By on September 26, 2017

Ford Focus Electric

California has been toying with the idea of banning internal combustion motors for a couple of years now. While the concept is gaining popularity across the globe, the ban itself is a bit misleading. Regions in favor of the idea aren’t really pursuing an outright ban on engines that burn gasoline; they’re trying to mandate electrification and reduce emissions via non-traditional powertrains.

In April of 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown announced, “If the federal government can’t get it right, we in California are going to take care of business.” With the Trump administration making strides to roll back regulatory efforts, it appears the state of California is ready to pop in some Bachman–Turner Overdrive and begin taking care of said business. 

Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board and ally to the zero-emissions cause, explained in a recent interview with Bloomberg that California will pursue a similar internal combustion ban timeline as China, France and the United Kingdom.

“I’ve gotten messages from the governor asking, ‘Why haven’t we done something already?'” Nichols said, referring to China’s planned culling of fossil fuel-powered vehicle sales. “The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California.”

Asia is leading the way in the looming government-mandated electric vehicle war. Not only does China want to phase out all non-electric powertrains by 2030, the country has already begun implementing rules forcing any automaker hoping to sell vehicles in the country to allot a certain percentage of EV within its fleet.

Much of Europe is pressing for similar rules, but its countries have set their goals on a slightly longer and less-certain timeline. However, certain cities — Paris for example — want a diesel ban by 2025.

“To reach the ambitious levels of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, we have to pretty much replace all combustion with some form of renewable energy by 2040 or 2050,” Nichols said. “We’re looking at that as a method of moving this discussion forward.”

California will also need to diversify where it gets its energy from if it hopes to implement more BEVs. While the state is getting help from VW (as part of the automaker’s diesel scandal penance) to bolster its electric charging network and has a strong sustainable energy resources, roughly half of its power comes from natural gas-fired power plants. Those plants are substantially cleaner than coal or oil plants, but will need to be kicked into overdrive if the state finds itself with a sudden influx of drivers hoping to charge their vehicles every night after work.

With such a massive population, California’s mandates would have a major impact on the automotive industry. As a self-admitted friend to automakers, the Trump administration would definitely challenge the legality of the state’s actions. However, California is within its rights to enact its own pollution rules. The precedent was set with the 1970 Clean Air Act and is underpinned by waivers granted by the Environment Protection Agency.

However, with the current EPA likely unwilling to grant such a waiver, Nichols said the state will likely pursue different legal options.

“We certainly wouldn’t expect to get a waiver for that from EPA,” Nichols said. “I think we would be looking at using some of our other authorities to get to that result.” One possible solution would be to use vehicle registration rules or control the vehicles that can access state highways, she said.

Internal combustion bans are becoming commonplace now. But, with most of them set so far in the future, it’s hard to see exactly how they’ll play out. By 2030 most automakers might already utilize fleets that adhere to universal electrification. It’s certainly reasonable to think that mild-hybridization could become as normalized as fuel injection by then. If this ends up being the case, some of these mandates will prove unnecessary; the threats, empty. Still, you could make the claim that the threats alone pushed automakers to pursue the technology in the first place.

“There are people who believe, including [some] who work for me, that you could stop all sales of new internal-combustion cars by 2030. Some people say 2035, some people say 2040,” said Nichols. “It’s awfully hard to predict any of that with precision, but it doesn’t appear to be out of the question.”

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

108 Comments on “California’s Current Strategy to Ban Internal Combustion Engines...”


  • avatar
    operagost

    ‘In April of 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown announced, “If the federal government can’t get it right, we in California are going to take care of business.”’

    Yeah, because you’re part of the state government, and that’s your job.

    Funny how state power in a federation looks like a good thing sometimes, doesn’t it?

    • 0 avatar

      That state is a disaster, how did it get like this?

      • 0 avatar
        volvo driver

        California is only a disaster in your overactive imagination.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I saw Stockton circa 2004, and it was a disaster then. Tell me, has it gotten better since?

          • 0 avatar
            volvo driver

            LOL you went to Stockton.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I did. I also drive a Volvo, a final year 240 to be precise.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            California’s a disaster because Stockton sucks?

            LOL…kinda like saying Colorado’s a disaster because Greeley sucks…which it does…

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            I wouldn’t go so far as to call the state a disaster, but it’s obvious that it’s poorly managed. Blatant corruption at high levels in the UC system, corruption becoming more clear at CalPERS, wasteful public projects like HSR where the public was simply lied to about the real costs, the ASCE gave the state a D+ for the current status of infrastructure, and on and on. And that’s before the onerous rules discouraging businesses from starting or expanding in the state. And the inability for state and city leaders to speak honestly about the costs of illegal immigration out of fear of being labeled a xenophobe.

            Now that I think about it….

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I have limited exposure to the state and I don’t want to just agree with the entire place is a disaster because it probably was not. However, I did see a disaster in the state and I was curious if the love and rainbows deluded people of the state seem to think happen there were able to repair the city of Stockton. Since I was met with sarcasm, I’m guessing not, and therefore whatever policies they have there do not work.

            EDIT: Nice points, jkross22. Personally I would just laugh at them because their words have no meaning or validity behind them.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          It’s a disaster in pretty every way you can imagine. Weather being one of two glaring exceptions, that allows for the rest of the dysfunctionalily to persist. Natural beauty being the other.

          • 0 avatar
            volvo driver

            California is:
            6th largest economy in the world
            8th fastest growing economy in the US.
            5th highest per capita income in the US.
            4th longest life expectancy in the US.

            LOL @ “disaster”

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            A worker’s paradise where million dollar single family homes are the norm and wage to real estate ratios are 45% to 75% outside of Sacramento.

            https://www.realestateconsulting.com/californias-housing-costs-to-income-ratios/

            Right from the state gov’t circa 2015:

            “California’s Home Prices and Rents Higher Than Just About Anywhere Else. Housing in California has long been more expensive than most of the rest of the country. Beginning in about 1970, however, the gap between California’s home prices and those in the rest country started to widen. Between 1970 and 1980, California home prices went from 30 percent above U.S. levels to more than 80 percent higher. This trend has continued. Today, an average California home costs $440,000, about two–and–a–half times the average national home price ($180,000). Also, California’s average monthly rent is about $1,240, 50 percent higher than the rest of the country ($840 per month).”

            http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            1 in 8 Americans live in California. If this were such an awful place, people would be leaving, not coming here.
            Those who think Californians are rainbow wavers eating granola and tofu are only deluding themselves. That’s like saying Texans are cowboys, Alaskans live in igloos and Utah is nothing but Mormons (although it might be, I’m not sure about that one)*.
            Next winter, while you’re digging your car out of the snow, I’ll be changing my windshield wiper blades.

            *62% and climbing slowly

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            California’s economy looks a lot like Colorado’s when you boil it down – LOTS of rich folks, and more of them every day.

            And more and more folks who can’t afford to live there anymore.

            Same problem exists in every state with a strong economy – even Texas is becoming FAR more expensive. Check the median house prices in every large Texas city on Zillow.

            This is all tied in with income disparity – the rich are doing better, but no one else is.

            Prediction: the midwest makes a comeback. I’m giving serious consideration to moving to someplace like Kansas City or Indianapolis in anticipation of retirement. Buying a house here in Denver has become ridiculously expensive, and I don’t want to be old and house-poor.

        • 0 avatar
          thornmark

          Under Brown CA now has the highest poverty rate in the nation and its pension system will collapse because tax increases cannot keep up w/ what Brown and other bad governors have promised state workers in exchange for campaign cash and votes.

          The high speed rail is a total fraud and in full violation of what Brown promised the voters in the initiative. After he leaves office it will be killed as a public service. Fully 70% of CA citizens oppose sanctuary cities so Brown and the crazies are making it a sanctuary state.

          • 0 avatar
            volvo driver

            California is ranked 35th in poverty rate at 16.4%.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

            Californians support sanctuary cities by a slim majority. At best you could say the population is split on the issue.

            http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article141349433.html

            Try again son.

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            Wrong as is your way
            California Is America’s Poverty State
            http://www.laweekly.com/news/california-is-americas-poverty-state-7380756

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            wrong again
            California opposes sanctuary cities, Berkeley poll suggests

            https://calcoastnews.com/2017/03/california-opposes-sanctuary-cities-berkeley-poll-suggests/

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Volvo driver, Wiki is a nice source of info but it’s not updated frequently.

            Poverty rate in CA is just over 20%. One of the MANY reasons for this is the high cost of housing.

            http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            No, California does NOT have the highest poverty rate in the country. That “honor” belongs to Mississippi, and the rest of the Confederacy isn’t far behind.

            California’s poverty problem is more related to its’ high cost of living.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            “California’s poverty problem is more related to its’ high cost of living.”

            To an extent, yes. CA’s business climate is very unfriendly to businesses expanding or growing. What corporate headquarters have relocated to CA in the last 5 years? Compare that to the number that have left the state or made their footprint smaller. Remember Toyota and Nissan leaving?

            Service jobs are booming in CA. Those aren’t good paying, middle class, ‘support my family’ jobs.

            Yes, people are still moving here… and earning less doing it.

        • 0 avatar
          Flipper35

          Tell that to my mother -in-law who received an IOU for her tax return a few years ago.

      • 0 avatar
        volvo

        A business consultant was once asked something similar.

        When asked why there was such an incredibly oppressive regulatory environment in California, he answered. “Why are the pretty girls generally the meanest? Because they can be.”

        • 0 avatar
          RHD

          California does have the most poverty households, because there are so many people here. By that measure, Wyoming has the lowest of lots of bad things, because almost no one lives there.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/13/550674476/san-diego-washing-streets-with-bleach-to-combat-hepatitis-a-outbreak

          Hepatitis A outbreak due to rampant homeless population defecating in the streets sounds really pretty.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Speaking of pollution…

            http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/01/500086140/-151-million-settlement-deal-reached-over-west-virginia-water-poisoning

            And that’s the tip of the iceberg there. Coal mining has basically rendered a lot of that state’s drinking water useless.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Water management is a real California strength.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          And that’s what it boils down to. Cali institutions can get away with treating people as livestock, since the alternatives of freezing to death in Montana, burning to death in Arizona or drowning in Florida just doesn’t seem all that appealing, even to cattle. Nor sheep.

        • 0 avatar
          thornmark

          Leadership

          STD rates hit another record high, with California near the top
          http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-std-rates-20170926-story.html

  • avatar
    ash78

    “The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California.”

    Because one of them is a heavyhanded communist dictatorship and the other one has over a billion people?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Ha! Well played.

      • 0 avatar
        CobraJet

        The Governor wishes he was a Communist dictator. That’s the way to get things done.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Wishes?

          • 0 avatar
            carguy67

            The California envy is strong in this one.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Me? Much prefer Las Vegas.

            Regarding Cali, I’ve actually been there many years back. Everyone was friendly, the scenery on the way to Sacramento and ultimately Lake Tahoe was breathtaking, great junkyards, lots of older cars I liked still on the road, and aside from the then slightly elevated costs I enjoyed the trip. Aside from maybe seeing Lake Tahoe/El Dorado county region again one day I have no plans to return unless the state de-stupifies itself, but of what I experienced personally then I can only speak well. I truly wish the best, because at the current rate I only see bloodshed in the future.

          • 0 avatar

            I lived in Vegas a couple of years ago, I still consider it home.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @koreancowboy

            I’m starting to feel that way as well. Briefly considered a move, but wages at the time were not much higher than back home (plus a cross country move was not very appealing). Since 2015 my understanding is LV real estate like most of the West is in a large bubble. How many of those new owners are fleeing California I can’t say.

  • avatar
    Waterview

    The discussion about the “ends” (i.e. “let’s have electric cars”) is relatively easy. The difficulty lies in the myriad if interim issues and unintended consequences. Natural gas requires drilling (not popular in California). When “everyone” decides to go electric, what happens when the price of natural gas triples? A diversified energy portfolio seems to be the best answer (but politicians probably aren’t concerned about that . . . . .).

    • 0 avatar
      ash78

      Absolutely true, diversification will be the answer for the medium term, if not forever. We were able to get away with ICE adoption because gasoline has stayed relatively cheap forever. Now we have environmentalism (not market forces) pushing us toward other energy sources, which is great — but as you say, if we wish for mass adoption of any one of those choices, it could disrupt that market in a way that makes the whole thing a lot less economical. I don’t see what’s wrong with striving for a particular mix of energy rather than “all or nothing.” That just sounds like setting yourself up for unattainable goals.

    • 0 avatar
      fazalmajid

      California’s natural gas power plants run at very low utilization, around 5 to 20%. The only reason more are still built is that their construction allows utilities to jack up their rates permanently, whether they are used or not. The money would be much better spent on energy storage projects instead, but you know what? Battery-electric vehicles charging on solar power in the daytime are an excellent form of energy storage.

  • avatar
    1500cc

    “There are people who believe, including [some] who work for me, that you could stop all sales of *new* internal-combustion cars by 2030”

    I predict a booming business in slightly used gasoline cars.

  • avatar
    deanst

    Once more people have rooftop solar, the utilities will be begging the state to enforce an ICE ban – what else are they going to do with their otherwise idle generation facilities?

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Clearly this is nonsense.

    But if the governor of Texas says secession was “possible” for the state (and the state GOP, incredibly enough, actually put the idea to a vote), I suppose Jerry Brown can whatever nonsense he wants as well.

  • avatar
    E85

    Two points about this.

    First, it’s the FUEL that’s the problem, not the ENGINES. If you run ic engines on clean fuel, they don’t pollute. Biofuels are carbon-neutral. Both spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines can be run on bio-ethanol, as is already done in Brazil. Just increase the availability of E-85, E-95, E-100, particularly in cities, and most of the problem would be solved.
    Furthermore, the existing engines are extremely inefficient and wasteful of fuel. There are designs for engines, such the Bourke engine, that have twice the specific power and half the specific fuel consumption of the best Formula One engines, which are currently the most efficient IC engines. Reduce fuel consumption and you reduce pollution.
    The second point is that nobody is talking about jet aircraft. There are no catalytic converters on jet engines. Kerosene is a filthy dirty fuel that is polluting the upper atmosphere of the entire planet. Air travel is doubling every twenty years. It’s an unmitigated disaster. There will not be electric longhaul aircraft. Airfares are much too cheap. There should be a 100 dollar environmental tax on every ticket.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      Would you care to post something factual, or just continue to post something completely made up, and with no basis on reality.

      Your bio fuels are not cleaner. You use more fuel, and the actual levels of NOx and CO are higher per a particular amount of work produced. It’s just that the percentage in the exhaust is lower. Your carbon neutrality also has some large holes in it. In the US where the ethanol comes from corn production, production is very energy intensive, and actually burns more carbon then petroleum. In Brazil with sugarcane, it is carbon neutral until you realize that that sugarcane plantation used to be rainforest and that rainforest had a larger affect on clean air than your ethanol production.

      Kerosene in itself is already a very clean burning fuel. That’s why it is used in heaters, and used to be used in lamps. Burning it at the pressures used in modern jet engines produces very little emissions, and very high amount of heat is retained to perform work instead of waste. Then, they have that very efficient jet core power a very large fan. The bypass ratio now exceeds 12:1
      Most of the thrust is created by air that doesn’t even go through the hot section. Of course you see some contrails and think that’s pollution.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Excepting the fact automobiles are not powered by turbo fans or pulse jets, if kerosene is so clean why is it not used in standard ICEs?

        • 0 avatar
          chuckrs

          Kerosene octane rating is about 20. To say you’d need a substantial rework of ICEs is an understatement. Standard on the ground uses are external combustion.

        • 0 avatar
          BigOldChryslers

          > if kerosene is so clean why is it not used in standard ICEs?

          You can run it in a diesel engine. In cold climates, some kerosene is mixed-in for “winter blend” diesel.

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            GO to farm tractor museum and you’ll be able to see dual fuel tractors – kerosene/diesel and low octane gas (I don’t know how low pre-WWII gas was but I’m pretty sure your modern car would spit up on the stuff).

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @BOC

            Thanks for the reply, I was aware.

            @chuckrs

            Thanks, I think we have one in the region I’ll have to check it out. I wasn’t aware you could run low octane gas in a diesel. I know the 7.3 Powerstroke could tolerate kerosene to some degree as I knew a mechanic with a 2000 who mixed with diesel but not gasoline.

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            28-Cars-Later

            I wouldn’t want to try to run any gas in a modern diesel engine – don’t know what mix would be acceptable. The old tractors were pretty low compression and at the time the octane ratings of gas and diesel were closer.
            I knew someone who ran No 2 heating oil in an old Mercedes diesel and added a little gas to overcome the paraffin and wax in the heating oil. The various gubmints take a very dim view of this. But really, for cars, it would be like counterfeiting nickels and dimes – who cares? Doing it in a OTR truck, another story.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        Thank you, MBella

        Beat me to it and did so more succinctly. E85 should be ticketed for intent to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics – carbon-neutral indeed.

      • 0 avatar
        Flipper35

        While E85 may lower CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions it is not a “clean” fuel as it still has emissions that are considered carcinogenic. It just trades one for another.

        Air travel can (and does in places) use those same biofuels in place of Jet A, which is a highly refined fuel, because a turbine really isn’t picky about what it burns. You could run one on peanut oil or diesel if you needed to.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I do realize it would be very bad for the whole world, but is it wrong for me to root for a Nork ICBM which has just enough range for the Pacific coastline?

    ““The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California.””

    Because while the People’s Republic of China is a nation, the People’s Republic of Kalifornia is not. Seriously thou, Fedgov -no matter who in charge- needs to reign this sh*t in before the state becomes akin to Taiwan.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      The reason China can do it is the same reason they get anything done. They get it done at the expense of their people, and their quality of life. Much easier to prevent the proles from having cars in the first place, than taking them away.

      If Americans ever had to live like the average Chinese person, people wouldn’t look at that country with any kind of admiration.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        One might argue everything a government does it at the expense of it’s people. I agree wholeheartedly with your second point.

        “If Americans ever had to live like the average Chinese person, people wouldn’t look at that country with any kind of admiration.”

        Healthy? Hardworking? Family oriented? Morals? Have a future?

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I completely agree with your first paragraph, but by improving air pollution you impact business, which impacts the workers and owners (thus the people).

          I think in a scenario where the PLA/PLAN seizes oil in country is a worldwide 1962 moment. The economy will be the least of their problems.

          “World powers like Russia and China see a vacuum forming”

          This has been going on since at least 2005 and some may argue started in 2001 where many events took place (dot come bubble burst, 9/11, stupid Afghan invasion and subsequent occupation to control opium/heroin trade etc). The trillion dollar Iraq adventure was really crossing the Rubicon, IMO. Autopilot since then.

          “China wants to step into that void and showing interest in global warming and domestic pollution plays well in some international circles.”

          So the way they care about human rights? I doubt anyone will take them seriously. Most likely a move to gain assent to something else they want.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          I was thinking crowded cities, flimsy overpriced homes that were never completed, concrete floors, no windows, no cars, non-functioning internet, shoddy counterfeit goods or extremely overpriced legitimate goods, poor access to health care, poor career opportunities for women, pollution so think you can’t see across the street even in the country, uncertain food sources/quality.

          These are just my experiences, as I travel to China a few times a year. For all the talk of the rise of China’s middle class, that’s only applicable to a small portion of the country’s population along the coast. You don’t have to go far outside the cities to see real poverty. There are still 800+million people living like that. So when I say China prospers at the expense of its people, those are the people I’m talking about.

          They’ve definitely got us on the family bit. They do stand up for each other… and only each other. As for morals, those stand up well, as long as you’re related by blood or marriage. On the other hand, if someone bumps a pedestrian with their car, expect them to back up and hit you again, because that’s cheaper than paying hospital bills.

          They will have a future. I’m sure the Chinese will be the first ones to send a colony ship offworld. It will suck for the ones going, and the ones staying behind, but it’s still a future. Meanwhile, we’ll be debating social justice until the sun goes supernova.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “They get it done at the expense of their people, and their quality of life.”

        That isn’t necessarily true in this case.

        The expanding middle class in China is as large as the population of the USA. The Chinese *cough* *hack* government knows that if it wants to continue to stay in power it needs to keep that middle class fat and happy. Air quality is an issue in that country.

        Another point that tends not to be discussed is dependence on foreign oil. China is extremely dependent upon foreign oil. The military is a massive consumer of oil. It would have to divert limited oil supplies from civilian use to its military during a conflict with another country. That diversion might keep the military going but shut down the economy.

        World powers like Russia and China see a vacuum forming with the USA drifting about international waters with a Commander-in-chief more concerned with crowd size, kneeling football players, “Very Fine People on Both Sides” et al than maintaining its global position.

        China wants to step into that void and showing interest in global warming and domestic pollution plays well in some international circles.

        “If Americans ever had to live like the average Chinese person, people wouldn’t look at that country with any kind of admiration.”

        The USA needs a healthy dose of introspection before looking at how the residents of other countries live.

      • 0 avatar
        fazalmajid

        When you see the levels of pollution in Chinese cities, the surprising thing is that ICEs aren’t banned altogether outside rural areas. Getting rid of ICEs is a critical public health concern and not in the slightest way at the expense of the public.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Firstly, unless you are a citizen of, or located in, the PRC you are not in a position to judge what is a public health concern to them. Secondly, removing the ICE as a form of transportation does come at a cost to the public since many of them cannot afford a more expensive form of transportation or increases in public transit. Thirdly, diesel accounts for 30% of PRC petroleum consumption. Thirty. Let that sink in for a moment. Simply converting diesel to gasoline usage by a few points would go leaps and bounds in air quality.

          “Diesel, which accounts for about 30 percent of China’s appetite for petroleum, is largely used in the country to fuel trucks, along with mining and construction equipment.”

          cnbc.com/2017/07/28/reuters-america-china-diesel-demand-expected-to-return-to-growth-as-economy-improves.html

          • 0 avatar
            TMA1

            When I was in Beijing earlier this month, I asked my interpreter what the feeling was about the air pollution. She said they’re all very angry about it. It is a concern among the public, but the public has very little influence on the government. And they’re used to it.

            I like to tell this story about how we were at a business lunch in Shanghai on the day of the US presidential election last November. It was about noon, so midnight in the US, and it was clear Trump had one as soon as Florida went red. There was a lot of groaning and gnashing of teeth among the Americans at the table, and the Chinese just looked at us funny and said,

            “It’s funny that you care so much about this election. Our leaders just pick themselves, so we don’t have to worry about it!”

            Another group of Chinese made essentially the same comment the next day.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy67

      I presume you’re in a red state; you will miss the world’s sixth largest economy, which more than likely subsidizes your red state failure (Kansas, anybody?).

      And, the “let’s hope North Korea nukes California” trope is not nearly as clever as you think it is, and has long since passed its use-by date.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        No, we won’t. This whole thing is on the precipice and I dare to think what will actually happen when it comes down.

        There will be no positive change until the technostructure is destroyed, which I don’t think will happen outside of N.B.C. weapons or possibly the supposed “big one”.

      • 0 avatar
        SunnyvaleCA

        >>> I presume you’re in a red state; you will miss the world’s sixth largest economy, which more than likely subsidizes your red state failure (Kansas, anybody?).
        <<<

        That California is a "donor" state with regard to federal taxes is mostly due to high-earner people fleeing the state when they retire. I pay social security and medicare taxes while in California (increasing federal taxes paid by Californians) and then receive these "entitlements" when I retire and flee to a different state (counting against that other state's federal taxes paid). If you count only federal income tax and not "entitlement" taxes that I'll theoretically get back, you'll see that California actually receives more than it pays.

        I wouldn't pick on Kansas. California is already a failure in many ways. High homelessness rate, mostly poor k-12 public school, cost of living in the desert is somewhat high, cost of living in a desirable area is extreme. Hey, did you hear about the recent hepatitis C outbreak in San Diego that has already killed 16 people? How about the 2015 measles outbreak at Disney Land? Or the summer 2017 norovirus affecting several thousand. SARS, avian influenza, mumps, whooping cough, we have it all!

        At some point, California's socialists will run out of other people's money. Stunts like banning IC will only hasten the inevitability. When that happens, many things that are currently (barely) supported through the state and local governments will collapse. I just hope I'll have sold my $1100-per-square-foot SHACK and fled the state by that time.

        OK, rant over!

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “Hey, did you hear about the recent hepatitis C outbreak in San Diego that has already killed 16 people? How about the 2015 measles outbreak at Disney Land? Or the summer 2017 norovirus affecting several thousand. SARS, avian influenza, mumps, whooping cough, we have it all!”

          It is safe to assume that you did not major in epidemiology in college!

          Try the CDC’s web site. Viruses and bacteria aren’t politically motivated.

        • 0 avatar
          carguy67

          Never said California doesn’t have problems; name a state that doesn’t have a single one (how’s the ‘Texas Miracle,’ fueled by high oil prices and rampant, unregulated development going?). California, by size and population is really as many as 6 ‘mini-states,’ with differing populations, economies, strengths and weaknesses and politics; it’s frankly a wonder that we have existed as a single state for so long, but underneath it all we’re all still ‘Californians’ (I’ve noticed how many CA expats retain an intense interest in the goings-on here, long after they’ve bailed out). California has always been on the cutting edge; many of the issues we face now will trickle down to other states eventually.

          Yes, we have lots homeless, in part because of our generally temperate climate and, in part, because of a moderate-liberal populace that is more tolerant than it (sometimes) should be. And, you make my case with ‘cost of living in a desirable area is extreme,’ that’s the good ol’ capitalist law of supply and demand. But, the fact that so many in other states spend so much time and energy dissing on CA just tells me life ain’t all that perfect where they live.

          Name another state where you can surf in the Pacific, water ski in a Central Valley reservoir, and snow ski in the magnificent Sierra Nevada, all in the same day, if you try? And, if you come to the SF Bay Area, I’ll tip you off to some fantastic driving roads, including to the top of the newly-opened Mt. Umunhum park/reserve.

        • 0 avatar
          Flipper35

          We left long before retirement. Better environment for the kids and us in many, many ways.

          Some like it out there and more power to them but it was not a good long term solution for us.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “Seriously thou, Fedgov -no matter who in charge- needs to reign this sh*t in before the state becomes akin to Taiwan.”

      Well, if they didn’t rein in Rick Perry when he entertained the idea of Texas going all Fort Sumter and seceding, or the state’s Republican party for actually holding a vote on the question…

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        He wasn’t serious, nor could a Republic of Texas survive long given geography alone assuming a functioning US central gov’t (most of their ports go through US sea lanes and Mexico can only offer so much to trade).

        California has a more favorable geography for secession (ports directly on the Pacific), a more malleable, foreign, and brainwashed populace, a better climate, a large desert for most of it’s new US border, and would receive backing from international powers looking for a foothold in North America. Unless there is some 007 endorsed double secret probation plan to allow them out, they will never be allowed to secede as long as their is a functioning central government. Even lacking that (i.e. decapitation strike and shadow gov’t takes over), there are too many strategic and military assets in the state. They will level the state first before giving it up, may even go N.B.C..

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          The point being…whether it’s secession talk in Texas or talk of banning gas powered vehicles in California, there’s no shortage of stupid hot air coming from either state.

          Maybe THAT’S behind global warming…

  • avatar
    jkross22

    The only issue I see is that California is not able to print it’s own money. Short of that, this idea is swell.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    I’m not sure banning internal combustion cars is enough to save the planet, since EVs still use fossil fuel generated electricity. Why not ban all cars just to be safe? Californians won’t need cars anyway when they have Jerry Brown’s bullet trains to take them everywhere they could possibly want to go. But why stop there? A/C is wasteful – ban it. Jets are very dirty – ban them. Pets and livestock generate a lot of methane – ban them. So many possibilities to ban economic activity and associated greenhouse gases, and yet there are so few regulators – going to need to hire a bunch more and they are going to need a nice pension – so taxes are going to need to go up – but taxes and a few daily sacrifices are definitely worth it when they help to save the planet.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “since EVs still use fossil fuel generated electricity. Why not ban all cars just to be safe?”

      Because electricity used to power the EVs will not be generated in the state’s borders and will not impact their local environment. PRK == Elysium.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      The answer to this is literally in the electric car FAQ.

      Yes, us EV hippies know where electricity comes from. Yes, we care about that too. Yes, the numbers show that using electricity is cleaner and more efficient and less carbon intensive than burning gasoline directly in the car. It’s not better by as much as some people wish it were, but it’s still better.

      Electric cars are also agnostic about what fuels them. It can be nuclear one day, natural gas the next day, coal another, and solar another (though it’s really a mix of all of the above). You can’t change fuels on most regular cars. This fuel agnosticism takes too big hoary society-wide energy problems (oil dependency and clean carbon-nautral electric generation) and replaces it with one big hoary society-wide energy problem (clean electric generation). That’s a win.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        You may care, but your leaders do not. Call it pragmatism, but they will ensure the electricity flows in any way necessary lest they face the citizens’ wrath.

        I’m surprised you brought up nuclear, personally I am quite anti-nuke post Fukushima. Solar might work in a decentralized grid assist or grid tied model, maybe, but the farm model just does not produce enough electricity. Scaled wind power is limited by patterns in the region. Nat gas is the current king but cheap abundance is dependent on fracking, so oil demand and cheap nat gas are in a symbiotic circle. Coal as we know is cheap but dirty.

        From a national security standpoint, energy diversity is good, but to my earlier point apart from perhaps solar and nat gas, much of this power will come from other states. That’s the plan, export the pollution as was done with China.

        The state’s own documents explain by 2026 there will be no coal fired electricity, and in 2015, 97% of the 6% of electricity usage generated by coal came from other states. San Onofre is shuttered and Diablo Canyon could close by 2025 when its NRC operating permits expire. The grand scheme seems to be dependent on importing power and solar per NYT. Assuming the tap to import electricity is not interrupted this plan could work out well.

        “About 97 percent of the energy was generated by power plants outside California. Coal-fired generation is expected to serve about 3 percent of California’s electricity consumption by 2024, and this generation is expected to decline to zero by 2026.”

        http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables
        /tracking_progress/documents
        /current_expected_energy_from_coal.pdf

        nytimes.com/2016/06/22/business
        /californias-diablo-canyon-nuclear-power-plant.html

  • avatar
    whitworth

    They’ll talk a big game, make sure every politician gets to properly virtue signal, then fold when the deadline approaches.

    I remember like 25 years ago California had a law that 1% of new cars had to be electric, and they went back on that when the deadline hit.

    • 0 avatar
      chuckrs

      I want my EV-1, structural and aero design inputs from Burt Rutan. I’ve never heard how those things got by crash safety tests. OTOH, couldn’t be worse than the average motorcycle…..

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Don’t fall for the “banana in the tailpipe”…

      That’s the joke right there. Once a CA “deadline” is set in stone, they can always kill it *last minute*, then admit, “We were only just kidding. You didn’t fall for it did ya???”

      That’s exactly what CA (Mary Nichols) did when they set the deadline to ban existing, older “pre-emissions” diesels in commercial trucks (14,000+ lbs). When it came down to it, “Just kidding!”.

      In the meantime 10’s of thousands of diesel fleet owners complied before the “deadline”, many spending millions needlessly, some going deep into debt, while others simply folded.

      The Joke is CA got most of what it wanted just by bullying industry into submission.

      Now imagine millions upgrading their homes to charging stations to beat the “last minute” rush and or buying new EV cars before “price gouging”. Then…

  • avatar
    George B

    California has their own state excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel and they have state registration fees. They could make using an internal combustion engine much more expensive, but that would make large numbers of voters very angry. It’s politically easier for the state of California to impose higher costs on the small minority of voters who buy a new car each year. Announcing future goals today is even easier because the virtue signalling occurs now and the bill doesn’t come due until after the politician retires.

  • avatar
    carguy67

    Fourth-generation, lifetime Californian here. This will never come to pass, at least not in my lifetime (I’m 64). Governor Brown expended most of his political capital to get High Speed Rail, and will be termed-out in 2018. Whoever his successor is–Democrat (likely) or Republican (if the party can find someone who isn’t batshit crazy)–will not be in a position to push such a controversial and divisive proposition, for at least many years and elections (Brown is a second-gen governor and has been in CA politics his entire life). Brown just lost a fight for his other favorite wet dream: a couple tunnels to steal water from northern CA to fill the swimming pools and gutters of southern CA.

    California is the original home of American Car Culture; it’s one thing to subsidize a potential ‘disruptor’ (Tesla), it’s entirely another to tell people what they can and cannot drive, and I don’t believe CARB has the authority.

  • avatar
    13kRPM

    Timelines like this are made to be broken. I think all of the cities and nations dictating a total switch to electrification by a specified date will see all such plans go up in smoke when they realize that global mining and battery manufacturing capabilities can not meet the that kind of demand even with their anticipated expansion. Even if you outlaw ICE vehicles and even if consumers were willing to buy them at somewhat inflated prices, there is no way battery supply is going to come close to the kind of numbers necessary to support the fleet if vehicle demand in China and California stay close to today’s levels.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    “…we in California are going to take care of business…”

    He’ll take care of business all right–by driving more of them out of the state.

    You could put everything Governor Moonbeam know about business in a thimble, and lose it.
    .
    .

    • 0 avatar
      CobraJet

      My company conducts business in many locations in California with the exception of the large cities like LA and San Fransisco. The people in rural areas, such as the Central Valley are about as conservative as many other places across the nation. However in every area there are layers of bureaucracy from city county and state governments. It is costly to do business there.

  • avatar
    Speed3

    California also has an interest in seeing Tesla, which is based there succeed. In Tesla’s best case scenario, that is a lot of jobs that will be created in CA.

    If electrification is going to happen anyway (thanks China!), then why should California sit out on the bounty?

  • avatar
    chuckrs

    States are allegedly the laboratories of democracy. If one state can get something to work, maybe others will join a specific initiative. If you don’t like the initiative while its underway, your choices are to fight back politically or move. Given the longevity of cars, CA making it illegal to sell an ICE car in 2030 probably means you’ll see ICE cars there until 2040-2050.

    If you had told me 23 years ago I could have a roomy hybrid that would get 50mpg, I’d smile and nod to be polite. Yet, Camry. If you said the same thing another 20 years back, in the Malaise Era, I’d file it along with the 100mpg carburetor.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Looks like British Columbia needs to start building more hydroelectric sites.

  • avatar
    zip89123

    Go for it. I’m eager to see another Democrat fail.

  • avatar
    carlisimo

    The way the economy is here, and therefore housing, EVs are only going to work when we figure out a way to make them practical for apartment-dwellers.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @carlisimo: Yeah, I think you’re right. Technology and the infrastructure is progressing fast enough that they’re fine for those of us that own homes with driveways. For those that have to park on the street or live in apartments or condos, lack of overnight charging is still an issue. I think 400 kW charging and initiatives by Shell and BP to begin installing chargers at gas stations may be a solution. It’s going to take time for that to happen though and it’s not perfect.

      • 0 avatar
        volvo

        For the majority of city dwellers individually owned cars (gas or electric) is not what the endgame will be. Plan on buses or bicycles. A taxi if it is a splurge.

        Shanghai could serve as a template of how to make this happen. You need a Shanghai license to drive inside the outer ring road. Number of licenses are severely limited and awarded by competitive auction. Recent winning bids in Shanghai approximately $13,000 USD. Only about 4% of bids succeed. Temporary licenses are available at $1000 USD for 30 days renewable 3 times.

        I would imagine that at some point California could institute a similar system for ICE vehicles and issue temporary licenses to out of state visitors. Enforcement could be by transponder/camera system similar to what is now being installed on many HOV lanes and toll bridges in California.

        • 0 avatar
          cleek

          re: Shanghai – what impresses me most was less than 30 years ago, horse-drawn carts were not an unusual sight.

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          If people really want to copy China, expect to see electric scooters everywhere. That’s how the proles get by. Lucky for us, they’re not very expensive. About $400 US over there.

          As for Shanghai’s licensing system, there’s not a single American city that comes close to it in terms of population or density. There’s no reason, or political will, to limit licenses.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Vegas real estate should be a lot more stable going forward. The Bubble was primarily caused by over-speculation by people who didn’t live there – ditto for every other city that saw a massive bubble burst. And my industry did a splendid job of financing the idiot speculators.

    (Miami was just as bad, for my money.)

  • avatar
    cleek

    Heavy handed industrial policy, especially when politically motivated, is seldom a good thing.

    Speaking of California, their one-sided electrical “deregulation” was a nightmare. I was sitting in a silicon valley conference room during one (of the many) brown outs. The generally mild mannered CEO got Gov Davis on the phone in nearly an instant and went ballistic on him. That “industrial policy” ended up getting lots’a new small, expensive, “dirty” plants built.

    Another data point was broadband access in Germany. Deutsche Telekom (regulated monopoly) built out ISDN broadband access in the 1990s that had an amort of OVER 15 YEARS. So while the rest of the world was using multimegabit DSL, cable modems or ethernet, our German brethren were stuck with 128Kbit of copper twisted pair goodness. I have colleagues there who make a good case that it set back Germany’s startup level innovation by well over a decade.

    So Kalifornia, dream big, but don’t let the politicos and their ilk decide what you proles *really need*, Tamping down innovation through regulation in the name of (insert sloganeering here) will end up biting you in the butt.

  • avatar
    carguy67

    (Almost) Right on cue:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/climate/california-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Arthur Dailey: Isn’t it true that America can launch astronauts into space again thanks to the efforts of that...
  • Featherston: “that kid on YouTube” [Raising hand because I’ve watched those videos too;...
  • Corey Lewis: I think this effort should be praised! Even though I’m not sure this sort of expensive midsize and...
  • Corey Lewis: Agree on negative outlook of the current TLX. While made decently well, it didn’t excel in any one...
  • Corey Lewis: With their current ghastly shifter arrangement, they’d have to redo the entire center console for...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber