Trump's EPA will try to destroy California's CARB to set its own rules...coming soon...

[gene]

A few points to echo wdolson's fine essay:

I live in (cough, cough) Fresno. Some of the air pollution also comes from China, believe it or not. The prevailing wind blows east across the Pacific and through Altamont Pass or the delta into the Valley. Farming and trucking also contribute to our poor air quality. Farmers still use old, decrepit diesel tractors and pump motors. Seasonal truckers of ag products also have 1980s diesel motors in many of their tractors. Almond, walnut and pistachio harvest consist of shaking trees, sweeping the nuts into rows and then scooping them up into gondolas behind trucks for hauling to the huller/processor. A lot of dust is in the air from August through October.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley is a U-shaped valley (formed by glaciation) that extends from Shasta Lake on the north to the Grapevine on the south. We are surrounded by mountains: The Sierra Nevada Range to the east, the transverse ranges to the south and the coastal ranges to the west. The north is a mixture of the Cascade Range and Trinity Alps. The only exit for our heat is through the delta. And since the prevailing winds are from the west, the pollution cannot escape. It just gets pushed further north and south. As a result, when the temperatures rise in late April-early May, we get an inversion layer that hovers about 1,200-1,500 feet above the valley floor, beneath the elevations of the surrounding mountains. It rises slightly at night when the sun sets, but typically anything that is in the air remains trapped within this inversion layer. Cities closer to the delta do receive some respite from the pollution and sweltering heat, but the further one is from the delta, the worse the temperatures and air pollution are.

On those rare winter days after a good rainstorm, and there is a zephyr to keep the particulate matter moving about, the snow-capped Sierra Nevada mountains are truly a beautiful sight. We might be able to see the mountains from our home 20-30 days per year. The rest of the year they are obscured by all the crap in the air.

And thankfully, your San Joaquin Valley offers an extra $3,000 EV incentive over the existing $7500 fed and $2500 state.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

Here's a suggestion to CA if the original post comes to pass: Institute an additional $1/gal gas tax, escalating at $1/gal/year. If I recall, states still have authority for taxes (income, sales, gas, tabs, etc.). Then, with the extra revenue collected, increase the credits for EV purchases and work place charging stations. Let the people decide which vehicle they want as the financial pain slowly increases. Perhaps EV sales in CA will be like Norway by year's end

 

[wdolson]

A few points to echo wdolson's fine essay:

I live in (cough, cough) Fresno. Some of the air pollution also comes from China, believe it or not. The prevailing wind blows east across the Pacific and through Altamont Pass or the delta into the Valley. Farming and trucking also contribute to our poor air quality. Farmers still use old, decrepit diesel tractors and pump motors. Seasonal truckers of ag products also have 1980s diesel motors in many of their tractors. Almond, walnut and pistachio harvest consist of shaking trees, sweeping the nuts into rows and then scooping them up into gondolas behind trucks for hauling to the huller/processor. A lot of dust is in the air from August through October.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley is a U-shaped valley (formed by glaciation) that extends from Shasta Lake on the north to the Grapevine on the south. We are surrounded by mountains: The Sierra Nevada Range to the east, the transverse ranges to the south and the coastal ranges to the west. The north is a mixture of the Cascade Range and Trinity Alps. The only exit for our heat is through the delta. And since the prevailing winds are from the west, the pollution cannot escape. It just gets pushed further north and south. As a result, when the temperatures rise in late April-early May, we get an inversion layer that hovers about 1,200-1,500 feet above the valley floor, beneath the elevations of the surrounding mountains. It rises slightly at night when the sun sets, but typically anything that is in the air remains trapped within this inversion layer. Cities closer to the delta do receive some respite from the pollution and sweltering heat, but the further one is from the delta, the worse the temperatures and air pollution are.

On those rare winter days after a good rainstorm, and there is a zephyr to keep the particulate matter moving about, the snow-capped Sierra Nevada mountains are truly a beautiful sight. We might be able to see the mountains from our home 20-30 days per year. The rest of the year they are obscured by all the crap in the air.

We get a little from China too, though only intermittently. The dust in Bakersfield is intense, everything gets coated with a thin layer of dust in only a week or two after dusting.

LA's air quality when I was a kid was far worse than the San Joaquin Valley. I had constant allergies as a kid and I found I could breath from both nostrils for the first time in my life after moving to Bakersfield when I was 18. It got even better when I transferred to Cal Poly. I had occasional bouts of smog allergies in Seattle when we'd get inversion layers in the summer, but usually the air was pretty good. I never have smog problems here in Portland.

I haven't been back to LA in a long time, but I hear the air quality has improved.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Here's a suggestion to CA if the original post comes to pass: Institute an additional $1/gal gas tax, escalating at $1/gal/year. If I recall, states still have authority for taxes (income, sales, gas, tabs, etc.). Then, with the extra revenue collected, increase the credits for EV purchases and work place charging stations. Let the people decide which vehicle they want as the financial pain slowly increases. Perhaps EV sales in CA will be like Norway by year's end

If CARB is silenced too soon, part of the problem is that without the ZEV mandate, only Tesla will be selling EV's, the legacy auto manufacturers won't invest in their compliance vehicles and consumers won't have much to choose from (e.g. take a volt or wait 1-2 years for Tesla to build your car - they don't have enough capacity to build more yet).

 

[Doug_G]

Moving a bunch of posts to snippiness due to unnecessary political baiting (even if meant humorously) and being off-topic.

 

[abasile]

Here's a suggestion to CA if the original post comes to pass: Institute an additional $1/gal gas tax, escalating at $1/gal/year. If I recall, states still have authority for taxes (income, sales, gas, tabs, etc.). Then, with the extra revenue collected, increase the credits for EV purchases and work place charging stations. Let the people decide which vehicle they want as the financial pain slowly increases. Perhaps EV sales in CA will be like Norway by year's end

I like this idea, but would have concerns as to its political feasibility, even in California. A sharp rise in gasoline taxes would not be popular in many circles. Maybe it could work if done in a "revenue neutral" manner, though, where any net revenue gains from gas taxes would be refunded uniformly to all Californians, along the lines of the "carbon dividend" proposal that has been floated by some Republicans at the federal level.

In any case, I wouldn't want to be caught owning a gas station in California near the border with another state!

 

[jbcarioca]

We all know, I think, that even if CA and the followers were precluded from directly controlling vehicle emissions they could impose variable vehicle taxes as they wished, and could have other taxes based as they wish. Just think of all the states that set anti-BEV rules and/or anti-direct distribution rules as they wish, with impunity. These same techniques can be used to incentivize vehicle efficiency and 'cleanness'

 

[Petra]

Here's a suggestion to CA if the original post comes to pass: Institute an additional $1/gal gas tax, escalating at $1/gal/year. If I recall, states still have authority for taxes (income, sales, gas, tabs, etc.). Then, with the extra revenue collected, increase the credits for EV purchases and work place charging stations. Let the people decide which vehicle they want as the financial pain slowly increases. Perhaps EV sales in CA will be like Norway by year's end

While an interesting idea, legislators are still accountable to their constituents... and the majority of said constituents would likely be very unhappy about spiking the gas tax to force people into EVs this early. Voting for a plan that aggressive would basically be political suicide, even in California.

 

[RubberToe]

Here's a suggestion to CA if the original post comes to pass: Institute an additional $1/gal gas tax, escalating at $1/gal/year. If I recall, states still have authority for taxes (income, sales, gas, tabs, etc.). Then, with the extra revenue collected, increase the credits for EV purchases and work place charging stations. Let the people decide which vehicle they want as the financial pain slowly increases. Perhaps EV sales in CA will be like Norway by year's end

And with the Dems in complete control, of the legislature, there is nothing that the other party, or even the Federal government could do to change it. If the Feds won't let us clean up the air by mandating less polluting vehicles, California will simply raise the cost of gas so high that the market will solve the problem.

Jerry would totally do this. No doubt in my mind.

Brilliant ! ! !

RT

 

[RubberToe]

While an interesting idea, legislators are still accountable to their constituents... and the majority of said constituents would likely be very unhappy about spiking the gas tax to force people into EVs this early. Voting for a plan that aggressive would basically be political suicide, even in California.

I think that while ReddyLeaf suggested $1 per gallon, the intent was more to indicate that gas taxes could be used as one available "tool" in the toolbox to address the goal. As seen back in July 2008 when L.A. County gas prices hit $4.57 average, it doesn't take a lot of movement to influence consumer behavior. Obviously a gradual approach would work best to achieve the goals. One way to do it would be to funnel the money into a DCFC network, to the utilities to install workplace or multi-dwelling setups, or other programs. Not unlike what VW is currently being forced to do with their $800 California investment for the diesel fiasco.

Once you have a DCFC network, and $5,000 used Leafs and Fiat's that can use them, a lot of people will give a second thought to whether a gas car really makes sense. Especially when the EV scoots around for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of gas. And as the gas tax rises, the equation gets nothing but better and better.

RT

 

[ReddyLeaf]

I think that while ReddyLeaf suggested $1 per gallon, the intent was more to indicate that gas taxes could be used as one available "tool" in the toolbox to address the goal. As seen back in July 2008 when L.A. County gas prices hit $4.57 average, it doesn't take a lot of movement to influence consumer behavior. Obviously a gradual approach would work best to achieve the goals. One way to do it would be to funnel the money into a DCFC network, to the utilities to install workplace or multi-dwelling setups, or other programs. Not unlike what VW is currently being forced to do with their $800 California investment for the diesel fiasco.

Once you have a DCFC network, and $5,000 used Leafs and Fiat's that can use them, a lot of people will give a second thought to whether a gas car really makes sense. Especially when the EV scoots around for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of gas. And as the gas tax rises, the equation gets nothing but better and better.

RT

Exactly! Also, this must be an increase from what exists today. The biggest "shock" value comes from a step change. Doing this EVERY year, especially around May, would increase the shock value as more people go on vacation starting around this time and the price of gas normally increases as well. This helps keep the momentum going for multiple years, not just a single event. Also, there is more renewable energy from our CA & PNW hydro snow melt at this same time. Helping push more people into EVs at this time will help consume some of the excess renewables. Of course, as an EV driver I want to see more public charging, especially DCQC. However, I think more bang for the buck may come from incentives to business that install L2 charging at work. This will also help to soak up some of that excess solar power (9am-3pm) that CA will be producing in 2019 and beyond. They could provide more incentive for business that add a higher percentage of total parking (e.g., $100/station for 0-15% of parking spaces or employees, $200/station for 16-30%, $300/station for 31-50%, $400/station >51% or something like that). Furthermore, this might incentivize businesses to install the least expensive station, like ClipperCreek a CA-made product. Effectively, this doubles the range of the typical BEV/PHEV. Heck, even a Volt can drive 80 mi/day electric under this scenario. Since we are currently battery limited, producing more vehicles with smaller 10-30 KWh batteries is better than producing fewer 200+ mi EVs with 60-100 KWh batteries that are only partially used. If CA can do this by themselves, damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!

 

[McRat]

Europe and Asia are 100% electric already? Or are you saying gas prices alone will not stop people from driving?

The idea of using gas prices for energy independence, green tech assistance, and the environment in lieu of just normal taxes is an old one, as least as far back as the 1970's. The problem is it puts the most burden on those who can least afford it. Great for the royal family, not so much for the peasants.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

I like this idea, but would have concerns as to its political feasibility, even in California. A sharp rise in gasoline taxes would not be popular in many circles. Maybe it could work if done in a "revenue neutral" manner, though, where any net revenue gains from gas taxes would be refunded uniformly to all Californians, along the lines of the "carbon dividend" proposal that has been floated by some Republicans at the federal level.

In any case, I wouldn't want to be caught owning a gas station in California near the border with another state!

Agreed! However, my suggestion is NOT something that should be taken lightly, but only in response to the original topic: A strong response is needed to counter the destructive action by the current regime to eliminate states rights, the EPA, renewable energy, electric vehicles, the smart grid, and all the environmental and technological improvements that have taken place since the 1960's Silent Spring.

 

[kort677]

taxing

A strong response is needed to counter the destructive action by the current regime to eliminate states rights,

I think you might be a bit confused.
it was the past administration that specialized in trampling state's rights. for example almost all those lawsuits file by pruitt against EPA mandates were based on the overreach of the EPA.

 

[nwdiver]

for example almost all those lawsuits file by pruitt against EPA mandates were based on the overreach of the EPA.

??? Such as??? The thing about pollution... it tends to cross state lines and effect everyone....