By on April 15, 2022

Now that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) looks poised to reinstate California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act — allowing the state to establish stricter tailpipe emissions than the federal limits — the coastal region has resumed its quest to abolish gasoline-powered vehicles in earnest. While the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has yet to finalize all the details, the latest proposal calls for strengthened emissions standards for new light-duty vehicles in anticipation of the necessary approvals.

The scheme would require pure electrics and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) to make up 35 percent of new-vehicle sales for the 2026 model year. By 2030, that number will become 68 percent before hitting 100 percent for MY 2035. CARB said zero-emission vehicles comprised 12.4 percent of the state’s new market in 2021, hinting that the number could have been higher without the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One having stifled its progress. 

Done in conjunction with the fuel rollback in an effort to prevent the Golden State from leveraging its large population to encourage automotive manufacturers to prioritize all-electric vehicles, California’s waiver was revoked in 2019. Donald Trump had been on a mission to deregulate U.S. industry, operating under the assumption that it would tamp down future vehicle pricing and create division among states with disparate guidelines for the automotive sector.

But the Biden administration has sought to return to stringent Obama-era standards, saying that pressing forward with battery technology would lead to high-paying jobs while also improving air quality. This has included the advancement of a renewed EV tax credit plan that has become a contentious issue for non-unionized automakers and a vow from the White House to totally transition federal fleets into all-electric vehicles that also hasn’t gone according to plan. Though none of this matters much to California because its proposals far exceed what the Biden administration has asked for.

That said, the White House is unlikely to mind the West Coast doing its own thing. Biden issued an executive order immediately after taking office in January of 2021, directing the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the EPA to reconsider the previous administration’s revocation of California’s waiver. Originally issued in 2009, the arrangement came after numerous passes on the state’s request to enact stricter air pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government required — but only after Barack Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum for the EPA to think twice before telling California no.

In December, CARB issued a draft of its latest proposal after the NHTSA began removing aspects of Trump’s SAFE Act. At the time, the rules were targeting 61-percent ZEV sales by 2030 — substantially higher than the White House’s nationwide target of 50 percent. The newly suggested standards are even loftier and have drawn plenty of criticism from Republicans, according to Automotive News.

From AN:

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., in April criticized the administration’s plan to allow California to set its own auto pollution rules, arguing that it would create a patchwork of standards and raise the cost of new vehicles.

“By allowing California to set stricter- than-federal emissions standards, President Biden is once again prioritizing a rush-to-green environmental agenda over the needs and well-being of hardworking American families,” said Rodgers, who is the GOP leader for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In July, a group of 16 Republican attorneys general also urged the EPA to not reinstate California’s waiver, arguing that any attempt to restore the authority would be “unconstitutional” because “a federal law giving one state special power to regulate a major national industry contradicts the notion of a union of sovereign states.”

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have adopted California’s stricter vehicle emissions standards, representing more than one-third of all light-vehicle sales in the U.S.

Automakers also jumped aboard, with several companies previously vowing to adhere to Californian terms regardless of what the Trump administration did. Others opted against aligning themselves with CARB, while a few (e.g. Honda) have committed to Californian standards but are actively pushing back against Biden’s union-based EV tax credit scheme. I suppose the takeaway is that the whole affair has become a political minefield for manufacturers, regardless of which side they happen to have joined.

Regardless, the EPA will need to officially reinstate the waiver before California can do anything with federal backing and the whole thing will be subject to judicial approval. However, the agency is presumed to do so and has already said it plans to make a formal decision on the matter in the near future.

[Image: guteksk7/Shutterstock.com]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

114 Comments on “California Proposal Calls for 68 Percent EV Sales By 2030...”


  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    There are some rural and agricultural parts in the state. Are there provisions for those areas where EV’s don’t meet their needs? Is there a backup if by 2035 that has yet to happen or is Sacramento pulling their normal California outside of LA, Sacramento and San Francisco doesn’t exist thing.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      2035 is 13 model years away. 13 models years ago, the only fully street-legal EV for sale in America was the Tesla Model 1. I suspect that they’ll have some more betterer options 13 years from now, based on the progress we’ve seen in the last 13 years.

      BTW, it’s California out of LA, San Francisco and Napa. Not sure what this “Sacramento” thing is you’re referring to.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        So you are willing to bet the livelyhood of those 8n the rural parts of the state on technology catching up @Astigmatism, but I suspect you wouldn’t appreciate someone gambling with yours.

        Still, not long ago if you posted about ICE bans your people would call those folks all sorts of names. And look…an ICE ban.

        If you are right, we’ll have Fusion by then anyway as I keep hearing it is a decade or so off. Want to bet your way of life on that? Of course not. But somer rural farmer, eh, he’s probably not too smart anyway, right?

        • 0 avatar
          kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh

          “So you are willing to bet the livelyhood of those 8n the rural parts of the state on technology catching up”

          yes.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            You are going to be surprised when you learn that food doesn’t actually come from the grocery store, but from those people who’s livelyhood you were willing to flush. Lucky for me I can hunt and grow my own and am perfectly willing to watch you go hungry.

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            livelihood, not with a “y”.

            Semi-illiteracy makes you appear to be a member of the illiterati.

            And the good folks who haven’t got electricity in their neck of the woods yet can still opt to buy a new internal combustion vehicle. 68% is not 100%.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            100 percent by 2035. Surely someone so smart as you actually read the article @rhd.

        • 0 avatar
          aja8888

          Fusion has been a decade off for 5 or 6 decades now. Yeah, “it’s right around the corner”/

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “ Still, not long ago if you posted about ICE bans your people would call those folks all sorts of names. And look…an ICE ban.”

          And by not long ago you mean this year. In the comments of articles on this site. By the same group smooth brained individuals who think the government can do no wrong and anyone opposed should be silenced (they truly admire Putin)

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “2035 is 13 model years away. 13 models years ago, the only fully street-legal EV for sale in America was the Tesla Model 1. I suspect that they’ll have some more betterer options 13 years from now, based on the progress we’ve seen in the last 13 years.”

        I guess the law of diminishing returns isn’t a thing in fairy tale land.

    • 0 avatar
      MitchConner

      @ Art: Bingo. The arrogant residents of the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County used to rule the entire state. When Covid hit they spread like a fungus to Sacramento and Tahoe in state and have gone on to pollute Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, Oregon, and eastern Washington — driving up costs for everyone else while pushing for the same stupid rules and regulations that made where they came from so miserable.

      As for CARB, all they do is cook up dopey goals and mandates that make life more difficult for everyone — including the savages (in their eyes) who live in the Central Valley and other areas outside the Team Donkey Death Star.

      Newsom loves to bellow “we’re California, we lead the way.” And he’s right. In poverty. Near poverty. Illegals. Blackouts. Post Covid job losses. Cost of living. Crime. And with all the money from Silicon Valley being spread around the country — it’s third world lifestyle could very well be coming to you.

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      “Are there provisions for those areas where EV’s don’t meet their needs?”

      This is the US–where politicians bloviate daily on things they have absolutely zero interest in actually doing, as long as they get the “optics” out of saying it.

      They make these “laws” but kick the “effective” date down the road, so that when the legislation takes effect, the blowback goes onto the guy who’s there when it’s enforced–not the guy who made the law in the first place.

      We’ve now pushed the mandate for a secure ID of some sort be required to board an airplane. It’s back to mid-2023, now, after having been kicked back several times already.

      So: what do YOU think will happen, Art?

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      This whole comments section is a steaming pile of Facebook detritus (to use a polite term). Readers not interested in right-wing political nonsense from the uninformed are advised to skip on to another article. This one is just a load of shamefully mediocre rubbish.

  • avatar
    kcflyer

    How many new nuclear power plants will be online in California by 2035?

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Waiting for the states rights’ enthusiasts to chime in here…

    (For the record: EV adoption should be primarily market based, and governments want to intervene, they should do so with carrots, not sticks. Otherwise, I find it likely that they’re just shooting their own feet.)

  • avatar
    1337cr3w

    Good luck with that.

    Remember those summertime rolling blackouts?

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    This is a non-news story, like so many in the media today. ONE state legislator introduces a bill that will probably go nowhere. Happens every day.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “ONE state legislator introduces a bill that will probably go nowhere”

      That’s not at all what this is. This is a regulatory proposal set forth by the California Air Resources Board in response to an executive order from the governor of California. CARB has broad authority to regulate emissions in California. The vote on this proposal (which will be a CARB vote not a CA legislative vote) is set for June 9.

  • avatar
    Cicero

    More fine work from the Legislature and Governor who turned one of the most beautiful places on Earth into a craphole that productive people are leaving in droves.

  • avatar
    jack4x

    Misleading headline or error in the article if PHEVs count under this limit.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      PHEVs do count but after 2028 they need to have at least a 50 mile EPA-rated all-electric range to qualify. They also need to meet Super Ultra Low Emission standards in ICE mode to qualify.
      There was also some pages about new regulations on cold-start PHEV emissions but that’s a bit over my head.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    The numbers don’t matter. This is about states’ rights, which conservatives should be applauding.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I don’t understand the “State’s Rights” snark.
      This is a provision in a federal law that grants California unique regulatory authority.
      Texas doesn’t have the legal ability to pass its own vehicle emission laws and Vermont can’t pass stricter rules if they feel California isn’t being aggressive enough.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      So you are in favor of states rights? So you are all about that Texas abortion law I guess.

    • 0 avatar
      punkairwaves

      Nice try. Alexander Hamilton on the Commerce Clause: Whatever practices may have a tendency to disturb the harmony between the States are proper objects of federal superintendence and control.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “This is about states’ rights, which conservatives should be applauding.”

      Your arguments are entering the same “special needs” realm of FreedMike and Lou BC.

      The thing with conservatives is that they look at the issue, not the ideology. Conservatives are also able to look at the broader picture and consider all facets of an issue. To simply boil this down to “welp states rights so….” is you being stupid or purposely obtuse. For one, you argument is tantamount to saying conservatives have no argument if a state mandates one arm be removed from every baby born…because “state’s rights”. Unfortunately, CA has a lot of power due to the size of that excrement hole of a state’s economy. So, in reality, no, this is not a “state’s rights” issue.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        @EBFlex:

        “The thing with conservatives is that they look at the issue, not the ideology”

        So you favor states’ rights except when the issue offends you – got it.

        I normally describe myself as a conservative, except that in 2022 that definition includes being a monolithic Trump supporter, Covid denier, 2020 election denier, and – in these pages – an EV hater.

        I am none of things, which makes me a traitor to today’s Republican Party. Conveniently, I switched to Libertarian in November 2020 after watching the Republicans become loony fanatics.

        Truth is, I like California, and I don’t care what they do. But Posky does, and his rambling-as-usual article has succeeded in generating clicks and putting blog commenters at each others’ throats.

        • 0 avatar
          Matt Posky

          This article was straight news chronicling the steps that have been taken thus far in regard to California’s ability to self regulate, not an editorial where I get to gripe about which regulations I believe are at odds with my consumer advocacy.

          Please let me know which portions are “rambling-as-usual” so I can make them clearer.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “Conveniently, I switched to Libertarian in November 2020”

          ca.lp.org/issue/pollution/

          “We call for the repeal of the Clean Air Act and call for the abolition of the federal and state Environmental Protection Agencies”

          ¯_(ツ)_/¯

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          @SCE to AUX-“I normally describe myself as a conservative, except that in 2022 that definition includes being a monolithic Trump supporter, Covid denier, 2020 election denier, and – in these pages – an EV hater.”

          Agree and can I add that if you do not support Putin you are supporting the fascist regime of Ukraine. Never in my life did I ever dream of many Republicans supporting an ex KGB agent, Neo Nazis, Klu Klux Clan, and Conspiracy Theorists. Not the Republican Party I grew up with. Better to rename it as the Trump Party since its followers sheepishly follow their savior Donald J Trump.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            The next thing you know the Republicans will be begging Putin to help them make a nuclear deal with Iran. I guess pallets of cash were out of the question.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            ” Never in my life did I ever dream of many Republicans supporting an ex KGB agent, Neo Nazis, Klu Klux Clan, and Conspiracy Theorists. Not the Republican Party I grew up with. Better to rename it as the Trump Party since its followers sheepishly follow their savior Donald J Trump.”

            So, it would be important to highlight not only that your post completely lacks any factual information, but a reflection to the history of the democrats:

            1. There are ZERO republicans that support Putin. Zero.
            2. There are ZERO republicans that support neo nazis. Zero.
            3. There are ZERO republicans that support the KKK. Zero.
            4. There are ZERO republicans that support baseless conspiracy theorists. Zero.

            -Democrats are the party of the KKK
            -Democrats are the party of being against the abolition of slavery.
            -Joe Biden delivered a eulogy for a KKK member
            -Joe Biden was against busing saying: ““Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point,” ”
            -Democrats (and the media) labeled anyone that said covid came from a ChiCom lab as a conspiracy theory. That was proven real.
            -Democrats (and the media) labeled Hunters laptop (essentially) a conspiracy theory. That was proven real.
            -Just today, it was revealed that the “Trump-Russia” collusion was completely manufactured.

            And there is many many more examples of democrat lies.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            The leader of the Klan openly supported Trump, Neo Nazis have openly supported Trump, many Trump supporters have openly supported Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Biden was not supporting the Klan he was giving a eulogy for Strom Thurman who he served with in the Senate for years. The Republican Party has ostracized real conservatives such as Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzger. Many conservatives like Senator Rob Portman (Ohio Republican) have chosen to not run for reelection and have been basically rejected by the Pro Trump Republicans that have the most influence and loudest voice in the Republican Party. The Republican Party as it was is dead and has been taken over by the Trumpers. It would be more honest to call it the Trump Party. The Republican Party is no longer the party of Ronald Reagan and Reagan would be considered a leftist socialist in today’s Trump Party. EBFlex you are most likely to young to remember Reagan and the strong anti-Communist position of the Republican Party and their distrust of Russia. Many of us that you call Communist Leftist like me voted for Reagan twice and voted and supported most Republicans. We did not abandon the Party the Party abandoned us and turned on us. Trump borrowed millions from Russian banks and owes his allegiance to Putin. Borrowing from Russian oligarchs is like borrowing from the Mafia you owe your allegiance to them.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “The leader of the Klan openly supported Trump, Neo Nazis have openly supported Trump”

            And? What is your point? That was not the original assertion you made. You said ” Never in my life did I ever dream of many Republicans supporting an ex KGB agent, Neo Nazis, Klu Klux Clan, and Conspiracy Theorists.”

            Congrats on pulling a Fauci and moving the goal posts so dramatically.

            “many Trump supporters have openly supported Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.”

            So? What does that have anything to do with Trump’s anti-Putin/anti-Russia position?

            “Biden was not supporting the Klan”

            I never said he was. Here is what I said: “Joe Biden delivered a eulogy for a KKK member”

            “he was giving a eulogy for Strom Thurman who he served with in the Senate for years.”

            Who was a member of the KKK. Should we bring up Hillary Clinton’s unabashed admiration of Margaret Sanger?

            “EBFlex you are most likely to young to remember Reagan and the strong anti-Communist position of the Republican Party and their distrust of Russia.”

            Again there are no republicans or really anyone that supports Russia or Putin. You are lying. Also, it’s *”TOO” young. To quote your buddy RHD: “Semi-illiteracy makes you appear to be a member of the illiterati.”

            “Many of us that you call Communist Leftist like me voted for Reagan twice and voted and supported most Republicans.”

            I never called you a communist leftist. That is a lie.

            “Trump borrowed millions from Russian banks and owes his allegiance to Putin. Borrowing from Russian oligarchs is like borrowing from the Mafia you owe your allegiance to them.”

            Flatly untrue. “10% for the big guy” tells us exactly who owes allegiance to who.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “So you favor states’ rights except when the issue offends you – got it.

          I normally describe myself as a conservative, except that in 2022 that definition includes being a monolithic Trump supporter, Covid denier, 2020 election denier, and – in these pages – an EV hater.

          I am none of things, which makes me a traitor to today’s Republican Party. Conveniently, I switched to Libertarian in November 2020 after watching the Republicans become loony fanatics.

          Truth is, I like California, and I don’t care what they do. But Posky does, and his rambling-as-usual article has succeeded in generating clicks and putting blog commenters at each others’ throats.”

          Wow. It’s like straw man on top of straw man. Lets break this down with the hope you are able to understand it:

          “So you favor states’ rights except when the issue offends you – got it.”

          I’m always in favor of states rights (which is why President Trump was so successful with covid mitigation…he let the states handle it) but that does not supersede dumb legislation like “banning all ICE sales”. If legislation is dumb it should be called out. Because you didn’t read my entire comment, I will quote myself hoping you read it again: “To simply boil this down to “welp states rights so….” is you being stupid or purposely obtuse. For one, you argument is tantamount to saying conservatives have no argument if a state mandates one arm be removed from every baby born…because “state’s rights”.”

          “I normally describe myself as a conservative, except that in 2022 that definition includes being a monolithic Trump supporter, Covid denier, 2020 election denier, and – in these pages – an EV hater.”

          None of that is true. Nobody is saying you have to be a monolithic Trump supporter, many conservatives do not support Trump, no conservatives are denying covid, no conservatives is denying that an election took place in 2020, and most conservatives are not “EV haters”. You are literally making all that up.

          “I am none of things, which makes me a traitor to today’s Republican Party.”

          Now you are conflating republican and conservatives. Conservatives are about as far away from republicans as liberals are from true democrats like Joe Manchin.

          “But Posky does, and his rambling-as-usual article has succeeded in generating clicks and putting blog commenters at each others’ throats.””

          You really need to take some classes in reading comprehension. That is not what this or any of his articles truly are. You are falling into the FreedMike camp of “I don’t like what he has to say so I am going to throw a tantrum in the comments rather than just moving on”. Equally, you are becoming increasingly incapable of articulating a reasonable response (meaning accurate interpretation of the article and not having to resort to lying or purposeful misrepresentation to make a point) to anything Posky, myself, Art, etc has to say.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    “Two out of three ain’t bad”
    – Meat Loaf, 1977

    Bonus: It just so happens that one of the best musical bridges [I like music and I like cars; all my very favorite songs have great bridges] ever written contains the greatest lyric in the history of lyrics:

    You’ll never find your gold on a sandy beach
    You’ll never drill for oil on a city street
    I know you’re lookin’ for a ruby in a mountain of rocks
    But there ain’t no Coupe de Ville hidin’
    At the bottom of a Cracker Jack box

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      Followed by:

      I can’t lie, I can’t tell you that I’m somethin’ I’m not
      No matter how I try, I’ll never be able
      To give you somethin’, somethin’ that I just haven’t got

      (Which coincidentally is *exactly* what the Ford dealer told me when I asked about sedans)

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    It is an excellent idea. If you don’t have homes, it only takes 45 minutes to charge your car. That way you have valid excuse not to go to work. Particularly because lack of charging places that work or even exist.

    Again, this is an excellent idea, in that it bodes well for red-state economic growth as more productive Americans and their businesses leave the failed state of California. So why stop there, since we want clean air, lets go 100% by 2030.

    Americans believe these are our top problems ahead of clean air:
    1. Brandenflation (good luck buying electrics for less than $50,000)
    2. Crime
    3. Border security
    4. housing crisis
    5. Russia
    6. Lack of clean air and greenies agenda items

    Please keep at it lefties, and Branden.

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      “If you don’t have homes, it only takes 45 minutes to charge your car. That way you have valid excuse not to go to work.”

      First of all, what is this “work” thing of which you speak? Everyone is supposed to sit home and collect a government paycheck, right?

      Secondly, there’s the 45 minutes to charge your car. But how many cars are ahead of you in line to charge, hmmmmm?

      Etc, etc.

      Can’t wait for reality to hit these idiots in the face like a hammer.

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    Look at the plus side, electric vehicles from Vietnam will be available in California to buy to fix all their issues in California, including homeless people, hoards of migrants, lack of affordable housing, a useless electric grid with blackouts, crime, hyperinflation, …

    Here in Georgia, I love it. Sitting in my chair on the docks looking at marshes on my Island condo, drinking an adult beverage of Tennessee’s finest, laughing at Democrats. I love the south.

    • 0 avatar
      kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh

      Not our fault no-one wants to live in the crappy red states like texas, NV, Fl etc ..

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Nevada is a red state and no one wants to live in Texas or Florida?

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        Not our fault no-one wants to live in the crappy red states like texas, NV, Fl etc ..”

        Right. That’s why New York had, at one point 47 electoral college votes and now they have 29.

        Meanwhile, during that same time frame, Florida had 7 and now has 29.

        But go on…

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          @EBFlex:

          “New York had, at one point 47 electoral college votes and now they have 29.

          Meanwhile, during that same time frame, Florida had 7 and now has 29”

          I checked, and you’re referring to *1948*, yet you want to attribute the electoral college shift over 74 years’ time to politics? That’s funny cherry-picking.

          Maybe people moved elsewhere because they like the weather better – you know, like to California.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I think very, very few people of any political persuasion move due to national politics.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            EBFlex never heard of air conditioning. With the widespread use of air conditioning in Post World War II America population in the US shifted from the North to the South. My parents didn’t move from Ohio to Texas in 1958 escape a liberal Ohio more of going to a warmer climate for health reasons and a better economy. EB is probably too young to remember a time when many did not have air conditioning nor a time when many had rotary dial phones and learned cursive writing instead of keying in school. Don’t let the facts get in the way.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Poster stated nobody wanted to live in Texas or Florida. EBFlex provided data that shows that is a lie. Take your gripes up with the original poster chumps.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “Poster stated nobody wanted to live in Texas or Florida. EBFlex provided data that shows that is a lie. Take your gripes up with the original poster chumps.

            They can’t because they have no argument and they know it’s untrue. Apparently New York never got hot thus everyone stayed there while Florida was like the inside of a volcano (which is weird because the global warming tax scam hadn’t been invented yet…)

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    It’s time for every state to set it’s own emissions regulations. Texas eliminate emissions regulations entirely. West Virginia to require coal fueled vehicles only. Nebraska to require 100% ethanol fuel from corn. Kentucky to require bourbon and whiskey fueled vehicles only.

    • 0 avatar
      aja8888

      In Texas, where I live, we are thinking of going the China route, or maybe Poland, or maybe Russia,……or maybe…..

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      Very funny but in all seriousness Kentucky several years ago eliminated emission testing in the larger metropolitan areas of Louisville, Lexington, and Northern Kentucky and agreed to a summer blend of gas with more ethanol during the Summer months. Not complaining would rather pay for the special Summer blend gas during the Summer months than to go through the inspection. As for California they do eventually influence what the rest of the country does but I don’t see the rest of the nation going all EV in the near future especially with a shortage of new vehicles, higher fuel prices, and higher prices in general that would be political suicide. Even California might slow down on some of these EV mandates which will not go over in the farming communities and lesser populated areas. A better compromise would be to limit the EV mandates to the large metropolitan and large cities such as Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco and leave the rest of the state alone especially the agriculture which is one of the largest contributors to California’s economy.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        It’s what’s most common sense. Start with the city core, bigger cities, then to the city limits. It’ll relieve congestion too, besides smog in theory. Otherwise why should everyone suffer? WTF?

        For the rest of us, just avoid west coast, big cities, LA, SF, etc. Done and done.

      • 0 avatar
        theflyersfan

        I think I would rather have emissions testing in Louisville than the craptastic mileage my car spits out when using the summer blends. I have to go to 93 octane at that point. And I love how border metro areas like Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky – all one large metro area, and you can add Dayton to the mix because Cincinnati and Dayton have pretty much merged – don’t think alike with testing. I guess there’s that magical barrier in the sky that keeps air pollution from crossing the Ohio River.

        I’ve lived in a lot of areas that required yearly exhaust and vehicle inspections and the cars tended to run better longer. I’d gladly pay an inspection fee each year if it means that all of us can breathe better in the summer.

        And the California emission standards do work. I remember visiting family in Anaheim in the 80s and 90s. That’s when there were far fewer people in places like Orange County and the Inland Empire, and therefore fewer cars. They had lived in Anaheim with their families since before Disney moved in. And they remember year after year, the days of seeing the snowy peaks north of LA were getting fewer and far between. When I moved out there for a while in the 2000s and we were talking, they were saying, and I saw this, that the air was vastly improved and that now most of the smoke and pollution comes from the brush fires and the cargo ships spewing and idling for weeks before they can dock. And who is against having cleaner air to breathe? Do we want to look like Pittsburgh 100 years ago when the smoke was so thick, you could barely see?

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          The emission testing didn’t work in Northern Kentucky especially with all the old hoopties on the roads from the surrounding rural areas where there was no testing. Many in my area complained to our Congressman at the time Jeff Davis, a conservative Republican to do away with the emission testing. The only way testing could be eliminated was to adopt the Summer blend gas which fortunately is just a few months a year. Agree that in mega metropolitan areas that there is more of a need for stricter standards but I was very glad not to have to go thru the emission testing and wait in line. Also there were many waivers granted in my area so the testing for the most part didn’t work.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “It’s time for every state to set it’s own emissions regulations. Texas eliminate emissions regulations entirely. West Virginia to require coal fueled vehicles only. Nebraska to require 100% ethanol fuel from corn. Kentucky to require bourbon and whiskey fueled vehicles only.”

      Good comment. There’s no reason for California to have a special exemption from the commerce clause that sensibly requires that vehicle emissions be regulated at the federal level.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    “tHeY aReNt GoInG tO lEgIsLaTe IcE vEhIcLeS oUt Of ExIsTeNcE.“

    I love being proven right time and time again. Not that I need the validation but it is nice.

    Once Commiefornia is leading by example. Yet another example of what not to do. This is just as short sighted and impossible to achieve as banning small engines. This from the same state that can’t provide enough electricity as it is right now. California has already destroyed the Colorado river, what happens when that dries up and your hydro dams go away? Even less electricity to go around.

    No wonder people are fleeing that state at amazing numbers.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    “CARB said zero-emission vehicles comprised 12.4 percent of the state’s new market in 2021”

    If true that would be remarkable. I say ‘if true’ because CARB often acts as though every employee of CARB has sat in the garage overnight with an ICE car running. These people are delusional. And by delusional, I mean disconnected from reality.

    Note CARB had nothing to say about the price of those zero emission vehicles. I’d bet the same people with zero emission cars also own homes. I bet most of those homes have solar panels.

    How will that many new BEV cars be purchased without billions being spent on infrastructure to support them? I’m not just talking about chargers. How many new power generation stations need to be built?

    CARB reps, care to comment?

    Ready. Fire. Aim.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @jkross22: So CARB is lying about independently-verifiable data?

      “How many new power generation stations need to be built?”

      20% more, according to my math, if every single car in California became a BEV overnight. But since we’re talking about 2035 (assuming the entire fleet is converted by then, which is not the proposal), that works out to a power generation growth of 1.4% annually.

      That 1.4% is easily achievable.

      • 0 avatar
        kcflyer

        If it is easily achievable why has the state suffered brown outs over the last decade? Will the new power come from Wind and Solar? If so will those unreliable sources be backed by new petro powered plants? Will they use EV bulldozers to bury the chinese solar panels and french wind turbine blades in landfills every 10 to 15 years? Will neighboring states ban exports of electricity to Cali? Just curious.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        How many new power stations has the state built in the last 30 years as the population increased, and how many has it green lit to be decommissioned? Your faith in CA’s ability to plan for this isn’t backed up by any facts.

        CA is poorly managed in nearly every metric.

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    “You are going to be surprised when you learn that food doesn’t actually come from the grocery store, but from those people who’s livelyhood you were willing to flush. Lucky for me I can hunt and grow my own and am perfectly willing to watch you go hungry.”

    your ilk won’t last a month after the insulin and heart meds run out.

  • avatar
    GregLocock

    Meanwhile the EIA is predicting that new light vehicle sales in the USA by 2050 will still be predominantly gasoline. BEVs will be a bigger proportion but still very much the minority.

    P9 in this

    https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2022_ChartLibrary_Transportation.pdf

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      I object to the use of “British thermal units” throughout a report funded by U.S. taxpayers (of which I have been one at various points in history).

      [Mrs. ToolGuy: “Hey, are you *still* on the internet? Have you filed our taxes yet? The deadline is Monday, you know. Why are there car parts on the hearth? Why are there still tools scattered all over the family room? If you wimp out and file an extension this year I’m going to be so –REDACTED–!”]

  • avatar
    Dartdude

    Here we go again. One thing that California needs desperately is common sense. Do you know that new cars in California exhaust cleaner air than what came in. Their pollution problems are mainly industrial and commercial. It amazes me that California has a shitload of other major problems that they don’t address. California is already becoming a state for the very rich and very poor. Pretty soon most Californians won’t be able to afford ANY new car yet alone electric. We need to erect a border wall around California!

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Whatever but there’s no realistic way to police what’s offered or sold.

    So this is just more racketeering. Create a problem, take some money, billions annually, problem gone.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      @DenverMike–I was thinking the same way especially cars and trucks coming from Mexico. There are a number of Mexicans that drive over the border to California. I believe Murilee had a Junkyard segment on a compact Chevy that was in a California junkyard that was a model made in Mexico that was not offered in the US. There are also vehicles traveling from other states into California. Do you put boarder police on every boarder to prevent out of state vehicles from entering California that are not compliant with California laws. This would require additional workers and equipment to inspect and test these vehicles. What about rural vehicles in the state that are old farm trucks, old tractors, old cars sitting in someone’s barn or building, and classic and antique vehicles. Seems this would be a costly nightmare to enforce and there would be retaliation from voters at the ballot box.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Yeah there is, the state doesn’t have to register a vehicle that isn’t on its list of acceptable cars. Not only new cars but used cars as well. For example in my state they adopted CA emissions standards for the 2009 MY and now you can not register a 2009 or newer car that doesn’t meet CA emission standards.

      Of course the fact that the police won’t pull people over who have expired plates of not plates at all then yeah they don’t have a way to police it.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        A list of (suddenly) “Not Acceptable” cars? Which might those be? That would be crazy, even for California/CARB.

        But to ban specific models and years? And otherwise CA Emissions compliant? Is that what you’re stating?

        None of it makes any sense, especially if it’s a new vehicle (registration), but “used” too.

        Although if it involves netting a huge fine, billions annually from an industry (and go on your happy way), OK now that’s the California I know.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          So I guess an imported 2 stroke Trabant would be banned from California.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            That’s a good one, but there’s not enough of those to matter. That’s why they’re emissions exempt.

            But imagine buying a new vehicle and instead of getting the plates in the mail, you get a notice that your new car is banned? How would that work?

            The target is new vehicles, no doubt because CA wants into automaker’s pockets. There’s no money to be made from banning Trabants.

            It’s just another goofy proposal that hasn’t been thought out, what so ever. That would cost us millions more, I guess.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @EBFlex–For all we know you could be a Russian blogger who is on this site to sow discontent. Wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. Divide and conquer.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Waaa…he says stuff I don’t like so he is obviously a Russian! Is that you Senator McCarthy?

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        No he says things that are pro Trump. Did you know that Senator McCarthy was a Republican? Maybe if Trump wins again we will have a new Senate Committee questioning those of us who are not loyal to Trump. Heil to the Chief.

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          “No he says things that are pro Trump.”

          Well Jeff S, I realize that in today’s clown world saying anything positive about Donald Trump or his policies is grounds for banishment from polite society, but I’ll just point out that Trump ran on these major issues:

          1. Control illegal immigration
          2. Pro-America foreign policy
          3. De-regulation of business to bring jobs back to the U.S.
          4. Energy independence.
          5. Stay out of pointless foreign wars.

          Now I don’t know or care how you feel about these issues, but the American people support these policies by a sizable margin. That’s why Trump won and continues to be popular in some circles in spite of the fact that he can often be an off-putting blowhard who runs his mouth when he should keep quiet.

          Personally, I think Trump should leave politics and not even consider running for president again. He triggers too many people on the Left who can’t look past his off-putting nature and focus on what he actually does. He also triggers journalists, 95% of whom are on the Left, and love nothing more than to spin everything the man says or does into a story designed to convince soft-headed people like yourself that’s he’s the second coming of Adolph Hitler.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @Master Baiter–As soon as Trump heaped praise on Putin, the 2020 election was a fraud and he had been cheated, encouraged supporters at rallies to beat up protesters, said that he could shoot people on Times Square and people would support him, encourage the storming of the Capitol, along with conduct unbecoming of any President. I don’t disagree with the 1 to 5 and it is his followers that are soft headed in a cult like way. Trump is more like Benito than Adolf especially if you compare his gestures. As I stated I am a conservative and have voted for many Republicans. Anyone who disagrees with Trump is called a leftist liberal socialist commie but its ironic that Trump himself embraces an ex KGB agent (Communist) and admires his power. There is no need to spin what Trump says and tweets just read and listen to what he has said. Either Trump is lying and putting on a show meaning he doesn’t believe what he is saying or he believes exactly what he says. I am less afraid of leftist who can be voted out of office than I am of a leader who aspires to have the power of a dictator and encourages his followers to cause civil unrest. Do you think for a minute that if Trump had the power that he would not use it especially to arrest and possibly execute anyone who does not show him total obedience and loyalty. Much more afraid of Trump getting a second term than any leftist who for the most part if they go too far will get voted out of office.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “As soon as Trump heaped praise on Putin”

            Never happened. That’s a lie

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            “As soon as Trump heaped praise on Putin.”

            If Trump was Putin’s stooge, then why didn’t Putin take over Ukraine while Trump was in office?

            “the 2020 election was a fraud”

            Hillary Clinton said the same thing is 2016.

            “encourage the storming of the Capitol”

            Trump and the Jan 6 protesters wanted the electoral college vote delayed until Trump’s court cases challenging the results in certain states could be adjudicated. If you think they wanted Trump installed as some sort of dictator even if he had lost fair-and-square, you are delusional.

            I’m guessing you also believe these other thoroughly debunked hoaxes:

            Trump said to drink bleach for COVID
            He called Neo-Nazis fine people.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “That’s why Trump won…”
            youtube.com/watch?v=Q_4bp8bBNVw

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          So what. He says pro Trump stuff. How does that make him Russian? And your point about parties? Abraham Lincoln was a Republican too.

          You don’t like the stuff he says, therefore he must be a Russian. Who does that sound like?

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            Abraham Lincoln would be ousted from today’s Republican Party for being too liberal.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Comrade Flex: Just a few examples of Trump’s own words.
            “They say, ‘Trump said Putin’s smart.’ I mean, he’s taking over a country for two dollars’ worth of sanctions,” Trump told a crowd at a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago, according to a recording of the event. “I’d say that’s pretty smart. He’s taking over a country — really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, and just walking right in.”
            “The man has very strong control over a country,” he said. “Now, it’s a very different system and I don’t happen to like the system, but certainly in that system, he’s been a leader. Far more than our president has been a leader.”
            Putin and I discussed many important subjects at our earlier meeting. We got along well.”
            Trump tells Larry King on Ora TV that Putin has done “a really great job outsmarting our country.”
            “When I went to Russia with the Miss Universe pageant, (Putin) contacted me and was so nice. I mean, their leaders are, whether you call them smarter or more cunning or whatever, but they’re outsmarting us.”. “He could not have been nicer. He was so nice and so everything. But you have to give him credit that what he’s doing for that country in terms of their world prestige is very strong.”
            “Well, he’s done an amazing job of taking the mantle. And he really goes step by step by step, and you have to give him a lot of credit.”
            “I was over in Moscow two years ago and I will tell you – you can get along with those people and get along with them well. You can make deals with those people.”
            “I will tell you that I think in terms of leadership, he is getting an A.”
            “But, in all fairness to Putin, you’re saying he killed people. I haven’t’ seen that. I don’t know that he has.”
            “The smartest one gets to the top.”.But they ask me, ‘Is Putin smart?’ Yes, Putin was smart. And I actually thought he was going to be negotiating. I said, ‘That’s a hell of a way to negotiate, put 200,000 soldiers on the border.\'” Trump added that Putin made a “big mistake,” but that “it looked like a great negotiation.”

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Arthur:

            Don’t bother. The guy isn’t worth wasting your breath on.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @Arthur–Thank you for the citations. Trump is a danger to our form of Government. “A republic, if you can keep it.” what Ben Franklin replied when asked if we the United States of America have a “Republic or a Monarchy.”
            A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power. America is a republic, a representative democracy. The founders, steeped in history, feared direct democracy, as it often led to mob rule. Representative democracy isn’t supposed to, as it’s designed to cool the “passions of the people.”

            Hence, George Washington in his fatherly Farewell Address, described our nation as a “great experiment.” Can a people be self-governed? The founders said yes, creating a Constitution that established a separation of powers. This was to dampen the passions and “prevent the rabble from passing sweeping new legislation in response to some passion of the moment.”

            Our experiment in self-governance required a measure of freedom, or liberty, that had to be won (our War of Independence), ordered (the Constitution and our separation of powers), and sustained (i.e. kept alive). Hence, we have a republic… if we can keep it.

            I’m less sure we can, given what happened last Wednesday. “This is how election results are disputed in a banana republic,” former President George W. Bush said in a statement. For the first time in our republic’s history, we witnessed the executive branch incite a crowd to march on the legislative branch. Then, when some in the crowd turned violent and stormed the Capitol, the President hedged his plea for calm with praise for the mob – all while continuing his plaintive (and appalling) cry that the election was rigged. Sure looked like mob rule. https://religionunplugged.com/news/2021/1/11/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it-how-benjamin-franklins-response-is-still-applicable-post-capitol-coup

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @Jeff, thanks. American democracy is founded on the fact that Washington was the first modern Head of State to voluntarily give up power and that Adams was the first to peacefully give up power to a political rival. That tradition has only been challenged twice. First when southern States seceded after Lincoln’s election and more recently as The Former Guy continues to spread falsehoods about his election defeat.

            ‘The peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next is a hallmark of American democracy. After John Adams was inaugurated as second president of the United States in 1797, he wrote to his wife, Abigail, describing George Washington’s actions, “When the Ceremony was over he came and made me a visit and cordially congratulated me and wished my Administration might be happy Successful and honourable.”
            Sarah Pruitt in History.com December 7, 2020

            Since 1801, the peaceful transfer of power has remained a hallmark of U.S. government, joining the two-party system as key aspects of ensuring a healthy democracy.’
            ‘In the early morning hours of March 4, 1801, John Adams, the second president of the United States, quietly left Washington, D.C. under cover of darkness. He would not attend the inauguration ceremony held later that day for his former friend—now political rival—Thomas Jefferson, who would soon replace Adams in the still-unfinished presidential mansion.
            On the heels of his humiliating defeat in the previous year’s election, Adams was setting an important precedent. His departure from office marked the first peaceful transfer of power between political opponents in the United States, now viewed as a hallmark of the nation’s democracy. Since then, the loser of every presidential election in U.S. history has willingly and peacefully surrendered power to the winner, despite whatever personal animosity or political divisions might exist.’
            Sarah Pruitt in History.com September 17, 2020

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Arthur Dailey:

            You realize that none of that constitutes “heaping praise” on Putin right?

            -“Putin is smart”.

            Certainly not dumb. Evil people can be smart. Hitler was smart. That’s not a comment on their behavior, it’s just a statement of fact.

            -“The man has very strong control over a country,” he said. “Now, it’s a very different system and I don’t happen to like the system, but certainly in that system, he’s been a leader. Far more than our president has been a leader.”

            So you are saying that Putin is not the leader of Russia? That’s some interesting pretzel logic to try and attack Trump. “Trump said putin is a leader but hes not a leader so Trump loves Putin”.

            -““When I went to Russia with the Miss Universe pageant, (Putin) contacted me and was so nice. I mean, their leaders are, whether you call them smarter or more cunning or whatever, but they’re outsmarting us.”. “He could not have been nicer. He was so nice and so everything. But you have to give him credit that what he’s doing for that country in terms of their world prestige is very strong.”

            Are you saying that Putin was not nice to Trump when he was over there? What evidence do you have to prove that? Further, you do have to give him credit for what he’s done with Russia on the world stage. The entire world is afraid of him right now. Nobody is really doing anything to stop the invasion. You don’t achieve that by being dumb or incapable.

            So yes, everything he said is factual. People like you love strawman (or do you prefer straw person?) arguments and will morph objective facts into “blind praise”. Probably a side effect of having TDS. And it’s interesting that you never talk about how Trump warned against Russia and Putin during his presidency. Gotta love that…

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It’s just another absurd proposal. See “California Exit Tax”.

    Yeah I’m not joking. These are the same dingbats that proposed banning black vehicles in California.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      An Exit Tax would be hard to believe. That could be challenged in Court as a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act. Anyway if that did happen you see an even larger mass exodus from California before the effective date of the legislation. As for banning black vehicles that could be discrimination.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        These people are delusional. Black cars, exit tax, forced EVs/hybrids, it’s all the same.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          No wonder my wife’s nephew who was born and raised in the East Bay Area of SF was so anxious to move to NC. He and his wife could not afford to buy a house and he got tired of SF. He and his wife built a new house for about 300k near Wilmington and love NC. At one time I wanted to move to CA but that was about 40 years ago. Now we are building a place in AZ because of the hot and dry climate. A lot of retired CAs are moving into the area we are moving to. The pendulum could very well swing the other way as it did in the 60s when Reagan was elected as Governor. The EV regulations make more sense in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego but I doubt Fresno, Sacramento, and smaller more rural areas need it and it would be an expensive burden on them with little or no benefit. I am all for cleaner air and can understand in LA especially after I visited LA in the mid 70s and then again in the late 80s. I can even understand more stringent vehicle regulations in NYC, Chicago, Houston, Denver, and any major city with a million plus populations especially within the city but in less densely populated areas it is not needed. If EVs become more affordable and the infrastructure supports them then more people will buy them despite Government mandates.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            I meant sparsely populated not densely. Definitely densely populated areas have more of a problem with air pollution.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            “I am all for cleaner air and can understand in LA especially after I visited LA in the mid 70s and then again in the late 80s.”

            Air quality in Los Angeles has more to do with geography than anything else. The valley is a giant heat-bowl trapped between two mountain ranges. Natural wildfires alone created smog in Los Angeles long before man invented the automobile.

            Unfortunately, the uninformed public equates regulation of CO2 with regulation of other pollutants more prevalent in the 70s and 80s, so they go along with it. After all, who doesn’t want “clean air?” Merely supporting “clean air” is a third-grader’s way of thinking–it fails to take into account cost-benefit of the increased regulations.

    • 0 avatar

      “proposed banning black vehicles in California.”

      I do not remember that proposal. What was the reason behind that?

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        I believe this is what is being referenced. (California “Cool Cars” initiative; I think it went away.)

        https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/12/ca-cool-car-regs-to-kill-jeep-wrangler-interfere-with-phones/

        https://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/25/california-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-by-banning-black-cars/

        Here’s the ‘presentation’ link which no longer works (I could mention Memory Hole but that would make me a paranoid conspiracist and I don’t need that on my record):
        https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/final_cool_cars_workshop_presentation31209.pdf

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          It went away:
          https://511contracosta.org/california-arb-cancels-cool-cars-regulation/

          Which doesn’t make something like this a bad idea if you live in an area with high sun loads:
          http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0869BCKM5

          Extra Credit:
          • If I live in Miami (shudder) and install a nano ceramic tint on the side windows and sunroof of my gasoline-powered vehicle, what kind of annual fuel savings could I expect to see?
          • If my CUV is electric, what would be the expected improvement in driving range per charge?
          Assume the nano ceramic tint blocks 99% of ultraviolet rays (while allowing 80% of visible light transmission).
          [Further assume that the side window glass is taller than 70mm.]

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          California just needs the special wavier to levy fines on automakers.

          Only a tiny % of California has high density living and smog issues, and even though a large part of that relates to air travel/shipping, military, sea vessels/ports, rail, manufacturing, heavy equipment, trucking and others, the special wavier California was once granted, relating to automobiles, is no longer necessary, especially for 98% of CA.

        • 0 avatar

          Oh, now I recall, there was such a suggestion.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        The only reason I could see for banning black vehicles is they absorb more heat and possibly that legislator had a biased against black vehicles. Having had one black vehicle I would not have another because they are hotter in warm climates and harder to keep clean but I don’t hate them nor do I want to see them banned. Black vehicles are beautiful when clean and shined. There would be a lot of politicians upset if they did not have a black Suburban or Escalade to chauffeur them around.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        Have you ever been to Los Angeles or is this more of your Right Wing bull. Los Angeles is a densely populated in a valley and the valley traps smog so why wouldn’t you want to control any additional emissions. Are you saying that because it is in a valley that traps smog and because there are forest fires then it is ok to make even more smog? Either you are arguing for the sake of arguing or you are ill informed. Maybe you are Master Baiter because you like to bait people into an argument. After driving thru LA in 1975 the air was so bad that you literally could not see on a sunny day and you could literally smell and taste the air. Driving thru LA in 1986 it was much better and you could actually see the sky although not perfect much better. Society benefits from cleaner air and water. There are extremists who do not want any clean air or water standards and then there are other extremists that want such severe standards that will bankrupt all of us and cause us to literally go backward as a society. Sounds like you from your comments are against any standards. There is such a thing as common sense and extremes for the most part do not benefit society as a whole

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          “Are you saying that because it is in a valley that traps smog and because there are forest fires then it is ok to make even more smog?”

          Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I acknowledged that pollution controls were needed in the 70s and 80s. Limiting CO2, which is what they are doing now, has nothing to do with smog or clean air.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Maybe by 2300?

  • avatar
    Crosley

    These proposals are always passed when the current regime will have no responsibility for actually implementing it.

    See pension promises for another example.

    Vehicles are going electric, I don’t why the goal seems to be to punish consumers as much as possible during the transition.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “Vehicles are going electric”

      Not quiet, vehicles are becoming a luxury and privilege.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        I doubt that vehicles will become just a luxury and privilege. There are the Chinese and other countries who are developing more affordable EVs and as the infrastructure expands and batteries become better and less expensive there will be more EVs. People during the turn of the 20th Century thought that cars would remain for just the few privilege and then Henry developed a lower priced car. There are already more affordable EVs available in China. Not every EV has to be a Tesla, Hummer, Mach E, or Lightning. Electric motors are much less complex than ICE. EVs becoming more affordable and infrastructure expanding is not punishment it is progress.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • nrd515: Drive something with the ZF 8 speed. That’s a transmission done right. I don’t see how it could...
  • SPPPP: :) Nice.
  • Steve S.: Those ribbed bumpers are highly sought after by customizers, and could probably sell for a couple hundred...
  • detlump: Please change out that plastic fuel filter ASAP! They are fire hazards. Replace with a steel filter....
  • Frobig: The newest vehicle I owned that had crank windows and no AC was a ’93 Toyota pickup. I don’t...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber