decision to ban new gas-powered cars in California starting in 2035, it was dispelled Monday with a scathing letter from the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Administrator Andrew Wheeler said Newsom’s ban is “mostly aspirational” and raises “significant questions of legality,” reminding the governor that it would need to be approved by the federal government in order to take effect. (Approval doesn’t seem likely.)

Newsom and California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols said last week they believe the ban is legal.

Nichols: “We believe the Clean Air Act gives us the authority to set exactly the kinds of standards that we have set since the late sixties.”

Wine Country under wildfire siege (skip down to Other News)

 

[SageBrush]

This is a business reality: a market with shrinking demand will face underinvestment.

All else being equal, sure.

But new PV and wind is cheaper than legacy fossil, not to mention much cheaper than nuclear. There is massive demand for cheaper energy

 

[andy92782]

Help me understand: How does California plan to charge everyone's electric car? I see the following challenges:
- not enough charging infrastructure, especially for renters/apartments/etc.
- not enough generating capacity. California is the largest net importer of electricity of any state. or is it okay to charge our cars using coal/gas plants so long as those plants aren't located here?
- cars are charged most conveniently during off-peak hours, which usually means overnight, which means no sunshine, which means far less renewable energy available on the grid. what's the solution? or do we simply acknowledge that there is no practical way to power the fleet using (mostly) renewable sources?

Note: I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to understand how we "get there from here". I'm also assuming nuclear power is not an option. San Onofre is gone, Diablo Canyon will soon be next and there is exactly 0% chance another nuclear plant will be built in this state, at least in my lifetime.