This will stir things up if approved - California's Proposal to Ban New Gas Vehicles

From today's news here in California:
California’s clean-air regulators Wednesday unveiled a far-reaching proposal requiring a ramp-up in sales of zero-emission cars, culminating in a ban on new gasoline-powered cars by 2035.

If adopted by the California Air Resources Board this summer, the regulations will be the first of their kind in the world and could pave the way for nationwide standards. At least 15 other states pledged to follow California’s lead on car standards on previous clean-car rules, and the federal government usually follows.

California Unveils Proposal To Ban New Gasoline-Fueled Cars

If adopted, the rules would be the first of their kind in the world, prohibiting new gasoline or diesel cars by 2035.

laist.com

("Charging a Tesla car.JPG" by Jeffrey Beall is licensed under CC BY 4.0.)

 

[73Bruin]

Nope it’s stupid, it’s going to create more issues than it solves, which actually is not surprising because you know … California … the land of 1 step forward 5 steps back.

It’s all good though, I just hope I’ll be alive to watch the *sugar* show from afar.

Your free to leave. Most of us won't miss you.

 

[AMPd]

Your free to leave. Most of us won't miss you.

Oh you will, maybe not me personally but you will definitely miss my tax dollars.

 

[73Bruin]

Oh you will, maybe not me personally but you will definitely miss my tax dollars.

I doubt that as well!

 

[AMPd]

I doubt that as well!

Why?

 

[Zorg]

Nope it’s stupid, it’s going to create more issues than it solves, which actually is not surprising because you know … California … the land of 1 step forward 5 steps back.

It’s all good though, I just hope I’ll be alive to watch the *sugar* show from afar.

About you back up your argument? That ought to be interesting

 

[AMPd]

About you back up your argument? That ought to be interesting

There are a few issues I see with mandating EV only sales. And this is just off the top of my head, rarely do major changes go off without a hitch.

1- Charging for drivers who live in condos or apartments, installing chargers for every parking spot in an apartment will no doubt be expensive, not just for the chargers but for the upgraded infrastructure to bring in the necessary power. Cost that will be passed on to the residents.

2- Added demand to the grid, we’ve had a few days during the summer that required residents conserve electricity and the year before some days where blackouts were necessary. Not everyone can charge during the evening as many work night shifts, they have to charge during the day.
Many will charge overnight which at the moment is not an issue as during the summer nights there’s about 20,000 megawatt hour spare capacity, that’s about 2,857,142 vehicles charging at 7kW if my math is correct. There are approximately 14,200,000 registered automobiles in the state, that will be quite a bit of added demand, not right away of course but over the following few years.

3- Utility infrastructure upgrades. Many old residential neighborhoods, predominantly low income residents, will need to have their electricity delivery networks upgraded as those neighborhoods weren’t built to handle the demand that’s going to come when residents switch to EVs. The cost of course passed down to the rate payers.

4- Can battery manufacturing keep up with demand? We will need a lot more batteries, A LOT more, not just for cars but for utility and residential battery storage that will no doubt need to be built in order to keep up with the added demand. Will we have another vehicle shortage on our hands but this time because of battery production limitations?

None of these issues are impossible to solve, I just don’t have much faith in corporations and the government to solve them without the regular citizen being the one stuck holding the bag.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti EV, why would I be here if I were? I’m anti government over reach and nonsensical mandates.

 

[AMPd]

Sorry if there are spelling or grammar errors. I typed it on my phone.

 

[73Bruin]

Oh you will, maybe not me personally but you will definitely miss my tax dollars.

I doubt that as well!

Why?

Why? Do you really think the taxes paid by one individual are material to the total revenues of California? Even if you are in the top half of 1 percent, there are hundreds of thousands in that elite category.

So we won't miss your tax dollars

 

[BigNick]

There are a few issues I see with mandating EV only sales. And this is just off the top of my head, rarely do major changes go off without a hitch.

1- Charging for drivers who live in condos or apartments, installing chargers for every parking spot in an apartment will no doubt be expensive, not just for the chargers but for the upgraded infrastructure to bring in the necessary power. Cost that will be passed on to the residents.

2- Added demand to the grid, we’ve had a few days during the summer that required residents conserve electricity and the year before some days where blackouts were necessary. Not everyone can charge during the evening as many work night shifts, they have to charge during the day.
Many will charge overnight which at the moment is not an issue as during the summer nights there’s about 20,000 megawatt hour spare capacity, that’s about 2,857,142 vehicles charging at 7kW if my math is correct. There are approximately 14,200,000 registered automobiles in the state, that will be quite a bit of added demand, not right away of course but over the following few years.

3- Utility infrastructure upgrades. Many old residential neighborhoods, predominantly low income residents, will need to have their electricity delivery networks upgraded as those neighborhoods weren’t built to handle the demand that’s going to come when residents switch to EVs. The cost of course passed down to the rate payers.

4- Can battery manufacturing keep up with demand? We will need a lot more batteries, A LOT more, not just for cars but for utility and residential battery storage that will no doubt need to be built in order to keep up with the added demand. Will we have another vehicle shortage on our hands but this time because of battery production limitations?

None of these issues are impossible to solve, I just don’t have much faith in corporations and the government to solve them without the regular citizen being the one stuck holding the bag.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti EV, why would I be here if I were? I’m anti government over reach and nonsensical mandates.

Good points.

EVs will contribute to the solution, but they're not a magic bullet by any means, whether they take over by "natural" means or mandate.

 

[Doc Brown]

Why? Do you really think the taxes paid by one individual are material to the total revenues of California? Even if you are in the top half of 1 percent, there are hundreds of thousands in that elite category.

So we won't miss your tax dollars

This is wrong on so many levels. California’s General Fund relies heavily on personal income tax for its funding. A full 2/3 of the GF is from PIT. Just travel across the border to Incline Village, head over to Scottadale - and have a look at how much of California‘s income is being parked in other states. The FTB vigorously pursues folks who have "left the state" but still have income from CA. It’s an upward trend.

a full 50% of PIT revenue (1/3 of the GF) comes from people with income north of $500k).

Sure - it’s not going significantly harm the state - but it’s noticeable.

 

[73Bruin]

This is wrong on so many levels. California’s General Fund relies heavily on personal income tax for its funding. A full 2/3 of the GF is from PIT. Just travel across the border to Incline Village, head over to Scottadale - and have a look at how much of California‘s income is being parked in other states. The FTB vigorously pursues folks who have "left the state" but still have income from CA. It’s an upward trend.

a full 50% of PIT revenue (1/3 of the GF) comes from people with income north of $500k).

Sure - it’s not going significantly harm the state - but it’s noticeable.

Your assumption is that all of those high income people disagree with the policies in the state and are going to pack up their bags and leave in mass and that no one will come in to replace them at similar income levels. I find that highly unlikely. However, AMPd's post was not about tax rates, it was that a mandate halting new ICE car sales in 2035 was bad policy.

The more detailed question then becomes will those high income individuals so disagree with the policies intended to clean up the air that they breath and reduce climate change and its impacts like forest fires that they decide to leave the state? Policies that will significantly benefit them.

 

[Doc Brown]

Your assumption is that all of those high income people disagree with the policies in the state and are going to pack up their bags and leave in mass and that no one will come in to replace them at similar income levels. I find that highly unlikely. However, AMPd's post was not about tax rates, it was that a mandate halting new ICE car sales in 2035 was bad policy.

The more detailed question then becomes will those high income individuals so disagree with the policies intended to clean up the air that they breath and reduce climate change and its impacts like forest fires that they decide to leave the state? Policies that will significantly benefit them.

No - it's not the "policies intended to clean up the air." It's all of the policies and abnormally high cost of living. Don't get me wrong - California is a great place to live (mostly - starting to get tired of the forest fire smoke). That said - I am looking for a good place to set up permanent residency in a state with lower (or no) PIT. I'll still keep at least one home in California to visit (might keep my Palm Springs home) - but I'd rather take the money I'm not paying to the State in PIT and spend that on real estate somewhere else so I can leave it to my kids.

The all-EV near term mandate is just a manifestation of the other types of crazy crap they do in this state. If you're a subscriber to it - that's fine - but there is quite a bit of real money leaving the State.

 

[73Bruin]

No - it's not the "policies intended to clean up the air." It's all of the policies and abnormally high cost of living. Don't get me wrong - California is a great place to live (mostly - starting to get tired of the forest fire smoke). That said - I am looking for a good place to set up permanent residency in a state with lower (or no) PIT. I'll still keep at least one home in California to visit (might keep my Palm Springs home) - but I'd rather take the money I'm not paying to the State in PIT and spend that on real estate somewhere else so I can leave it to my kids.

The all-EV near term mandate is just a manifestation of the other types of crazy crap they do in this state. If you're a subscriber to it - that's fine - but there is quite a bit of real money leaving the State.

I have been hearing all of this crap about rich people packing up their bags and leaving California for years now from conservatives (most of whom are not rich themselves) and outside of a few examples like Musk, it just isn't' happening. In point of fact the Budget Surplus is getting extremely large. Possibly over $60B.

California’s budget surplus may be up to $23 billion more than previous projection

In fact, most of the data that I have seen is that people making under $100k tend to be leaving (being driven out by factors like high housing costs, long commutes, etc) and are being replaced in large part by better educated people making over $100K. I don't begrudge those people leaving in search of better opportunities, but they are leaving based on current circumstances and not a mandate over 12 years out to eliminate the sale of new ICE cars.

Here's who's leaving California and who's moving in

But feel free like AMPd, to sell your main home(s) and move out of state. Local governments will appreciate the increased revenue that your likely Prop 13 protected home will produce when assessed to its actual market value.

 

[dipper]

Good luck trying to get the poor out. I talked to Section 8 workers. They said they have a 12 years waiting list in SoCal.

My Section 8 tenants are not planning to leave either. So many free money.

As for cars, no way in hell my tenants will be buying an EV any time soon. They can barely afford a $5000 15 years old car. The Government telling them to buy an even more expensive EV? Good luck with that one. I see CA will be like Cuba. Driving ICE cars until there is no more.

And if I am forced by the Government to install EVSE, rent will not look any better than it already is. Actually, I love more rent money. Nevermind, please make another law! Hahaha.

 

[israndy]

I have been hearing all of this crap about rich people packing up their bags and leaving California for years now from conservatives

Yip, used to scare me, but that was a long time ago. Traffic would be getting better not worse.

Local governments will appreciate the increased revenue that your likely Prop 13 protected home will produce when assessed to its actual market value.

That's one of the things that may keep us in California, even if we move, the ability cooperative counties in CA have to allow you to take your current property tax rate to another house that may be 3 or 4 times what you paid for your current house means if we move outta state we will be losing money in property tax even if we can get a nicer house for the same up front cost. Now that I am retired no reason to move to a state with no income tax. And the weather here can't be beat (when the world ISN'T on fire that is)

 

[AMPd]

I have been hearing all of this crap about rich people packing up their bags and leaving California for years now from conservatives (most of whom are not rich themselves) and outside of a few examples like Musk, it just isn't' happening. In point of fact the Budget Surplus is getting extremely large. Possibly over $60B.

California’s budget surplus may be up to $23 billion more than previous projection

In fact, most of the data that I have seen is that people making under $100k tend to be leaving (being driven out by factors like high housing costs, long commutes, etc) and are being replaced in large part by better educated people making over $100K. I don't begrudge those people leaving in search of better opportunities, but they are leaving based on current circumstances and not a mandate over 12 years out to eliminate the sale of new ICE cars.

Here's who's leaving California and who's moving in

But feel free like AMPd, to sell your main home(s) and move out of state. Local governments will appreciate the increased revenue that your likely Prop 13 protected home will produce when assessed to its actual market value.

You mention the surplus but conveniently leave out the liabilities. What good is that surplus if it’s going to be squandered? The debt can will keep getting kicked down the road as the government will tout the surplus as a sign everything is fine.

Either way it’s all good, you have your opinion, I have mine. I don’t wish anything bad on anyone, I hope California government does good by its people and everyone prospers, but as I said I don’t have high confidence in them doing so.
Heck, you yourself mentioned corporate greed, corporations fund politicians who in turn make the best decisions for the corporate interests.

 

[AMPd]

@73Bruin I will also add that the state will always generate a massive amount of revenue, the question is will that revenue be split among 10 million tax payers or 9 million? Or 8 million? (General numbers not actual)
The state will never settle for a budget deficit for too long, what will happen is they’ll just increase the taxes. Fewer tax payers will require higher taxes to keep that budget in the black.

 

[Zorg]

There are a few issues I see with mandating EV only sales. And this is just off the top of my head, rarely do major changes go off without a hitch.

1- Charging for drivers who live in condos or apartments, installing chargers for every parking spot in an apartment will no doubt be expensive, not just for the chargers but for the upgraded infrastructure to bring in the necessary power. Cost that will be passed on to the residents.

2- Added demand to the grid, we’ve had a few days during the summer that required residents conserve electricity and the year before some days where blackouts were necessary. Not everyone can charge during the evening as many work night shifts, they have to charge during the day.
Many will charge overnight which at the moment is not an issue as during the summer nights there’s about 20,000 megawatt hour spare capacity, that’s about 2,857,142 vehicles charging at 7kW if my math is correct. There are approximately 14,200,000 registered automobiles in the state, that will be quite a bit of added demand, not right away of course but over the following few years.

3- Utility infrastructure upgrades. Many old residential neighborhoods, predominantly low income residents, will need to have their electricity delivery networks upgraded as those neighborhoods weren’t built to handle the demand that’s going to come when residents switch to EVs. The cost of course passed down to the rate payers.

4- Can battery manufacturing keep up with demand? We will need a lot more batteries, A LOT more, not just for cars but for utility and residential battery storage that will no doubt need to be built in order to keep up with the added demand. Will we have another vehicle shortage on our hands but this time because of battery production limitations?

None of these issues are impossible to solve, I just don’t have much faith in corporations and the government to solve them without the regular citizen being the one stuck holding the bag.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti EV, why would I be here if I were? I’m anti government over reach and nonsensical mandates.

Now, those are fair points. The flip side of that argument is that CA has now 13 years to get ready for it. BTW, I am pretty sure that 100% EV sales will not happen since there will always be edge cases that EV can't solve. I think/guess the biggest problem will be mining enough Lithium to sustain the growth in battery production.

I'm not too worried about upgrading the electricity infrastructure. The switch is happening anyway. 185K BEVs were sold last year in CA, and the trend is most likely accelerating. So, mandate or not, the infrastructure will have to keep up. It's slow moving enough that we should be able to plan for it.

I see the mandate mostly as a tool to accelerate the current trend and get all the stakeholders to start investing accordingly. I'm sure that the mandate will be revised a few times, but it should help getting things moving in the right direction.

 

[73Bruin]

@73Bruin I will also add that the state will always generate a massive amount of revenue, the question is will that revenue be split among 10 million tax payers or 9 million? Or 8 million? (General numbers not actual)
The state will never settle for a budget deficit for too long, what will happen is they’ll just increase the taxes. Fewer tax payers will require higher taxes to keep that budget in the black.

You may be surprised but I do think that a substantial portion of the surplus (40 to 50 percent beyond the legal obligations to pay this down) should be used for paying off the states bonded debt and any state underfunded pension obligations. I am not sure that the state should "bail out" local governments who have underfunded their pensions. I would love to see subsidies directed towards making local solar and battery storage more affordable to residents of low income areas.

 

[73Bruin]

Now, those are fair points. The flip side of that argument is that CA has now 13 years to get ready for it. BTW, I am pretty sure that 100% EV sales will not happen since there will always be edge cases that EV can't solve. I think/guess the biggest problem will be mining enough Lithium to sustain the growth in battery production.

I'm not too worried about upgrading the electricity infrastructure. The switch is happening anyway. 185K BEVs were sold last year in CA, and the trend is most likely accelerating. So, mandate or not, the infrastructure will have to keep up. It's slow moving enough that we should be able to plan for it.

I see the mandate mostly as a tool to accelerate the current trend and get all the stakeholders to start investing accordingly. I'm sure that the mandate will be revised a few times, but it should help getting things moving in the right direction.

I agree with most of this, but I don't think the mandate should be revised. Imagine the costs to protect areas like the bay area (with all of its reclaimed land) against sea level rise (even the modest 1.6 ft of rise forecasted for 2050). Ditto San Diego and the Long Beach/Seal Beach areas.