By on January 29, 2018

electric car charging smart car

If California’s Jerry Brown is known for anything, it’s for continuing his familial legacy of governing the region for a weirdly long period of time and pressing for the proliferation of electric vehicles. While not all of the state’s EV initiatives have gone without a hitch (the LAPD’s unused fleet of battery powered BMWs springs to mind), Brown remains essential in keeping his neck of the woods on the forefront of alternative energy adoption.

Currently, California plans to place five million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030. The state previously set a target of 1.5 million ZEVs by 2025. That’s a massive increase, especially considering California only has about 350,000 examples currently plying its roads. Don’t worry, Brown has a plan to stimulate sales: $200 million worth of subsidies per year for the next eight years. 

The remaining money in the state’s $2.5 billion plan would go toward bolstering California’s EV infrastructure. Brown wants to see 250,000 electric vehicle charging stations and 200 hydrogen fueling stations as soon as possible. That equates to about 18 times as many EV ports and six times as many hydrogen pumps than the state currently has.

Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board and perpetually ally for the cause, told The Detroit News that reaching the goal will mean 40 percent of vehicles sold in 2030 must be “clean.”

“We think that’s a very reasonable proposal,” Nichols said. “It’s not a stretch.”

California has already made strides in improving its air quality. Pursuing alternative energies helped the state substitute dirtier power plants with wind, solar and hydroelectricity. However, fixing vehicle-based emissions has been an uphill battle. In fact, it’s worse now than it has ever been, and California still wants to drop greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. That’s not going to happen if people keep buying internal combustion SUVs and the trucking industry keeps on truckin’ with diesel.

Thus far, consumers in California have been among the most likely to consider vehicles with alternative fuel sources. But they still aren’t chomping at the bit. Brown says that’s okay, as he feels shoppers will begin favoring EVs as they become more prevalent on roadways and people become better informed on how they work.

Still, he’ll need to convince more than just consumers — the $2.5 billion in spending needs legislative approval if it’s to become a reality. Brown suggests the state use money from an array of existing programs at the California Energy Commission, plus cap-and-trade programs, which limit pollution levels and auctions off permits to exceed them.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

90 Comments on “Green for Green: California Governor Outlines $2.5 Billion Electric Vehicle Push...”


  • avatar
    gasser

    I have lived in Los Angeles since 1970 and the air is VASTLY cleaner that it was then. Smog has worsened in some areas that have gone from rural to urban in those 48 years, but without smog controls, it would be worse.
    As to further subsidy of electrics, I think that spending that $$ to pull old, high polluting cars and ancient diesel trucks off the road would be much more effective. We should begin a new inspection program for older vehicles, yearly not semiannually. If you don’t pass your car is not able to be registered. Perhaps a grace period, but no exemptions for the cost of repairs (as is in place now).

    • 0 avatar
      Jeremiah Mckenna

      So you want to have a vehicle inspected once a year instead of twice a year? I’m not in California, but if I have to take my car in two times a year, that seems a little too much. I did not know that California makes their residents take their cars in for inspection two times a year. How burdensome, and I’m sure the owner has to pay for their car to be inspected, so costly too.
      No wonder so many people are moving out of California.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        Virginia has had semi-annual safety inspections for at least 55 years, long before emissions were a concern. That doesn’t seem to have cramped the state’s growth.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeremiah Mckenna

          So if I live in Virginia, I have to take my vehicle in for inspection TWO times a year? That is over kill. But Virginia’s growth is due more to the uptick in high paying Government jobs, unlike California.

          • 0 avatar
            cdotson

            No, Virginia went to annual safety inspections ages ago. Before that it was twice a year. It’s still a racket, paid-for regulation by the auto dealer/repair shop lobby forcing people into their doors so they can “find” work that needs done.

            Georgia went from annual to twice annual to complete abandonment of safety inspections. I’d like to see all other places follow suit.

      • 0 avatar
        dartman

        He meant to say biennially –CA requires emissions testing in some areas (not all) every two years depending on the age of the vehicles- generally older than 6 years for the original owner.

        https://smogcheck.ca.gov/pdf/Smog_Check_Requirements_by_Vehicle_Type.pdf

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        Aaaand that is a typo. There is no smog check on cars in California for the first 6 yrs, and then it’s every 2 yrs.

      • 0 avatar
        stevelovescars

        I believe it was a typo. It is currently every two years for smog checks.

        Yup, and people are fleeing California in droves. That explains the sharp fall in housing prices in the past decade. (Sarcasm)

      • 0 avatar
        Blackcloud_9

        What he meant to say was “yearly not bi-annually” (every 2 years) as it is today. Additionally, you don’t need to get your new cars “smogged” until they are 4 to 5 years old. That because today’s new cars are so clean that the emissions equipment used to check the cars can’t detect anything until there has been four to five years of emissions build-up in the exhaust system.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      Your suggestion makes a lot of sense, but think of the poor “undocumented” immigrants and other poverty stricken Californians that can’t afford a newer car or the cost of annual inspections and associated repairs. Plus the terrible Trump administration might station border control agents outside of emission testing stations and arrest all those dirty undocumented, and then who would do Jerry Brown’s yard work? So to make sure those terrible things don’t happen, the law would need to exempt all undocumented immigrants and/or welfare recipients from the inspections and any fines or penalties associated with emission non-compliant vehicles. But don’t worry, any lost revenues can easily be made up by doubling inspection costs and emission fines and/or confiscating and reselling the dirty vehicles of the middle-class.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeremiah Mckenna

        Stingray, don’t go giving them any ideas. They are already trying to pass a law that says all of the increased revenues they reap from the new lower tax Bill will be confiscated by the State of California.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeremiah Mckenna

        Stingray, don’t go giving them any ideas. They are already trying to pass a law that says all of the increased revenues they reap from the new lower tax Bill will be confiscated by the State of California. But look at the good side of it, when that happens and all of the businesses and people move out of Cali, then the smog level will go down.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeremiah Mckenna

      How do you expect the people that have these older vehicles pay for a new $40k vehicle? You do realize that Cali has the highest amount of poverty out of all of the States. A lot of those older cars are owned by people that are barely scraping by.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        Jeremiah, that’s a false choice. First, cars that pass emissions tests don’t have to cost $40k. There are many used cars in the low thousands that can pass an emissions test. Many others that can be made to pass with repairs much less expensive than a new car. Second, there’s no good reason California can’t test vehicles for emissions compliance in the Ozone non-compliance counties of the Los Angeles basin without imposing those same testing costs on rural areas without a local air pollution problem. Third, if you can’t afford a car that passes California emissions requirements, there are other transportation options while you try to scrape together money for a compliant used car.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeremiah Mckenna

          George B., I was referring to th $40k BEV’s that must be purchased in order to take advantage of the money that the Governor wants to waste, I mean spend on electric infrastructure. When the manufacturers should be doing that on their own.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    – Drop the hydrogen. It’s not working out.

    – If the goal is really to reduce carbon emissions, take some of the money allocated to EVs to bribe California cities to allow more development immediately. There’s nearly limitless demand to live in California’s densest places, but pervasive NIMBY attitudes have meant there’s no housing supply and ridiculously high prices. Getting way more people into those cities rather than new exurb sprawl would eliminate many driving trips entirely and make many others much shorter.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeremiah Mckenna

      Where do you expect these houses to be built?

      Also, California needs a better mass transit system, and they need to promote it a lot better.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        I expect four- to eight-story frame buildings to be built on lots near existing transit that currently have single-family houses. If the zoning allowed that, those houses would rise in value even further, and plenty of owners would cash out.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeremiah Mckenna

          Low rent multi family dwellings decrease the value of the surrounding houses.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            If the zoning doesn’t change, that may be true.

            With a zoning change, any reduction in value of the improvements on the land is swamped by the rise in the value of the land itself. In a high-demand area, a lot that can support 25 $500k apartments is worth a whole lot more than one that can support a single $1.5M house.

            I own a single-family house right along a frequent bus line in the city of Seattle, which has housing conditions almost but not quite as crazy as those in the urbanized Bay Area. If the land under it were zoned for four-story apartment/condo buildings, I’d be able to sell it to a developer for double or more what it’s worth today. (Or, in my favored scenario, sell it to a developer for $1 in exchange for the penthouse unit of the condo building the developer builds.)

          • 0 avatar
            Jeremiah Mckenna

            But Dal, you are missing the point. They are not building high rent condo’s, they are going to be building low rent apartments. That will decrease the value of the surrounding homes.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            First: no. Permit enough (even “low rent”) apartments on a lot that previously only supported a single house, and the land is still going to get more valuable. The market may change so that only developers want to buy the house, but they will. The only way SFH in that situation will lose value is if they are still zoned SFH-only.

            Second: No new construction in the middle of San Francisco or Berkeley is going to be “low rent” any time in the foreseeable future. Take it from someone in Seattle, where in the last few years we’ve built several times the amount of housing per capita that most places in the Bay Area have managed. We’ve added lots of people to the city who would otherwise be commuting, and succeeded in slowing rent increases, but rent is still very expensive here and that’s not changing any time soon. The new buildings that you see everywhere around central Seattle are typically renting out at $2400 for a 1-bedroom and $3000+ for a 2-bedroom.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I think Jeremiah has you there. Anything “low rent” for the region will attract at least in part a “poor” element, relatively speaking and decrease real estate valuations. I don’t see that working out too well in the long run.

            Here my understanding is several new luxury condo rentals near the Consol in the Hill District (Downtown Pittsburgh) agreed to some kind of sharing with low rent in exchange for something (free gov’t development money or tax abatements I can’t recall). I believe the deal was half of the units are “market price” (something like $1,300/mo) and half must be Section 8. Winning!

            Take the same scenario and apply it to two buildings beside each other, one at least half price to the other. Because of code, the basic structure of each will vary little, only interior materials to the condominiums may vary as well as any on site facilities. Do I want to spend double the price and live next to people who spent half? I don’t see an advantage. Its the same reasons people sacrifice to send their kids to private/religious schools vs the local public skool. If I’m spending more money, I should be getting something more for it.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Nice post. Toronto slowly gives way to condominium buildings, why not our social betters (/s) in LA/SF?

  • avatar
    Jeremiah Mckenna

    I just wonder why Moonbeam doesn’t take that money and invest more into mass transit, instead of electric vehicles. If there were more rail type systems available between the larger cities, then that would remove a lot more vehicles all together, and then more people would be able to benefit from the tax money being spent.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      Inter-city rail in California is powered by Diesel engines that are not subject to any kind of emission controls. Electrifying those routes, similar to what exists in the Washington-Boston corridor, would be very costly. And, transporting people (as opposed to cargo) by rail is not particularly fuel efficient.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeremiah Mckenna

        Transporting people by rail is efficient when done properly. They can still remove more vehicles thus cutting down on idling time and heavy traffic as well as emissions. NYC does it with electricity, as does a lot of other locations, and they make enough money to build new lines and perform maintenance. Studies have been performed on this subject matter countless times. Even if they were to continue using diesel generators to propel the trains, it would be better than what they have now. California has some of the strictest diesel emissions requirements.

        Regardless of all that, building an all electric rail line between the cities would be a better use of the 2.5 Billion dollars the Governor is proposing.

        We all know that private enterprise does business and rail systems a lot better than a municipality/government run system does. Let the private companies own and operate it. They can use a majority of the $2.5B and add another $5.5B to the pot and have a great system up and running in a lot less time than the government could.

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          Jeremiah, the most energy efficient way to move people from point A to point B is on a motor scooter or similar small 2 wheel vehicles. Not much extra mass above the mass of the rider and lots of freedom to choose where to go without unnecessary stops. Rail ends up being fairly inefficient because it both needs enough capacity to handle peak demand and frequent enough trains to get people to use the train in off-peak hours. The end result is lots of metal moving around with few passengers outside of rush hour.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Jeremiah – NYC does not make enough money to build new lines and perform maintenance. Between the union demands for featherbedding, contractor kickbacks to public officials, and just the generally high cost of doing stuff in urban environments, it costs 2-3 times more to build new lines in NYC than Paris France. They need new tunnels and rebuilt tunnels into Manhattan, but are begging for state and federal money to do it, because they don’t have enough funds. DC subway is also falling apart due to lack of money. Of course they could cut out waste and inefficiency, but it would be easier to make pigs fly, and NYC is theoretically the best mass-transit market in the US due to its population density, so markets like LA are never going to be profitable for trains.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeremiah Mckenna

            NYC has been building new tunnels and upgrading their old tunnels for several years now. They raised the rates in order to pay for a portion of it, and the other money comes from taxes and federal grants and loans.

      • 0 avatar
        jthorner

        The light rail and BART mass transit systems in the SF Bay Area have been electric forever. The Caltrain line is expected to convert to electric within the decade.

        San Francisco’s famous cable cars are also electric :).

    • 0 avatar

      Jeremiah,
      Gov Moonbeam has invested the next few generations money in his “supertrain” that will never get built. Too many nimby issues,out of control enviromental hurdles and sheer problem of how many people will actually go from LA to San Fran/San Fran to LA on a regular basis.
      La currently has ambitious plans for a subway to beaches,among other destinations,that we are going to spend another fortune on.
      Quite frankly,the State and cities are spending their money on mass transit. The state in particular has expressed the opinion they want to not fund road projects in order to force citizens to give up cars and go to mass transit.

      Unfortunately for the mass transit advocates,the disastrous regulatory environment,combined w/aggressive environmentalist actions caause delays and skyrocketing costs.
      Toss in the wealthiest communities DO NOT want mass transit stations anywhere near their neighborhoods.
      And then there’s the problem of declining users of existing mass transit in LA.
      “Money is not the issue. Since 1990, Los Angeles has opened seven new urban metro and light-rail lines and two exclusive busways at a cost of more than $15 billion. During this period, transit’s work trip market share has dropped from 5.6 percent from 5.1 percent in 2015. Ridership is at least 15 percent below 1985 levels, when there was only bus service and when Los Angeles County had about 20 percent fewer people. No surprise, then, that according to a recent USC study, the new lines have done little or nothing to lessen the area’s infamous congestion.”
      -Joel Kotkin,Wendell Cox,Dailey Beast,8/11/17

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      He’s trying. Conservatives are apoplectic about the one high speed rail project he’s already got going though; they’re certainly not going to sign on to any others. Rail takes a lot of time and money to build, and California is the embodiment of individualistic car culture. It’s not even remotely s realistic near term solution.

      • 0 avatar
        ktm

        Uh, ANYONE with any financial sense should be appalled at the high-speed rail project, conservatives, moderates and liberal alike. Saying “conservatives” is implying the liberals are financially brain dead.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    EV sales in Norway are currently at 30+% of total new car sales, so all California has to do is follow these 7 easy steps: 1) tax conventional gasoline or diesel vehicles so that they at least double the current price (i.e. a $20,000 car becomes a $40,000 car). 2) triple the price with higher taxes on powerful/heavy gasoline or diesel vehicles (i.e. a $50,000 F-150 becomes a $150,000 F-150). 3) Exempt EVs from these vehicle taxes. 4) Exempt EVs from all road tolls and parking fees. 5) Tax gasoline and diesel so that it costs a minimum of $8 per gallon. 6) Provide free charging stations for EVs using 99% hydro generated electricity. 7) Pay for it all from the profits made by exporting State owned oil and natural gas.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeremiah Mckenna

      Well, seeing as how Cali is one of the highest tax States in the nation, they aren’t too far behind. But if you tax the trucks, then how are all of the workers going to be able to do their work? I can’t take my tools or tow a trailer with a Tesla or Leaf. Cali hasn’t allowed a lot of exploration, let alone drilling, so it will be hard for them to get a lot of cash that way.
      And if there aren’t any taxes being paid by the EV’s, then who will pay for the repairs and upgrades to the roads? Oh, that’s right, they’ll get he illegals to perform the work at cut rate wages and put everyone else out of work.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        In Norway, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc. use Ford Transit Connects (or equivalent from VW, Fiat, Renault, Citroen, etc.) with 75-100 hp diesel engines and manual transmissions, and somehow also pull trailers with them when needed. Of course if GM and Ford had to rely on the profits from those work type of vehicles instead of the F-150s and Silverados they sell to the working man in the US, they would be quickly and permanently bankrupt.

        As for paying for roads, etc. when EVs get a free-ride, that is the dirty secret, because of course EV owners will eventually start to pay tolls and other taxes because the government will eventually need the revenue. Norway is having a hard time taking these “freebies” away from the wealthy and powerful citizens that are now driving EVs, however, because these EV benefits were supposed to end when EV sales hit 50,000 units (total), which happened more than 2 years ago.

        Norway gets most of their virtual signal funding from oil and gas, but they strongly discourage Norwegians from using it with high taxes so they can claim to be “green”. But they are happy to sell it to China or India or anyone else that wants it, who in most cases will use it in much dirtier applications than a Norwegian would use, but hey that is someone else’s problem.

        • 0 avatar
          conundrum

          Well, Norway actually has a plan for the future unlike the US or Canada. They have managed to save up a trillion dollar sovereign fund from all that oil and gas. Alberta with similar population spent all their oil royalty money in true North American spendthrift manner, and now don’t have a pot to p!ss in, running deficits these days.

          So now we have commenters who somehow missed their calling on the world econonomic stage, and hence are true nobodies, criticizing Norway for saving their money, rather than throwing it away immediately it appeared in their grubby little hands as North Americans tend to do. Oil revenues here are treated as windfalls – Alaska pays its citizens each year their “share” of oil royalties. A more stupid idea cannot be imagined. Even a squirrel stores acorns for winter, but the humans here in NA have parties and low gas taxes in the here and now, and to hell with the future.

          The crumbling infrastructure and constant budget deficits, every man out for himself and to hell with everyone else is the swashbuckling way of America. Next you’ll be telling me that Norway is socialist. They have their fair share of grasping entrepreneurs as well. Fish farm operations owned by the Norwegians are not well regarded in British Columbia at all from the environmental point of view, so Norwegians are by no means all saints.

          But on balance they seem to have got it more right than the US has or ever likely will. They have a depleting resource in Morway and chose to save some of the revenue. They have hydro power to run EVs and look set for a decent future with their nest egg.

          I’m sure they’re hanging on every word of advice from right wing American opiners who know little but are always available to proffer free lectures from some skewed viewpoint or other.

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        California is actually one of the biggest oil producing states in the country. I prescribe a visit to cities like Oildale or Martinez, or a little trip offshore from the central coast. Also, California has an annual EV tax (so that EV drivers contribute to the road maintenance budget, since there’s no gas tax on your garage outlet.)

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @stingray65:

      You’ve nailed the formula. Of course, CA can’t do #7.

      I have often said here that raising gas taxes won’t change buying habits, based upon how $4 gas didn’t move the needle in US car choices several years ago.

      But draconian taxation (or lack of it) *does* change buying habits, but I certainly don’t favor it.

    • 0 avatar
      Asdf

      What a disastrously bad suggestion! The correct way to go about it is for automakers to launch EVs that are as good as ICE-powered cars in terms of range, charging time and price. Then, and only then, will EVs get a deserved foothold in the marketplace.

      The strategy chosen in Norway is pure folly. It beggars belief that a country has chosen to do something so ridiculous as to subsidize EVs in the way Norway has done. Indeed, subsidizing EVs in general makes no sense.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Asdf – I don’t suggest following Norway EV policy at all, but if Brown wants to hit the EV numbers he is talking about that is the only way it will happen “on schedule”. I did a research paper on the Norwegian EV subsidies, and found that none of the Norwegian politicians actually ever did any cost-benefit analysis before the policies were implemented, which made sense after I did the numbers and found the cost to emission benefit ROI was -98%. Ignorance is bliss.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    I’m wondering if this plan accounts for the source of the millions of kilowatts that will be required to power a fleet of EVs this large. Other than “we’ll build more windmills and solar panels.”

    • 0 avatar
      Jeremiah Mckenna

      You mean the windmills and solar panels that aren’t working or as efficient as they need to be in order to run that sort of power?

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      The thing that no EV pushing politician EVER talks about is that if they also push solar and wind (plus backup conventional power for backup) to charge the EV fleet, they end up with extremely expensive electricity, which negates a good part of the EV operating cost savings. Add in some mileage tax on the juice to pay for roads and public transit, and renewable charged EVs will be just as expensive to run as gasoline or diesel, but still take way longer to refuel and have far shorter range.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeremiah Mckenna

        Stingray, Think about it. If they were to talk about it, then they wouldn’t be able to cash in on those kick backs,… I mean expenditures from the power companies and lobbyists.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        The same thing happened with high mpg cars. State legislature now whines (while producing no numbers to back up their claim) that there’s not enough coming from gas tax revenue to repair roads. They also are cagey about showing numbers on where the money was spent, making doubters/realists believe gas tax revenue wasn’t actually spent on roads but rather on other projects.

        The label ‘Dreamers’ shouldn’t be limited to the kids of those here illegally – the term fits California politicians nicely, as you’d have to be asleep to believe much of what they say.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeremiah Mckenna

          Same goes for the money that was supposed to go towards the street repairs here in New Orleans. When you ask about it at a meeting designated to answer questions about repairs, you are literally escorted out of the building by the Police.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      DC Bruce, combined cycle gas turbine power plants can achieve very low levels of emissions that would lead to smog and power lines can cross from the interior of California, over the Coast Ranges, and into the coastal areas with a smog problem. Rural power lines can be built or upgraded faster than people replace cars. Natural gas powered trucks and buses are noticeably cleaner than their diesel equivalent. The problem is that once you define carbon dioxide as a pollutant that must be fought with religious fervor, you can’t even burn natural gas.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    High Speed Rail!

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Hyperloop!

    • 0 avatar
      Cactuar

      Monorail!

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      Thomas the Train

      • 0 avatar
        Fred

        Why do conservatives like to pick on California’s bullet train yet not Texas? They are both folly in my opinion.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeremiah Mckenna

          No one is picking on it. We are saying it needs to be built.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Well, come talk to California conservatives then. Hating mass transit is a requirement for entry into their shrinking club.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeremiah Mckenna

            Hot Potato, It isn’t that they hate the Mass Transit, they hate the way it is being implemented. If it were done in an efficient and self sufficient manner, it would be accepted.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Toronto has something called the “Go” train which runs up to forty miles out of Union Station.

            Government, do that.

            Go!

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Fred, I live in California and got knowledgable about HSR here. I wasn’t aware TX was trying the same thing.

            The deception and slight of hand used not only to get the public to vote for it (sold as a $40 billion project, when reality it will cost well north of $100 billion) is gross, but it’s the continued fraud being perpetrated by Sacramento on this project that needs some sunlight to expose.

            Potato, There’s no hate for mass transit. Just spend the money wisely and stop pissing it away on $100b vanity projects. For example, spending the original $40b on transit improvements in urban areas where pollution and wasted time are at their worst would have gotten us more usable ROI on that money.

  • avatar
    darex

    Moonbeam: your state is broke! Get real! Also, enjoy jsil.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      No so broke any more when it comes to liquidity of CALPERS, heavily invested in the stock market.

      Still a little bit short of fiduciary obligations but State contributions are waaaay down, while State revenues are waaaaay up.

      CA will never thank President Trump, but there’s where the blame lays for their financial windfall.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        So is the SNB. Either the Swiss know something or their national currency is screwed in the event of a major selloff.

        fyi: SNB has something like $55 billion profit last year trading.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          28CL, I think there will be an adjustment but don’t know when. My guess… sometime this year, 2018.

          The guys and gals at CNBC/NBR seem to gravitate toward a 10%-15% downward adjustment at some point because the USD is overvalued by 10% at this time.

          If something triggers a major selloff, (something political that would topple Trump, or a full-on intervention by the US to end the North Korean conflict), the Swiss national currency will not be the only currency screwed.

          With the political and economic policy changes driven by President Trump it’s a sure bet that North Korea will be dealt with, Iran will be dealt with, and China will see a reduction in trade with the US.

          I also think the dollar will emerge from this adjustment bruised but unscathed and remain the international trade currency.

          Changes are coming! I cannot believe all the changes this guy Trump has put in to motion in a year.

      • 0 avatar
        vehic1

        trump deserves the credit? And the Dow’s rise during Obama, from below 10,000 to the high teens, setting years of records, was nothing?
        Even though it began RIGHT after the 2008 Great Recession?
        Oh, right – trump said all prior statistics were lies/Fake News, and the Actual rise in stocks and drop in unemployment magically began the instant he was sworn in. Stormy D. is Fake News, too – promoted by that lib’ral socialist rag The Wall Street Journal.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Sir, let me correct your ignorance.

          The S&P was already in a significant downtrend starting summer 2008, but it went the lowest that year just after the election. Why? Don’t know for sure, but I do recall at the time business leaders having zero faith in the Kenyan Messiah.

          Later, when ARRA was being voted on the S&P took the biggest dump I believe ever to literally 666. ARRA became effective on Feb 17, 2009. Again business leaders had zero confidence in the then President’s huge deficit bill. This is *before* Obamacare.

          What changed? Money printing. Period. The Fed created some huge amount of digital money and spread it around the world. Nobody knows the true figure, but I have read as high as $8 trillion. This money slowly flowed into securities and other assets to create another huge bubble, the “everything bubble” as it’s been coined. Real world inflation is much higher than published. This whole economic recovery bullsh*t is FAKE FAKE FAKE just like everything since 2001 has been a psyop. But traders always follow the money flow and it is they and their clients who have benefited, not 98% of society. FACT.

          I can’t explain the “Trump bump”, only thing I can think of are shorts are having to cover and money which had been held back by large institutions prior to the election is now flowing. But it too is FAKE because the growth is not really there, I don’t care who publishes the statistics. People are homeless in many parts of the country, this has not happened on this scale since the Dust Bowl. Real jobs are still few and far between, many which do exist are either stolen by H1-Bs or are offered in areas where the cost of living is so high the 100K salary means nothing. Until any of this changes, its all still FAKE NEWS.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

          http://www.marketfolly.com/2009/05/s-chart-wild-market-swings-2007-2009.html

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Like a pregnancy, the stock market looks out ~9 months ahead and anticipates the state of productivity in the US economy.

            So far, a lot of optimism in where America’s economy will be in 9 months. Hell, look at where it was in Nov 2016 and where it is today!

            Couple that with a lot of money that was held back or otherwise on the sidelines, and voila, that money is finding its way into securities and other financial assets.

            Hence, a 26K+ Dow. Goodee, Goodee, Goodee!

            I have to admit that it would worry me if the Dow went below 18K, like where it was for much of the reign of the Kenyan Messiah.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      Ya know that a) states can’t run deficits, so you’re trading in mythology, b) Brown got the name Moonbeam for encouraging R&D on commercial satellites in the 1970s…without which you wouldn’t have satnav or the magic phone you probably typed this on, and c) dude has done nothing that would result in jail; he’s a former Jesuit seminarian nearly obsessed with ethical conduct.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Moonbeam is making Californians long for the good old Gray Davis years,

  • avatar
    Fred

    The nearest charging station to me is 20 miles up the pass at a bed and breakfast. I saw more Teslas in rural Texas than I do here.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Between frackers increasing the domestic supply and evs reducing demand, I think reasonably priced gas for my fleet is assured for a long time to come. I’m still encouraging my kids to buy used Leafs for the grandkids though. I think they are perfect for hs students, especially if you can entice the schools to provide “free” juice as part of “green” projects.

  • avatar
    TR4

    I wonder how much of Governor Brown’s personal transportation is electric powered.

  • avatar
    deanst

    The 250,000 charging stations is what seems odd to me. Canada, with close to the same population and a lot more area, has about 12,000 gas stations. Is mr. Moonbeam assuming no one is charging at home, driving range will not expand, and charging will take hours to complete?

    • 0 avatar
      Jeremiah Mckenna

      Deanst, With the superchargers in place, it only takes a Tesla 30 minutes to charge the battery up to 80% and be able to travel on to either your destination, or another station. Or you can hang out for 1 hour and 30 minutes for a complete recharge.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeremiah Mckenna

      I also don’t think he was talking about stations as in gas stations, I believe he is referring to each charging station being the plug in part. So there will be ten or so supercharger stations per location. Plus EV’s don’t get the range that ICE’s get, and you’ll need more places to plug in around the State than you will a gas station.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    I’ve helped out with Junior Achievement at my kid’s elementary school over the last few years. One of the areas we discuss is understanding the difference between a want and a need and how to prioritize those things in your life.

    I need to make a road trip to Sacramento and hold a few workshops with the state legislature and assembly. Their ignorance can’t be overstated.

    • 0 avatar
      ernest

      I don’t think they’re ignorant at all. They know EXACTLY what their doing… which is much more disconcerting. It shouldn’t bother me, since I’m north of the border. But historically, whatever happens in California travels north eventually. Idaho’s looking better all the time.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    A colossal waste of money, all to regulate the release of plant food.

    If we’re really worried about CO2, why not institute a $10K tax on owning a dog or cat?
    .
    .

  • avatar
    jthorner

    The OP said: “However, fixing vehicle-based emissions has been an uphill battle. In fact, it’s worse now than it has ever been”

    What is the basis for that assertion? I find it very hard to believe that vehicles based emissions are worse now in California than they were in the 1960s and 70s before any meaningful emissions controls.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “What is the basis for that assertion?”

      Because they’re counting CO2 as a pollutant. The trace gas that, were it to disappear, would end all human life on earth.

      Declaring CO2 a pollutant is a leftist totalitarian wet dream. Your very existence, with every breath you take, is destroying the planet.

      Don’t say I didn’t warn you when the “single payer” health care system euthanizes you at the age of 60 to “save the planet.”
      .
      .

  • avatar
    rpn453

    Hydrogen? They’re still greenwashing that wasteful experiment?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • nrd515: Last June or so, when my friend finally got his Bullitt, he had to look and look for a dealer to come down...
  • dal20402: What in the heck is “Full Self-Driving,” then?
  • dal20402: The name “Autopilot” implies to a general consumer, falsely, that this is not a Level 2 system....
  • -Nate: Initial look made me think Renault Le Car . -Nate
  • loopy55: This is one of those stories that was probably made up- straight up clickbait.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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