By on January 18, 2019

The State of Colorado will be the next territory in the United States to join California in embracing electric vehicles. Democratic Governor Jared Polis has signed an executive order (his very first) proposing that the zero-emission vehicle rule be enacted no later than May of 2019. The rule would require automakers to sell more electric cars within the state each year until it reaches utopian status.

However, that could still be decades away. Thus far, Polis has only asked the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment to propose new rules to the Air Quality Control Commission over the coming months. As of now, there are no official rules stipulating how many EVs need to be sold every year. And California, which started is ZEV program years ago, estimates electric vehicles will account for between 8 and 9 percent of all new car sales within the state by 2025. 

According to Bloomberg, Colorado State officials plan to use the remaining $68 million received from Volkswagen’s diesel emissions penalty to assemble an improved charging infrastructure to support the presumed influx of plug-in vehicles. There’s also a proposal to use some of the funds to support electrified school busses, work vehicles, and mass transit solutions.

“As we continue to move towards a cleaner electric grid, the public-health and environmental benefits of widespread transportation electrification will only increase,” Polis said in a statement. “Our goal is to reach 100 percent renewable electricity by 2040 and embrace the green energy transition already underway economy-wide.”

From Bloomberg:

The nine other predominantly Democratic-leaning states include New York, Massachusetts and Oregon. They have established similar electric-car requirements by using a provision of the U.S. Clean Air Act that allows states to adopt rules California developed, which Polis’ executive order cited. The act gives California the authority to set rules more stringent than federal standards.

This group and other states are positioning themselves as a bulwark against the Trump administration’s push to ease cleaner-vehicle rules. Federal regulators have proposed capping national fuel-economy and carbon-emissions requirements for new autos at a 37 mile-per-gallon fleet average after 2020. Standards set by the Obama administration would’ve increased the average to 47 mpg by 2025.

As part of the plan, the Trump administration also proposed stripping California of its zero-emission-vehicle mandate.

Of course, not everyone is a fan of Polis’ executive order. The Colorado Automobile Dealers Association (CADA) expressed its discontent, while bemoaning the state’s plan as overly ambitious and not in the best interest of consumers or the industry.

“We trust Colorado consumers, who care about the environment as much as anyone, to be able to freely choose to buy the vehicles that they need at home or work,” CADA President Tim Jackson said in a statement. “These consumers range from rural Coloradans who farm and ranch to suburban parents who need to transport the Little League or soccer team. Three-quarters of Coloradans choose vehicles from the light truck category, which includes pickups and SUVs, to meet Colorado’s challenging driving conditions. There is a reason you don’t see electric vehicles pulling horse trailers or hauling six kids to their events.”

“Colorado’s consumers do not need the government telling them what vehicles they should buy. Let’s keep car-buying decisions in the hands of our citizens, not unelected California bureaucrats.”

Polis countered by saying Colorado already has some of the highest consumer preferences for EVs in the entire country. He complained, however, that “many manufacturers don’t sell all of their models here, and instead offer them in states that have adopted the ZEV [zero emission vehicle] standard.”

That’s technically true. California is the only place in the U.S. where you can purchase hydrogen models and certain battery electric cars. But, with no hydrogen fueling infrastructure, Colorado would have no reason to sell low-volume fuel cell vehicles. There are also concerns that pure electric cars are negatively affected by colder climates. While that is also accurate, it’s really only an issue due to the already diminished range of some electric vehicles vs their internal combustion counterparts. Automakers are working to remedy the issue through increased battery capacity and measures aimed at keeping the pack temperature controlled, regardless of climate.

[Image: Tony Webster/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

97 Comments on “Colorado Mandates Electric Vehicle Sales, State Dealers Association Angry...”


  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Well, Polis is off to an early start pi$$ing people off.

    This is the wrong approach – it needs to be incentivized, not mandated.

    • 0 avatar
      Wheatridger

      Right! And so the incentives will come to us consumers, in the form of discounts to encourage EV purchase. The dealers may be forced to sell more EVs at lower profit, but no individuals are going to be forced to buy them. Personally, I resisted hybrids for many years, but when I found a plug-in hybrid that had an 8-second 0-60 time AND $9000 worth of tax incentives, I changed my mind.

    • 0 avatar
      Asdf

      Incentives cause technological stagnation, which today’s BEVs have proven beyond any doubt to be the case. If BEV automakers had to compete in the marketplace with ICE-powered cars, they would have had no choice but to fix the defect causing the process of fully charging the battery taking longer than filling a fuel tank, and either these BEVs would have been on the market by now, or BEVs had been abandoned if they had proven to be a technological dead-end. Instead we’re left with BEVs taking forever to charge, which is a disgrace, especially after the BEV “flagship” manufacturer Tesla has been around for more than 15 years (!!!) without even bothering to address such a basic issue! Elon Musk has demonstrated an extreme willingness to waste taxpayer money combined with an extreme unwillingness to make decent BEVs.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “Incentives cause technological stagnation.”

        Ironically, the two core technologies you used to announce that argument to the world – a microcomputer and the Internet – are both products of incentives.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Yes. This. So much economic common sense. Pure electric cars are simply not the preferred choice by most consumers. Also, modern ICE vehicles run very cleanly, and there are many fuel efficient models available. There is no pressing need to take money from one taxpayer and give it to another, or to otherwise distort the market. These electric car programs are costly, inequitable and accomplish nothing of substance. It still chaps my [email protected] that taxpayers subsidized the sale of 100k Tesla automobiles to rich people.

        You know what is an affordable, efficient, practical and plentiful source of energy? Freaking hydrocarbons. That is why they dominate energy production and use around the world. You want an electric car? Go for it. You want to mandate it or ask me to pay for it? Bite me. Same goes for solar, wind, biomass, etc…. Nuclear is legit, but greenies don’t want that either.

        • 0 avatar
          Kenn

          Hydrocarbons are wonderful (like the supposed “Clean Coal”) and “Nuclear is legit”? Yes, and black is white and up is down.

        • 0 avatar
          vehic1

          In only a few years, and with sketchcy infrastructure, EVs have taken a few % of the market already; Tesla sales (even at a fairly high price) show that there is already demand.
          No, ICE vehicles won’t be gone tomorrow – or not completely, for quite some time. EVs will end up taking a significant piece of the market, least of all in the most rural and/or Luddite areas.

      • 0 avatar
        probert

        Hmmm – so if we removed huge tax subsidies for oil companies, and factored in the cost of the military intervention required to sustain access to oil fields and protect pipelines we might pass the real cost of ICE onto consumers. I agree. We’d be massively green and electric in a short period of time.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Heh. Classic. We are the largest producer of hydrocarbons in the world. We don’t need Middle East oil anymore. Nuclear is also an unlimited energy source, but lefties hate it, because they reason with emotion. As for tax subsidies, I agree. Get rid of them all, equally, and, while you’re at it, get rid of the corporate taxes entirely. End the corruption games.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Yeah,. We are a net exporter. It isn’t 1974 anymore

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      FreedMike, a buyer can still choose to buy an ICE-powered vehicle.

      But more EVs in Colorado for LOCAL transport might just work since electric rates are dirt, dirt cheap per KWh.

      OTOH, gasoline costs much, much more for the equivalent distance traveled.

      We’ve got a business operation in the Denver area and our office pays ~ 3-cents per KWh as opposed to 17.3-cents per KWh in NM.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        HDC: I think what Polis is doing is shooting high and hoping he hits somewhere in the middle. At the end of the day, the guy’s not Bernie Sanders – he’s a businessman, and he’s good at it (to the tune of nine-figures rich).

        More EVs in Colorado (specifically along the Front Range urban corridor) would be a great, great thing. We still have pollution problems, and they’re only going to get worse as the population increases. I see this as a good first step, but anyone who thinks we’re going to be 100% mandated for EVs isn’t living in the real world.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          FreedMike, I agree that we will never be 100% mandated for EVs. Not until we run out of dino oil. (And we have so much of it, even more that has not yet been discovered.)

          I know a few people in the Denver (Littleton area) who own an Plug-in Hybrid EV and they love them, and needed the $7500 tax deduction.

          But their PHEV is just one in their fleet of vehicles, generally consisting of a pickup truck and an SUV or a minivan.

          As I posted farther down, according to Roger Penske the US vehicle ownership currently is only 1% pure EV and 3% plug-in Hybrid.

          So if we in the US have ~ 270 million vehicles on the road, the EV market doesn’t even make a blip on the radar, and is too small to be a rounding error (since more ICE vehicles are destroyed every year than the total of EVs on the road.)

          Interesting note: one of the guys I know who owns a pure EV has an AC generator mounted in the bed of his truck — just in case his wife runs out of juice while on her daily rounds in her EV.)

          EVs are truly a toy for the rich.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Really depends on the EV and usage habits too, HDC. I could easily see using a BEV for almost all of my driving outside of the fact that I need something bigger than a sedan for one and I need a pickup truck for the other with at least 6000# towing capacity.

            So my only restriction is that we don’t have the right body style available at this time.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Vulpine, if demand for EVs were to increase, I am certain that the EV-makers and the auto industry will adapt and innovate to provide a product for your wants and needs. That’s what it is all about.

            Roger Penske also said that the US auto industry is striving for a 50% share of the US automarket for EVs by 2025.

            I really don’t know but that is only 5 or 6 years away. To me it seems optimistic.

            But OTOH, when my 1989 Camry V6 goes to its just rewards in automotive heaven, there is a slight chance that I might consider a pure EV on the low side of the price range, Just as a local grocery getter.

            So a lot can happen before each of us has to make that momentous decision of “what to buy next?”

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @hdc: Tesla already has 50% of the US EV market share, with Chevrolet adding a little bit to that. 2018 alone had Tesla sell nearly 80,000 BEVs, while Chevy sold around 20,000.

            What Penske may have meant was 50% of total US auto share, but I doubt that; much too soon to see those kinds of numbers.

            As for the types being made: No fewer than two companies plan to have a BEV pickup on the roads within two years while one of those plans an SUV as well–Rivian. Add to this that Rover is claiming a BEV SUV and Jag a similar model (more CUV, but…).

            For all that some seem to want Tesla to fail, others want Tesla to survive. Tesla still has enough money rolling in to stave off bankruptcy–despite the claims of some. How long they can do so… well, that’s up for debate; I don’t want to get into that discussion. But if we give Tesla the benefit of the doubt, the US may well have a much larger market for BEVs than some want to believe.

        • 0 avatar
          vehic1

          +1

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Mandate is a keyword of totalitarian system. Well… it happened in Russia, it happened in Germany. If we don’t stop it here, it will happen here too

    • 0 avatar
      mgbjack

      Colorado commies. Must have migrated from california.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Jared Polis: commie. With a nine-figure net worth.

        Here’s another guy who has no idea what a communist is.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Why of course, the party apparatchik has all the wealth in such a system.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @28: I’d say that depends on how you define ‘wealth.’ In our country, wealth equals money, and money is power. In communist regimes, the “inner circle” types basically got access to the stuff that money would buy in our system, and your position was your power.

            But if you think about it, that’s a characteristic of every dictatorship or autocratic system that’s ever existed. The inner circle gets all the good stuff – however the country defines that – and the rabble get the scraps. The dictator has to make sure his inner circle has stuff, privilege, power or money – otherwise, the inner circle turns on him. That sounds a lot more like the old Soviet Union than the kind of direct democracy that Marx actually envisioned.

        • 0 avatar
          jatz

          “what a communist is”

          I know! I know!

          A communist threatens to shoot you; a capitalist threatens to starve you.

          Both have a history of delivering on their threats.

        • 0 avatar

          How true! In Soviet union top communists were richest and most influential people in country. In US richest people are liberals – like billionaires in Silicon Valley and Seattle. And NY too.

          • 0 avatar
            vehic1

            In the US, one party falls all over itself to give tax cuts to the top 1%; hint: starts with R.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            I’m pretty far from the top one percent yet I got a tax cut. Why are you entitled to more of the fruits of my labor?

      • 0 avatar

        That’s true many Californian democrats move to Colorado to escape California taxes and cost of living. This contagion spreads all over country. Republicans do not have a chance, they just not.

  • avatar
    theBrandler

    I’m all for electric cars, so long as they compete withing the free market. Once their mandated, I’m wholly against them. The CADA is exactly right. Let consumers choose. If there aren’t electric cars that meet their needs, then the technology just isn’t there. Manufacturers are not stupid, if they could sell electric cars everywhere, they would.

    • 0 avatar
      gomez

      How can consumers choose if the vehicles don’t exist? Average consumers won’t buy an EV until there are a variety of affordable models, expecially CUVs. But manufacturers have little incentive to build them because consumers aren’t asking for them. It’s chicken-and-egg.

      If your goal is to grow the EV market to the point where it is self-sustaining, you must either require/incentivize manufacturers to make EVs or you must require/incentivize the consumer to buy them, or both. It’s a lot easier for state lawmakers to pass a law requiring a bunch out out-of-state car companies to build them than it is to pass a law requiring your constituents to buy them or raise their taxes to cover the incentives.

      • 0 avatar
        trackratmk1

        @gomez Half the major OEMs have a BEV for sale in the US right now. And there’s a reason their 3 year residuals are in the 25% range… customers are already voting with their wallets. It’s not a supply problem, it’s the demand. The only entity who’s goal it is to get massive EV market share is the government. Oh and Tesla.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I have a feeling the low residuals have something to do with the market pricing in the tax incentives as well.

          Personally, if I had a place to charge an EV, I’d love to get one for my teenage kid. It’d be a perfect ride for her.

          • 0 avatar
            trackratmk1

            @FreedMike they definitely work for some people, in fact they work GREAT for some people. Especially as 2nd or 3rd cars in the family. Problem is they don’t work well as someone’s only car. It’s the fringe use cases that people are afraid of – the road trip they can’t go on, the charging station they can’t find, the meeting they’re going to be late for because the charger is slow. Nobody needs a huge truck or SUV, but we buy them like crazy for the 1% of time we use all of what it can do. It’s not always logical, but that’s the market.

            Not sure about the tax incentives — those are for the 1st owners only right? And based on MSRP. Residuals are also based on MSRP for lease calculations, so why would the used market be pricing in tax incentives? Genuinely curious.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            If I’m not mistaken (and I may be) dealers are pricing the various tax breaks into the vehicles as they would a rebate.

          • 0 avatar
            DedBull

            The problem is,what everybody hears $7500 tax credit. The trick is it is “up to” $7500 tax credit. You have to have $7500 in tax liability to take advantage of the full credit.

            To put that into real world terms, a 2 income house with 2 dependents would have to have $113,000 in W2 income to take advantage of the full $7500. Otherwise you only get as much as you have tax liability.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Good point, dedbull. Given that these are kind of expensive cars to begin with, though, I’d assume their target demographic would probably be well-heeled enough to rack up a $7500 federal tax bill.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Freed

            I think its demand on the block which is generally a reflection of consumer demand. Nobody wants to sit on paperweight product and buyers have not given EVs much consideration and thus they become lot poison.

          • 0 avatar
            dwford

            @ Freed: As a full time Uber driver, I’d love an EV – especially the newest ones that go over 200 miles. But between my mileage deduction and all my other deductions, there not enough income left to take the $7500 EV tax credit also. So I end up with a regular gas car.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @trackrat:
            “the road trip they can’t go on,”

            Really? While I usually fly these days, I mapped a trip that I’ve taken many times, Boston to Dearborn, for a Model 3P. Turns out it requires 3 stops for charging. When I did it in an ICE, it was usually 3 or 4 stops. Total charging time 1 hour and 18 minutes. ICE stop time was at least an hour and a half. So, what’s the difference? The route was plotted with a specialized EV trip planning app that lets you set the optimum charging speed levels for your car and plots the route between charging stations.

            the charging station they can’t find:
            That’s never happened in 77k miles of driving. The charging stations are in the cars nav system and various apps. Directions, photos, and current status.

            the meeting they’re going to be late for because the charger is slow. Really? When does that happen? All the meetings that I go to are within the range of my car. If they weren’t, there are EV nav apps that figure in charge times.

            There is one use case they are a bit of trouble. I have a friend that travels hundreds of miles to multiple locations during the day with some tight time constraints. A 300+ mile range car might work for him, but he can’t really afford one.

          • 0 avatar
            trackratmk1

            @28-Cars Yeah the auction is a good leading indicator of what’s hot or not

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @mcs, while this is true, what if I’m one of the many who can’t afford a Tesla. Make that same trip in my son’s 13 Leaf, which is more indicative of the sort of electric much of the population can afford and let me know.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @dwford, if you are using the car for Uber then yes you can carry the unused credit forward to the extent the vheicle is used for business.

        • 0 avatar
          trackratmk1

          @mcs I’m glad that EV true believers are happy with their cars. But if I were going on a 10 hour trip, there’s no way I’d stop for an hour and a half… 700 miles Boston to Dearborn is one fuel stop for most ICE cars, which is 5 mins required tops. I’d do the trip in two 5 hour blasts with a break to fuel up and walk around in the middle of it. YMMV.

          Anyway, you have a $50k Tesla that can actually meet vastly more requirements for most Americans than the lower range EVs… the problem is most Americans can’t afford that, and EV companies will perhaps never be able to build a $35k or less EV that alleviates all or even most of the inconveniences of them, like yours does.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @trackratmk1
            New technology has a way of getting “democratized” over time – radios, TVs, microwave ovens, personal computers, big-screen TVs, smartphones, et al were all very, very expensive when they first hit the market.

            EV’s are catching on, so this process will happen with them too. At the end of the day, they’re better mousetraps. The only question is whether we’ll ever see an EV equivalent of a $10,000 Versa. That’s questionable, if only because the folks in the market for a $10,000 car tend to not have a place to plug one in.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            “700 miles Boston to Dearborn is one fuel stop for most ICE cars”

            In many years of making that trip in an ICE car, I never did it with just one stop. Never. While I may have only made 1 or 2 fuel stops, I was making stops to eat. I’d get coffee, stretch my legs, and grab some food for the road.

            Now, in a lower range EV, that’s going to stretch things out to 5 intermediate stops. That’s a total of 2 hours charging time. While that’s definitely taking longer, it still doesn’t mean you can’t take a road trip like you said. Yeah, it’s going to take longer or you might rent a car, but you can do it.

            Besides, if you’re in a hurry and can’t afford the time to take an extra 1 hour on 10-hour trip, why aren’t you flying? That’s what I do now. To me, it’s just not worth putting up with the sluggish performance of an ICE car for rare trips that might take a little longer.

            “I’m glad that EV true believers are happy with their cars.”

            I’m not an EV believer. I’m a performance enthusiast and I’m more interested in getting the best performing car I can find that isn’t going to cost a fortune to maintain. Right now that means going to an EV. Lots of instant torque and acceleration. The quiet means I can put my foot to the floor without gathering attention from the cops. An EV as a 2nd or 3rd car? That ain’t happening because the ICE cars just ain’t the same. I can tell you from 1st hand experience that you will start to hate your ICE cars.

            “EV companies will perhaps never be able to build a $35k or less EV that alleviates…”

            I don’t know, they might. I follow battery development and with modern material science, they are solving craploads of problems, but there are a lot of issues to be resolved. Battery development is important for more than just EVs. Even more critical is the often overlooked defense uses for batteries. That’s a huge driving force behind battery development that most don’t even realize is happening. From low-cost lithium powered subs to drones and robots. DoD has a huge stake in battery development. So, there is DoD money driving battery development at lots of small labs/companies. They’ll make it happen.

            Now, where is battery technology today? What can I drive 15 minutes down I-93 and buy? Right now, as far as I know, that would be Solid Energy Systems semi-solid Hermes cells. Energy density is 1200 Wh/L and gravimetric density is 450 Wh/kg. Original Leaf was about 120 Wh/kg I think and current model 3 cells are maybe 220 Wh/kg. That is half the weight of what’s in the newest EVs and smaller as well (can’t remember energy density on the older cars). While there is work that needs to be done to get versions of these batteries for EVs, I think these energy densities will be in EVs within 5 years. That means 600+ mile range could become common at that point.

            If we’re going to have 600-mile range EVs with semi-solid batteries, how will we charge them? Well, there is the New GB/T charging standard that is 900kW. If there are batteries and infrastructure to back it up, we could see some seriously fast charge times.

            So, the pieces are sort-of falling into place that could give us EVs that match ICE in terms of fueling times and range. Semi-solid is a good bridge between current and future solid-state and will advance capacity and lightness until we finally get solid-state.

            http://www.solidenergysystems.com/hermes

            https://insideevs.com/china-new-gb-t-fast-charging-standard-900-kw/

          • 0 avatar
            trackratmk1

            @mcs
            Appreciate you making a thoughtful response. I follow batteries as well and am excited for the days of solid state tech. That would be a huge breakthrough in energy density. Right now gasoline has 100x the energy density of lithium-ion batteries.

            Getting back to the point of this post, I adamantly believe in freedom of choice and that if people see value in buying an EV, they will do so… the market should be what gets us there, not government decree.

            Right now even if EVs fundamentally meet the needs of 90% Americans, they don’t seem to be buying them.

            I’ve driven a Model 3 and several cheaper EVs. The Tesla was quick and all of them were quiet. I didn’t find them very engaging, in fact I felt sensory deprived except for the acceleration (by far the best part). No EVs that I’ve driven make me want to sell my 8500rpm stick shift sports car, or my V8 truck. I enjoy mechanical things more than digital ones and I have a feeling I’m not alone in that.

            But hey, as long as the market speaks for EVs that’s fine. I think it will continue to speak louder for ICEs, but everyone should have the choice. But if individuals or the government want to shove them down my throat, they can eff off. Government’s track record of spawning unintended consequences from the seeds of good intent is revolting.

          • 0 avatar
            trackratmk1

            @FreedMike
            And I hope as a society we never stop trying to build better mousetraps.

            Funny though, EVs pre-dated combustion cars in the 1800s and were quickly replaced by ICEs. They’ve had a long time to democratize. Maybe this time it will be different, but so far I’m not forking over my money.

            What I WOULD fork over gobs of money for is the massively improved version of the ICE from Achates Power (www.achatespower.com), an opposed piston engine with better efficiency than diesel and better performance than gas. It’s real and it works, and best of all it’s not subsidized! I’d like one very much.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            That’s interesting, stuff. Is there anyone who’s road tested one of these opposed-piston engines?

          • 0 avatar
            trackratmk1

            @Freedmike
            John Mcleroy of Autoline Daily drove one I believe. You can find the podcast if you search for Autoline + Achates. It’s supposed to do something like 40MPG in an F150… but the cool thing it’s a totally scalable architecture. And it scales really big. Their first application is going to be in heavy trucks for Tyson deliveries. That’s starting this year. They have some military and construction contracts as well if I remember correctly. Hoping to see it in a consumer vehicle in next few years.

      • 0 avatar
        Asdf

        Consumers aren’t asking for them because they’re expensive and noncompetitive. Manufacturers need to address this in order for consumers to be interested. That’s all the incentive they need.

        Encouraging BEV adoption should not be a goal in and of itself. ICE-powered cars work just fine.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Well by your logic Gomez, the flying car I’d choose if given the option doesn’t exist…perhaps we should subsidize them. Or maybe teleportation. How can I choose to teleport to work if it doesn’t exist?

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Dealership: Let the Consumer Choose

      Random Consumer: Hey, I see this vehicle is offered with a manual transmission from the manufacturer…I’d like to choose that one

      Dealership: You’ll get a CVT with the technology package and you’ll like it!

    • 0 avatar
      MoparRocker74

      If moving a product takes mandates and communism (allowing one person to keep more of their own money for making the ‘correct’ choice according to a beauracrat/politician IS in fact communism) then no one wants that product. Period, end of story.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Now, I know that labeling any policy you disagree with as “communism” must be a real blast from a certain political perspective, but under real communism, taxation wouldn’t exist.

        I think the descriptor you’re looking for here is “unwise,” not “communism.”

        • 0 avatar
          MoparRocker74

          WRONG. Some level of taxation is necessary to run the country and basic infrastructure. Anything beyond that, for politicians’ pet causes is theft. Redistribution of MY hard earned funds to those good little greenies who are toeing the line is blatantly communist.

          How about if green car buyers pay a penalty, and I get a tax credit on a Hellcat or a Rebel? Didn’t hear you say that. FWIW, Id be just as dead set against that also. I want as pure and hardline capatalist free market as possible. You want greenie mobiles, that’s fine… Im all for choice. Pony up YOUR money without a cent of mine.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            You’re talking about over-taxation, and/or not liking how your tax money is being spent. Fair enough. But under communism, your argument would be moot. There would be no taxation because the government would own everything.

          • 0 avatar
            MoparRocker74

            Communism is just the end goal of socialism. They’re both failed, loser systems. Just like electrified vehicles are the losers. They were around when the automobile was invented. Then, as now they never caught on because anything in the ‘pros’ column is quickly snuffed out by the cons. As small potatoes as they are, EVs only have what little numbers they do because of market manipulation.

            At the end of the day, you’re making an argument against your own freedom of choice.

          • 0 avatar
            EGSE

            “I want as pure and hardline capatalist free market as possible.”

            “Im all for choice.”

            These statements contradict each other. Capitalists don’t want ANY competition which means if they get their way, you won’t have any choice.

            Capitalists hire lobbyists to influence legislation to their favor in the marketplace, they pay off AKA “donate to” politicians to craft laws to keep others from entering the market (preventing municipalities from providing data service to areas that don’t have any for example), and they patent-troll to extort those that would dare compete against them (Big Pharma anyone?).

            I support capitalism when its predatory excesses are reined in to allow competitive forces to provide us with an array of products and services where WE choose the winners and losers in the marketplace.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Communism is the end goal of socialism.”

            So Rush Limbaugh says. In real life, there hasn’t been one socialist country – and there are plenty of ’em – that’s “gone communist.”

            We’re not going commie if there are more taxes and regulations. Don’t lose sleep over it.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            Mopar: “Redistribution of MY hard earned funds”

            The reason you’re able to buy your Fiats is the $1.3 billion in tax money they took in 2009.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @mcs:
            Mere details, these.

  • avatar
    gomez

    “There is a reason you don’t see electric vehicles pulling horse trailers or hauling six kids to their events.”

    I don’t see a lot of conventional vehicles doing those activities either…

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      Gomez, trucks, SUVs and minivans aren’t considered conventional vehicles?

      • 0 avatar
        gomez

        They are. But how many do you actually see on the road at any given time that are pulling a horse trailer or hauling 6 kids? The vast majority have the driver and maybe one or 2 passengers. And most trucks never pull a trailer.

        • 0 avatar
          285exp

          Maybe you just don’t live where a lot of people tow things. I have an F250 that I use to pull horse trailers and boats, and drive off-road while hunting. Most of the time I drive it I’m not doing those things, but that doesn’t make it any less necessary when I do. Most of the people living in Denver and Boulder probably don’t have a lot of use for a 3/4 ton pickup, but there aren’t any currently available EVs that can do the things a lot of people that live outside of the big metropolitan areas need them to. There’s certainly no EV I could replace my truck with.

          I see vans and SUVs every day that are hauling more kids and adults than you can stuff into a Bolt or Leaf or Model 3. Ford and GM are getting out of the passenger car business because people aren’t buying them, they’re buying trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. These are bigger and heavier and need bigger batteries, so they’ll be even more expensive than the already expensive EVs currently for sale.

          If they want to get people to buy EVs, they need to make it prohibitively expensive to continue to drive the ICE vehicles. Ask the French how that’s working out for them.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Pickup trucks are best selling vehicles in US

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Across rural and outdoor recreational America, you see it constantly.

    • 0 avatar
      gomez

      Yes, of course some people do use their vehicles to do those activities; but most people do not, even if their vehicle can. I was attempting (and apparently failing) to point out the stupidity of the CADA’s statement. There’s nothing inherent about EVs that would prevent an automaker from building an electric truck with a rigid frame and enough torque to go head-to-head with an HD diesel when it comes to trailer towing. There’s nothing inherent about EVs that prevents an automaker from making a 7-passenger version (like the Model X). EVs can do those activities, but someone has to build them first. That is the second biggest reason people aren’t buying EVs (the first being price)…lack of choices. Not everyone wants to drive a weird looking econobox or an electric compliance car with a quarter the range of it’s gasoline counterpart or pay $50k+ for a Tesla.

  • avatar
    White Shadow

    This is stupid. Let the market work it out. Forcing the sale of electric cars is beyond stupid. People who want them will buy them, and I’m sure that as the cost comes down and the battery range goes up, more people will actually want them.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Currently, according to Roger Penske interviewed on CNBC at the Detroit NAIAS, pure EVs make up 1% of the total number of registered vehiuckles on the road in the US, and Plug-in Hybrids 3%.

      Sounds to me like the market has already worked it out.

  • avatar
    DedBull

    I would seriously consider a BEV for my next vehicle, but most brands don’t make them available through their dealer network in my home state of Pennsylvania. If manufacturers made these available by special order for all 50 states, they might find their BEV coverage would increase.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    Every State, County, City, Town and every other government agency better belly up to the purchase table at double the rate of electric vehicles they are MANDATING the public to buy.

  • avatar
    trackratmk1

    NADA says people shouldn’t be allowed to buy a Tesla through a corporate store. Meanwhile CADA, one of their state branches says let the market decide what they want to buy.

    Hey dealer associations, your hypocrisy is showing.

  • avatar
    Asdf

    By mandating EV sales, Colorado is mandating sales of vehicles that are DEFECTIVE by design! That’s quite a shock, and just goes to show how out of touch with reality today’s politicians are.

    The logical thing to do would have been to BAN the sale of defective vehicles. Any EV needing more than a reasonable five minutes to fully charge its battery obviously classifies as defective, and that is the case for EVERY single EV currently on sale! So all EVs should be banned until the manufacturers fix this glaring defect.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    By the time any ZEV law comes into effect in Colorado, there’s expected to be at least two different BEV pickups and four different BEV SUVs on the roads.

    • 0 avatar
      jatz

      “there’s expected to be…”

      Great history book: *The Confident Hope of a Miracle*

      https://www.amazon.com/Confident-Hope-Miracle-History-Spanish/dp/1400042941/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1547850063&sr=8-2&keywords=the+confident+hope+of+a+miracle

  • avatar
    jatz

    I’m fine with this so long as they also mandate that EV manufacturers offer at least 4 different shades each of blue and green body colors.

  • avatar
    Robbie

    Economist here. Most of us economists would argue that cars need to be taxed based on how much they pollute, and beyond that, we should let the market do its work.

    Both my right wing and leftie friends would hate it when I come up with such common sense ideas.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      How does “how much they pollute” relate to paying for roads and supporting infrastructure?

      I can see now why economists are rarely asked for their input on auto-related ventures like charging-station infrastructure, rest stops, and road repair.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      It is a common sense idea, Robbie, but it still forgets one thing: They use the same roads as ICEVs and they’re heavier than all but trucks. Their charging fees, at least for now, do NOT include any fees for infrastructure maintenance, meaning roads and bridges, etc. So they need to be taxed differently to support that infrastructure. The best way, to my viewing, is to have an annual or bi-annual tax based on actual miles driven–payable with the registration renewal where the mileage is recorded. This could be handled either as lump sum or as a fee added to your electric bill to spread the rate over the operating period rather than lump-sum payments.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    That’s the problem with EVs right now. For the general pop, the choices suck. There’s very little utility, 4wd, pickup or otherwise. The EVs you might want are way too expensive to make sense, even with big tax breaks, especially for fleets, which should be the biggest buyers of EVs eventually.

  • avatar
    manbridge

    Can’t wait for Skynet Motors to have cars everywhere in CO! Gas is $1.81 per gallon today. By 2025 they will be practically giving gas away.

    Sadly this means dealers will have to raise the price of non-electric vehicles to make up for having to take a beating on battery powered vehicles. This will have people buying cars out of state. Many other unintended consequences abound…

    Too bad battery tech is stagnant. Some 11 million iPhone users decided to buy a new battery instead of a new phone. This was because the old phone could do 95% of what the iPhone X could do with a $79 battery replacement.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Fordson: Interesting how nobody has made the obvious comparison here – that if your president threatens to...
  • Arthur Dailey: Southern Ontario/GTA resident. Back in the days of big v8’s the truism was that the body would...
  • cimarron typeR: How was your gas mileage in your 2nd test? It seems H/K artificially lower their rating to avoid...
  • Art Vandelay: Not so fast my friend…both of my Senators at the time were “Nay” votes (Shelby,...
  • PrincipalDan: Make my Kona a type of coffee bean and keep this little Hyundai.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States