The mistake that IEA and other analysts make is that they believe that policies drive markets and technology, but not that technology and markets drive policy. Economically feasible electric ferries is the product of markets and technology. Now that this is an option policy makers will be inclined to set policies that prefer this solution. This, policy is driven by technology and markets. As EVs made critical advances, various policymakers have pursued policies to ban ICE by by certain dates. As electric commercial vehicle products enter the market, I would expect urban policymakers to craft policy that increasingly prefer electric fleets.
Technology -> Markets -> Policy
Along this influence path policy development is a lagging indicator of what is possible. So if you base you forecast on the current state of policy, this already lags what is happening and it ignores how policy will change in the future. Policy makers everywhere want ways to improve air quality and other environmental issues, but many will pull back on policy objectives where the technology is thought to be too limited or too expensive. For example, if you were contemplating a ban on ICE in you country, how would you determine the date? Why 2040 and not 2030? Setting an aggressive date will be met with resistance based on concerns about costs and the arrival of needed technology. Forcing people use more costly and inferior vehicles in 2030 seems more hamfisted than waiting until 2040. On the other hand, if you really want to impact the technology development and markets, a 2030 policy would have more teeth. Personally, I see little value in a 2040 policy because I think market forces will sideline ICE long before 2040. Why write laws for things the market will do anyway? 2030, however, is more ambitious and may push ahead of current trends in technology and EV markets. So why should an analyst base a forecast on whether some set of politician say 2030, 2040, or no ban at all? Its only relevant if it speeds up the technology and markets. So if a few markets have 2030 policies, this speeds up the tech for virtually all markets. Beyond that effect there may be no difference between a 2030 policy market and one with no ban at all. Indeed the rest of the world may effectively be on a 2035 "policy", which is to say that a ban would only have a meaningful impact if it were set before 2035. So the 2040 become obsolete after a few 2030 have been set. So the evolution of policy is the future bans if they are pursued at all will tend to have dates before 2040. All of this is just politicians feeling out what they think are in the cards for technology, markets and public sentiment. Then along comes the IEA analyst who thinks ICE will still have robust market in 2050 in places where they are not currently banned.
