Green for Green: California Governor Outlines $2.5 Billion Electric Vehicle Push

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

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

Read more
California's Current Strategy to Ban Internal Combustion Engines

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

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

Read more
  • Ollicat Another Biden attempt to say, "Look over there!"
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh Who cares. Price of gas is not the issue. spending an extra 100$ a month over 4 tanks of gas is not the issue.this a political scam to distract really dumb people from the real issue. if rent and house payments were not up by 50% to as high as 150% higher in a ton of locations, then paying an extra 100$ in gas would be annoying but not really an issue. But the real-estate market with hedge fund investors, power-relator groups bought a ton of houses and flipped them into rentals and jacked up the rates uplifting the costs on everything else. and ironically no-one seems to be in any hurry to build more houses to bring those costs down because supply and demand means keeping less houses available to charge as much as you want. It is also not the issue as a secondary issue is child care costs and medical... again 100$ extra per month in gas is *nothing* compared to 800$ a month in ''child care'' and 300$ per visit to the doctor office, 300$ for a procedure less dentist trip..
  • Ajla Is there something proprietary or installed on the moon with these that I'm not aware of?
  • Tane94 Awaiting the EV3 unveil this month. Kia continues to lead, though I will miss the Soul
  • Jeanbaptiste I know this will never be seen, but the real answer is NO Government mandated tech. The reason why is that when the government mandates something, we miss out on signals that the free market will give to weather or not people actually want this or that this tech would actually help. It's like mandating AM radio for cars when people could just buy a $10 am radio if they really like am so much.