By on September 23, 2020

Image: NadyGinzburg/Shutterstock.com

California governor Gavin Newsom has signed an executive order that will ban the sale of new cars that are gasoline-powered, beginning in the year 2035.

“This is the most impactful step our state can take to fight climate change,” Newsom said in a statement. “For too many decades, we have allowed cars to pollute the air that our children and families breathe. You deserve to have a car that doesn’t give your kids asthma… Cars shouldn’t melt glaciers or raise sea levels threatening our cherished beaches and coastlines.”

He is also asking the state legislature to stop issuing new permits for fracking by 2024.

California is the largest market for cars and trucks in the U.S., accounting for 11 percent of sales. Other states often follow California’s lead on emissions regs.

All this comes right before an election in which the incumbent, Republican President Donald Trump, has tried to prevent California from making electric-vehicle sales a requirement, while challenger Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, has said he’d pour money into the quicker adoption of EVs.

Fifteen countries, including Britain, have introduced similar measures.

Newsom wants that California Air Resources Board (CARB) to work on regulations that will make sure 100 percent of in-state new car and truck sales will be of zero-emission vehicles, which he claims will cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 35 percent.

The board is further expected to require that medium- and heavy-duty vehicle emissions will also be zero, where feasible, by 2045.

California residents would not be prevented from owning gas-powered cars under the order, nor would they be prevented from selling such vehicles on the used-car market.

Newsom has said the state needs to increase its efforts to fight greenhouse gasses and climate change in the wake of devastating wildfires, and the state, along with almost 24 others, has been suing the Trump administration, which wants to takeaway California’s ability to set its own pollution rules and to rollback nationwide emissions standards.

For our part, we’re skeptical of this order, even if the intent is good. We’re all for reducing emissions (at least I am, I can’t speak for all of us at this site), but 15 years seems an unrealistic timeline, given the small share of the market occupied by EVs. The pace of development isn’t slow, to be sure, but it might not be as fast as Newsom would like, no matter what the New York Times or Elon Musk say.

There’s also messy realities to consider. Does this mean no more sports cars or heavy-duty pickups in California, unless they’re electric? Or do cars that sell in relative small numbers get an exemption? What happens if EV adoption is slow? What happens if automakers struggle to build EVs at scale at an affordable price and/or with good real-world range? What if charging infrastructure isn’t able to scale? Hasn’t California had a difficult time providing electricity to customers in recent years – can the state keep up with demand if everyone is charging EVs all the time?

Will this create two markets for cars – California and the other 49 states? That would upset the automakers, for sure.

All of these challenges could, in theory, be addressed by then. And the market could shift on its own accord before 2035, as the Times argued.

Personally, I think this is just a way to try to get the automakers – whether legacy like GM, niche like Tesla, or startup like Lucid – to speed up EV development even more. Something all these companies are already working on, and with haste.

It may also be cynical political rhetoric from a politician who may have his sights set on higher office at a time when the effects of climate change are hitting Americans – especially Californians – particularly hard. From wildfires to hurricanes, a lot of people are dealing with natural disasters.

I said it just yesterday – EVs likely will dominate the market at some point. Maybe even by 2035. But getting there will be a bumpy road, and not nearly as neatly as an executive order would make it seem.

[Image: NadyGinzburg/Shutterstock.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

91 Comments on “California Moves to Ban Sale of New Gas Cars by 2035...”


  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    To quote Boney M, “Oh Those Californians” Let the tribal bashing begin!

  • avatar
    boowiebear

    Newsom is a proven grandstander famous for announcements and policies that generate headlines that please his base, but deliver no value. Previous policies, black balls in the reservoir to reduce evaporation, had to be removed as they didn’t work, millions lost, BMW i3’s for police, never got used, millions lost. He will not be around to enforce this order so it is a paper tiger meant to prepare him for Senate or a Presidential run in 2024. Unless trend lines shift far outside reason based estimates, this is unfeasible. Oh well, legislate away…oh wait, not legislate, executive order away!

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “a proven grandstander famous for announcements and policies that generate headlines that please his base, but deliver no value”

      One could view that as endemic to the current federal regime ;)

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        sounds more like BO, the Nobel for Nothing guy, the ex-prez that can’t behave like one

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “sounds more like BO, the Nobel for Nothing guy, the ex-prez that can’t behave like one”

          Bingo. Pander to the base to get votes.

          If he was really concerned about emissions, he would allow proper forest management practices to mitigate the wildfire risk. Imagine how much “icky pollution” was released by those fires.

          But instead, he does the typical liberal thing and blames it on global warming (because the other liberal play is to blame it on racism but even he’s not that stupid).

          • 0 avatar
            notinuse

            You are always hilarious.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “You are always hilarious.”

            No, no he’s not. He’s dangerously ignorant

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ No, no he’s not. He’s dangerously ignorant”

            Which part was I “ignorant” about? The child rapists or the wildfires?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @EBFluck – 57% of the “forested” land that went up in flames in California is FEDERAL LAND. You can’t lay blame exclusively at the feet of California politicians. Roughly 1/3 of California is forested BUT a large amount of fires occur in the “brush lands”.

            Since you are an expert, what constitutes “proper forest management practices to mitigate the wildfire risk”????

            Global warming is a contributor.

            I live in Northern Canada and we’ve had several severe forest fire seasons in a row. Fortunately we don’t have the population density of California. During that time we had a local river hitting record temperatures 2 years in a row (25 Celcius). This year its been too wet and salmon aren’t surviving the raging creeks and rivers.

            My dad lived in the same region as I do and in the 40 years(1950-1990) he was here he only experienced one bad fire season. I saw 2 in a row recently. My sons (18/16) have experienced 6 severe fire seasons in their lives.

            It’s getting worse despite BC having a very good forest resource management system.

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            The ignorance and playground name-calling of the right wing are apalling, annoying and pathetic, and how gullible the keyboard foot soldiers are.
            Ignoring climate change is monumentally stupid, but profitable (in the short term) to the oil and coal companies that manipulate the puppet strings on the Republican shot-callers.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @boowiebear:

      Agreed. Also, Newsom will be long gone from his role by 2035.

      The problem with such proclamations is they only serve to whip up the base and energize the opposition.

      I doubt this moves the ball at all in the contest between the Newsom and Trump Administrations.

      • 0 avatar
        boowiebear

        Agree. The market and technology innovators have a lot of work to do for EV’s become a bigger part of the market. Additionally the average age of vehicles is 12 years old. We do not know the long term depreciation curve for EV’S and how useful they will be past 5 to 7 years.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      You are confusing the mayor of Los Angeles (whose initiatives those were) with the governor of California.

      I don’t fault him for either of those initiatives, BTW. The floating balls were an experiment: if it worked, enormous money could be saved by not having to move reservoirs underground; if not, it was a relatively small expense. The i3’s were a small fleet of donut-getters, so I question how much mileage they would have racked up if they were Cruzes anyway, but they provided the impetus to start installing charging infrastructure.

      It’s the California startup mindset: fail often but fail early. You’re going to need a few failures (Friendster, MySpace) to teach the lessons needed for success (Facebook).

    • 0 avatar
      don1967

      “No, no he’s not. He’s dangerously ignorant”

      Another brilliant, fact-laden rebuttal from the CNN school of debate.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Well, this thread should go full Dumpster Fire in about three minutes. So I’ll say my peace before the toxicity level gets too high:

    1) There’s no way in hell this guy is going to be able to do this without the legislature, and even then, it would probably take court blessing. The move is probably symbolic.
    2) Stupid executive orders are coming from all over, including a certain white-colored house on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, so before you start labeling Newsom a “fascist,” “communist,” or whatever other “-ist” pops into your brain, the truth is he’s part of a larger problem – what I like to call “leadership by blather.”
    3) It’s a dumb move anyway – this should be more market-driven.
    4) Better move: provide incentives.

    And now y’all can start flinging poo at each other.

    FreedMike, out…
    (Drops mike)

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “the truth is he’s part of a larger problem”

      I’d support a full-on constitutional amendment banning executive orders at the federal, state, and city level.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        >>I’d support a full-on constitutional amendment banning executive orders at the federal, state, and city level<<

        make it retroactive and I'm w/ you

        JFK unionized government workers by EO, even though FDR said that was insane because they would organize ag/ the people and there is no one that watches out for the public in such an arrangement

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        There are constitutional limits on executive orders, in both state and federal constitutions. A federal judge just slapped down measures by the governor of Pennsylvania on constitutional grounds. It’s just a matter of time before other governors are restrained by federal courts. Many of these governors don’t know it yet, but their political careers are over: the voters will decide their fate, and judging by the anger over mask mandates alone, it won’t be pretty.

        • 0 avatar
          HotPotato

          If a governor loses due to mask mandates, it will be an indication that this whole democracy thing was a bad idea, and we really are as aggressively ignorant as the monarchists feared.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        Hear, Hear! Executive orders are out of hand, and have been getting more and more abusive in terms of usurping what rightly needs to be the legislative branch’s duty. A Constitution amendment or some sort of powerful legislation needs to be formulated. We do not need a King Trump, Obama, Newsom, or anybody else. The trending to strongman government needs to stop. I don’t want the USA governance to resemble Russia, China or North Korea.
        The whole of the USA needs a lesson in civics, Constitutional government, and Political science 101 for good measure. This includes many of the 600+ people at the pinnacle of the Federal Gov in D.C.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        @ajla:

        I don’t think executive orders are the problem per se – it goes deeper than that, and stems from the fact that the legislative/executive process is hopelessly bogged down in most states, and in Washington. It isn’t surprising to me that governors and the White House use them excessively – it’s a way to “get things done.”

        Combine that with the fact that most governors and presidents are blathering, loudmouthed fools – and more importantly, that the body politic has ACCEPTED that most are blathering, loudmouthed fools and don’t expect better – and you have a situation where idiots are issuing “orders” via Twitter to convince people they’re actually doing something.

        The REAL constitutional amendment we need would be to rid the system of the legalized bribery…whoops, I mean, campaign contributions…that guarantees that we get nothing BUT a selection of blathering fools to choose from come election day. Maybe if we got some serious candidates with serious ideas, we could get serious about politics, versus it being the fourth-grade-playground garbage we see now.

    • 0 avatar
      Yankee

      Well put FreedMike. I jump into these discussions less and less these days because everyone just wants to read into an article what they want and use it as a springboard to launch into a horray-for-our-side soapbox speech. I think Mr. Healy did a nice job here of balancing the issue while still presenting a bit of analysis. I’m in the middle, politically, and have very different opinions depending on the issue. I’m sad to see that moderate authors and politicians/candidates have been largely drowned out by the screaming voices of party politics. While I was once loath to use generic terms like “the media,” lately you don’t get coverage anywhere unless you say something absurdly unrealistic. I miss the old days when I could come to this site to read about cars and have discussions and good-natured discussions with fellow gear-heads.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Yankee “While I was once loath to use generic terms like “the media,” lately you don’t get coverage anywhere unless you say something absurdly unrealistic”

        That is very true. The media is now like any other typical profit focused entity. They care about making as much money as possible. They get more viewers and therefore more income by airing the views of “loudmouths”. There is profit in grievance and anger. Moderation and intellectual discussion isn’t profitable.

        • 0 avatar
          HotPotato

          Yes. It is expensive to have news bureaus around the world doggedly investigating to determine facts. It is relatively cheap to have talking heads hurling opinions pulled out of their posteriors. Fox News figured this out first, and others followed suit. (You think Fox likes red and MSNBC likes blue? They both like the green of money.)

          There is MUCH much more to say about the perilous economics of journalism, the shameful revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, and the filter-bubble effect of social media algorithms…but I’ll spare y’all.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    I’m certain the Peoples Republic of California Power Generation Combine (replacement for PGE) will do a great job of avoiding rolling blackouts.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    I’m sure there’s a thorough cost-benefit analysis to back up this bold plan.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      I’m a Californian; he’s a progressive. It just popped into his head, after other progressives whispered in his ear. There’s nothing else to back it up, without the legislature passing the appropriate legislation.

      Then it will be tied up in the courts. If they’re lucky there will be a final decision by 2035, after tens of millions in tax money is spent. If Californians are lucky, the federal courts will slap it down long before that.

    • 0 avatar
      aja8888

      Like replacing the lost gas tax revenue when the ban on ICE vehicles is in effect.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Remember, this is the guy who spent $1 billion of taxpayer money on medical masks with BYD. BYD missed not only timelines but safety guidelines for these masks. This was the first time BYD attempted to make masks.

    Newsom kept details of this deal hidden from the state assembly and senate, so accusations of crooked, no-bid contracts are part of the discussion.

    To Newsom’s credit, the total amount being spent on these masks is now $1.4 billion. Gotta keep the golden state’s reputation for exceeding budgets of at least 40% somehow.

    You can agree with every single one of Newsom’s political beliefs, but you have to admit he’s also as crooked as the day is long.

  • avatar
    WalterRohrl

    Nice clickbait headline, you seem to have accidentally (/s) missed the three words “sale of new” in it…Big difference there.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Hits are down so time for politics….

    • 0 avatar
      Featherston

      +2, WalterRohrl & Lou_BC.

      Frankly, I’ve come to the conclusion that TTAC is not worth my time unless it’s something Corey has authored. Yeah, good commenters can still write interesting comments under clickbait articles, but it’s not worth rewarding the lesser contributors. I liked Sajeev too, but I think he’s been officially gone since February or so.

    • 0 avatar
      Tim Healey

      It actually was an accident, or more accurately, an oversight. We don’t intentionally mislead for clicks. And the lede of the story, which is visible on the homepage, has it correct. I’ll fix the error.

      • 0 avatar
        WalterRohrl

        I’ll applaud that, good move. Yes the lede did have it, which of course assumes that commenters read the actual text which is debatable with any kind of incendiary topic that directly involves any political figure no matter how newsworthy and relevant to vehicles it is (And this is relevant). Many of the comments have already devolved into personal opinions about California and/or its current governor, likely mostly by people who don’t have any actual familiarity with either, with a minority of debate about the actual feasability of the action from a technical perspective or what the positive vs negative effects might be if it actually came to pass which again would require critical thinking skills. Some readers still don’t realize that the term “Best and Brightest” was Farago’s greatest piece of satire, his contempt wasn’t only directed at the auto industry.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “Some readers still don’t realize that the term “Best and Brightest” was Farago’s greatest piece of satire, his contempt wasn’t only directed at the auto industry.”

          Now who isn’t using his critical thinking skills?

  • avatar

    This a a perfect example of political posturing. Do you notice how far in the future this law is. We have no idea what things will be like fifteen years from now. If you don’t count Tesla, today’s EV market share is about 1%.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Obviously, no private jets of Hollywood personalities are included

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    California recently lost its right or waiver to set its own (new vehicle) emissions rules. Since it means nothing, they might as well shoot for the Moon. But it’s fun to watch CA turn itself into a 3rd world democracy.

    Yeah it’s got some nice places. So does Mexico.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    “3rd world democracy”

    Is there such a thing?

    I guess you could argue that California is “3rd world” since the origins of the term refer to whether or not you are aligned with the USA i.e. 1st world or aligned with the Soviet world i.e. communist. 3rd world refers to any country not aligned with either.

    3rd world tends to be incorrectly classified as “sh!thole” countries to quote the cheeto-in-chief.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    don’t forget High Speed Rail

    the CA politicos turned it into a corrupt fiasco

    like everything else they do

    • 0 avatar

      The main difference is the high speed project have already started. It will eventually be a reality after a lot of expenditure.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        It’s now limited to the cheapest (!) middle section. It doesn’t get within 50 miles of Los Angeles, or 30 miles from San Francisco. Who wants to travel 200 MPH from 20 miles west of Bakersfield, to 10 miles south of Stockton, with most of the track running just east of and parallel to the San Andreas fault?

        • 0 avatar
          HotPotato

          It seems some folks are unaware that high-speed rail wasn’t Newsom’s initiative, and that he stopped funding it pending re-evaluation.

          It will probably go back to the voters. I think that was always more or less the plan: make some progress, check in to see if folks still want to proceed, repeat.

          I think everyone understands that big infrastructure projects, like wars, always take longer and cost more than expected. It’s the unknown unknowns that getcha, as Rumsfeld might say.

  • avatar
    Urlik

    What a shame that a single person can make that decision for all in the state.

  • avatar
    DOHC 106

    This is based upon my personal visits to California and my opinion. I think the state is beautiful. The Bay Area, the Redwood Trees, and driving through Malibu are some nice spots. I have also driven through LA with the terrible traffic congestion and the horrible pollution. This proposal is totally unfeasible from every point of view. Interestingly enough the last time the discussion came it was about diesel now gasoline. Where is all the money for the electrical grid. California has already driven out companies with high taxes, the so called high speed rail system is a joke, cost over runs everywhere, brush fires, droughts, black outs, and what about peoples’ personal transportation. You just eliminated a ton of tax money from vehicle registrations and a job base that supports it. So everyone will either drive an electrical vehicle or public transportation, but neither is developed for the near future.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      Got it.
      You don’t like pollution. Neither do I. We can have less of it by cleaning up exhaust.
      You don’t like congestion. Neither do I. We can have less of it by investing in rail.
      You don’t like wildfires. Neither do I. We can stop those from getting too much worse if we address climate change.

      You’re worried about electrical demand. Me too. We can address that by modernizing the grid to store and shift the ever-growing amounts of wind and solar energy the state generates.

      And so on.

      Perhaps you can’t envision every detail, fill in every blank, of how we get from here to there. Neither can I. That’s fine; it’s not our job. But others can, and it is their job. They have 15 years to get us there. And if they can’t? The targets will be adjusted accordingly.

      It’s unfashionable in our time of cynical selfishness, but Californians are pretty good at using government to solve problems. Making the desert bloom with the State Water Project. Dramatically cutting smog with tailpipe emissions standards, even as population dramatically increased. Driving innovation with a research university system that’s the envy of the world.

      I don’t think it helps anyone if we fold our arms, sit on our asses, and petulantly declare that if a problem is hard then we’re not even going to try.

  • avatar
    R Henry

    It was an Executive Order, not legislation. That it was announced via the Twit tells you all you need to know.

    Any implementation would be well after Newsom is termed out. There is no present “downside” for him. It won’t be enacted, but Newsom gets to gloat in front of the greenies as he seeks their support for a White House run in 2024.

    Pure politics with no legislative teeth. Yep, this what US politics look like today–disgusting. (which it always has been)

  • avatar
    deanst

    I guess nows the time to buy a car dealership in Arizona?

    We’ll see if he’s serious if he directs the electric utility to start building more capacity. If he doesn’t, it’s pure theatrics.

    Who knows when electric cars become economic. However, when they do, their uptake will be very quick. People always underestimate adoption rates.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    What is it with liberals and their absolute hate of free market and business?

    California is, for all intents and purposes, a wonderful example of the vast failure liberal policies really are. The state is literally burning down, they are driving businesses away left and right, and all they are focused on is lessening the punishments for people who molest children. There is your liberal priorities.

    And the crazy part is that they think they are doing good because they have brainwashed millions of people to keep voting for this insanity.

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    They don’t have enough power to avoid rolling blackouts. I guess when it’s peak power usage time for air conditioning that means no car can be charged.

    If it’s implemented the poor people are the ones that are affected. More reason to leave that state already.

  • avatar
    mcs

    Electrification of transportation has to happen by free-market forces. There is a certain pace it needs to move at and only the market can set it. If the government wants to help it along, they need to invest in material science education. Develop the scientists that can solve issues related to batteries and power. Then it will happen naturally.

    In my opinion, the biggest reason we need to develop advanced batteries is military-related. New advanced weaponry is highly dependent on battery advancements. Not just for propulsion. It’s needed to support the amount of computing power needed.

    Even the autonomous vehicle technology everyone seems to hate has huge potential for weapons guidance once it’s perfected. Just try tracking cruise missiles following a highway or road system at 5 feet off the ground.

  • avatar

    Switch to EV is going to happen no matter you like it or not. It is just result of advanced technology changing our world. We are approaching the Singularity. By 2035 more important things will happen, the things you should really care about. Like lack of traditional jobs – most people will not be able to find a job and will live off basic income benefit. Only most talented and creative among us will still have full time job and high income. AI will start becoming a menace to our species. Recent events demonstrates that our species are deeply flawed and the same time it is impossible to download updated SW and bug fixes. May be we are approaching the dead end for our species.

    But the thought we may find comforting is that many of us will be dead by 2035.

  • avatar

    This just illustrates that the only EVs that interest the public are built by Tesla.

  • avatar
    fiasco

    If Executive Order isn’t feasible, it’ll be rescinded by future governor or court. Sometimes the market needs a nudge; polluting less isn’t a bad thing.

    I’ve been stuck behind a slow moving square-body Chevy pickup and 356 Porsche in the past week. Both were smelly, the Chevy more so. I love gas and diesel cars, but they are becoming a thing of the past. I have a friend with a Model 3 performance; if I had the means, I’d pick one up as a commuter car.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    The Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, was implemented in September, 1990, by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). It originally required that, starting in 1998, 2% of the in-state new light duty vehicle sales of major automakers had no emissions of criteria pollutants. The required ZEV percentage would be increased to 5% in 2001 and to 10% in 2003.

  • avatar
    Old_WRX

    I’m sick to death of the phony “virtue” people like this gov. wave around. Always saying what is supposed to be the right thing. Anyone who has the temerity to complain about their bullying is immediately labeled an enemy of the people, a climate change “doubter”, conspiracy theorist, racist, etc. Having the common sense to call this type of thuggery what it is is strictly verboten. And, that is what this is: bullying bullsh!t, self serving, cheap — regardless of how cutely it’s dressed up.

    Sorry about the rant, but you can’t lift a cheek and f**t these days without some fool calling you evil in some form or other.

  • avatar
    markf

    This is just one of those pronouncements that is made with a timeline long enough that it will pass with no one remembering it. It’s not meant to be real, just to show that he is “doing something”

    2035 will come and go and no one will remember any of this.

  • avatar
    anomaly149

    Every OEM is working on a large number of EVs, but there are basic economic realities. Adding an electric powertrain is a substantial up-front cost. That cost, plus range anxiety and “limited” charging infrastructure ensures that your basic market share is limited from the very beginning.

    A dictate like this might look nice, but the states need to fundamentally decide how they intend to address charging infrastructure and defray the up front cost penalty. Otherwise, the dozens of BEV models slated to come out in the next few years won’t find much market penetration beyond a subset of upper middle class and up people who own their own home or a condo in a sufficiently wealthy building.

  • avatar
    ttacgreg

    One of these days this question has to be asked. How may EV’s can be hooked up to the grid? How much demand can the grid as it exists supply?

  • avatar
    pwrwrench

    It’s been talked around here but the unanswered, unasked, question is; Where does the electricity come from to charge those batteries?
    Coal or natural gas power plant? Not much CO2 reduction there. Hydro-electric dam, nuclear power plant, solar electric generator, geothermal energy, etc?

    Plus the electricity “problems” in California are mostly due to corporate greed i.e. Enron style actions. Everyone in California, that has an electricity bill, pays about $3-$5 per month to pay off the previous electricity ripoff in 1999-2002. Think about how many millions of ‘customers’ there are and how many millions per month that brings in.
    This add on to bills was supposed to end long before now, but…..
    I talk to people about this and no one, so far, has any idea that they are still paying ‘electric’ bills from 20 years ago.
    There was a “de-regulation” of the electricity “market” in California in 1998. The legislation was written mostly by Enron and their buddies, with contributions from PG&E (Pacific Graft & Extortion), SoCal Edison, Sempra energy (largest natural gas seller along with PG&E).
    What this ended up being was electric bills went up by a factor of 2 to 6 and the owners of the generating plants had every incentive, and no penalty, to take there capacity offline. So there were “rolling blackouts” trying to scare people into paying the higher bills for the same electricity they used a year before. Customers rebelled and refused to pay the increase. They also got in the faces of the Sacto legislators, who, except for two, had all voted for the “de-regulation”. Now they claimed they never heard of it and rescinded some of the worst parts, but still left the greediest types with nothing stopping them from further idiocy.
    That’s why we have fires caused by downed electric lines and an electric grid barely able to keep up.
    It’s actually part of the PUC mandate for utility companies that they plan ahead so none of this should be happening.
    You could say it’s because of “commie, socialist, liberal, whatever” GUBMINT, but it’s just the old ripoff.

  • avatar
    tobiasfunkemd

    Let the parade of California bashing begin! I can’t wait to read a stream of Fox News-approved talking points about how the exodus of wealth from California wil turn it into a woke dystopia faster than one can say “Carbon Neutral”. Research indicates that California’s outflows are mostly low to middle income residents, while the (admittedly smaller numbers) coming into California tend to be people with higher income and educational attainment. California has many problems, some of them self-inflicted, but most people who choose to live here appreciate a state government that actually puts the health, safety, and well-being of it’s residents first. As many right-wing types are loathe to admit, there are rational reasons why California continues to attract so many capable people. California was considered “over” in the 90’s as the defense industry downsized in SoCal, after the dot.com bust in the early 00’s, and during the great recession. I suspect we’ll be fine. Feel free to come or go! After all, free flow of labor is one of the hallmarks of efficiency in a market-based economy.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      Won’t it be great when those poorly educated middle class people leave, and there will be only the smart high income ones left? Except some servant class commoners, of course, still need some of them.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Let California do whatever they want. I don’t live in California.

  • avatar
    karonetwentyc

    Speaking as an ex-California resident:

    Governor Newsom, California can’t even keep the lights on when everyone runs their air conditioners. How will it cope with 20-million-plus vehicles all charging off of a grid that doesn’t have the supply or infrastructure to support it every night?

    I worked in government in CA before we fled, and have seen first-hand how completely screwed power generation and distribution is in that state. Good luck fixing that in 15 years.

    • 0 avatar
      turbo_awd

      Good one, Karen..

      Yeah, Covid + crazy wildfires and we had a couple of days of possibly not enough electricity. And we can’t solve that in 15 years, when every new house starting in 2020 has to have solar panels installed

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        Having solar on your roof makes you MORE resilient if the power goes off (if you’re smart enough to buy a battery). That’s a plus, not a minus.

        There’s a nuclear power plant right there above your house. It’s big and yellow and round. Use it.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      Translation: California is paying me a fat union retirement pension, and I’m saying thank you by spending it in some other state.

      (Maybe not. But I see a lot of that: states that talk smack about California, but LITERALLY survive on California dollars.)

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    California needs to worry more about all the old polluting vehicles that avoid inspection many from aliens who cannot afford anything else. ICE vehicles might eventually be replaced by electric but there are many old polluting hoopties on the road now that need to be taken off the road.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      Why not both?

      I commend Schwarzenegger for overhauling the smog check system so that newer cars are exempt for 6 years (they usually pass anyway), and beyond that, the older your car gets, the more often it needs to be tested — until it gets so old that you probably can’t get parts anyway, at which point it becomes exempt.

      But what he should have added in that overhaul was remote sensing: little roadside robots. Sniffer detects a gross polluter, camera snaps a photo of the plate number, DMV computer sends a fix-it ticket in the mail. This would address the issue of people driving around with a known problem until a smog check is imminent — and the dipshits who think removing the catalytic converter from their WRX is going to give it more power. And hey…if it could also issue a kick in the balls for people who deliberately roll coal, I’d be delighted.

      This idea was advanced by a noted conservative (I forget who); his take was you could avoid the imposition of routine smog checks altogether if you had enough of these robots. I don’t think that’s realistic, and I’m sure they’d be vandalized…but given that one problem car pollutes more than a fleet of cars in good repair, I think it’s a good idea on an ad-hoc basis, especially along highly trafficked corridors.

      It sounds harsh but it’s not, because California is pretty nice about it. If your car flunks smog and you are honest to God too poor to fix it, the state has repair assistance available to pay for it. Plus cash for clunkers and huge used-EV incentives in some areas.

  • avatar
    pwrwrench

    That’s why they had “Cash For Clunkers” and continuing assistance for low income people to get their cars to pass the emission test.
    The slaves need to get to their place of work.

  • avatar
    GenesisCoupe380GT

    California deserves to not have a treehugging crybaby for a governor

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • mcs: Most of these will be sold in virtual form as IP licenses to video game companies, so it’s appropriate. I...
  • Rocket: But unlike the manual transmission, buttons aren’t dying because there’s a lack of demand for...
  • 28-Cars-Later: Disagree, there are far more people impacted by it than losing a manual transmission option.
  • Lie2me: One of my favorite factoids is that in 1972 Ford Motor Co. offered 79 different cars you could buy across...
  • Lie2me: I wasn’t sure, I stand corrected

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