California Announces Ban on Sale of New Gasoline-Powered Passenger Vehicles Starting 2035

Administrator

Administrator
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
109
Reaction score
170
Location
Rivianforums.com
Vehicles
Rivian
California plans to ban sale of new gasoline-powered passenger vehicles in 2035

Per Autonews

September 23, 2020

WASHINGTON/LOS ANGELES -- California plans to ban the sale of new gasoline powered passenger cars and trucks starting in 2035 in a dramatic move to shift to EVs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Wednesday.

"This is the most impactful step our state can take to fight climate change," Newsom said in a statement announcing his executive order. "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."

California is the largest U.S. auto market, accounting for about 11 percent of all U.S. vehicle sales, and many states choose to adopt its green vehicle mandates.

Newsom also wants the state Legislature to stop issuing new permits by 2024 allowing use of hydraulic fracturing technology for oil and gas drilling.

President Donald Trump has sought to bar California from requiring sale of EVs, while his rival Joe Biden has pledged to spend billions to speed the adoption of EVs.



California said it was joining 15 countries that have made similar pledges, including Britain.

Newsom said the California Air Resources Board will develop regulations to mandate that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks are zero-emission by 2035, which would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent. The board also plans to mandate by 2045 that all operations of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles be zero emission where feasible.

Newsom's executive order will not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or selling them on the used-car market.

In response to a record wildfire season in the state, Newsom earlier this month said California needed to "fast track" its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. "Across the entire spectrum, our goals are inadequate to the reality we are experiencing," he said on Sept. 11 while touring a burned area in the state.

California and nearly two dozen other states sued the Trump administration seeking to block the government from undoing California’s authority to set strict car pollution rules and rolling back nationwide emissions standard.

The Trump administration has been waging a multi-pronged battle to counter California's efforts to fight climate change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses from vehicles.
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
499
Reaction score
519
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
Newsom said the California Air Resources Board will develop regulations to mandate that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks are zero-emission by 2035
I see a bunch of mega-dealerships being built just over the borders in OR, NV and AZ. Possible Oregon will jump on board as a Section 177 state.
 

jjwolf120

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
239
Reaction score
207
Location
Arcadia
First Name
John
Vehicles
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Occupation
TPA
WASHINGTON/LOS ANGELES -- California plans to ban the sale of new gasoline powered passenger cars and trucks starting in 2035 in a dramatic move to shift to EVs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Wednesday.
I don't really see this as much of an issue. If the EV technology improves as expected, the ICE cars should be a very small percentage of the market by 2035 (and even smaller in California).
 

Colosaleen

Member
First Name
Rick
Joined
Nov 1, 2019
Messages
16
Reaction score
24
Location
Colorado
First Name
Rick
Vehicles
Porsche Cayenne Turbo, Porsche Cayenne Turbo S, Aston Martin Vantage Roadster, Dodge Viper RT/10, Saleen S351R Speedster
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
While it will be nice to see some practical EVs on the market, like the Rivian pair, to say that in just 14 years the gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be the minority is ludicrous. It is going to take a lot longer then that. Not because EVs will not advance (because they will) but these people like Newsome have zero clue as to the utility requirements, mining requirements, etc. to support that level of EVs. Sorry but there is no amount of wind and solar to achieve that. You are going to need a few Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) all over the state and a number of Natural Gas Peaker’s to have a “reliable” power source. Oh and stop suing the very utility that powers you.

I am very excited for the Rivian Truck to come out. I will be a buyer because it is exactly what I am looking for in a Truck. But for Newsome to be as bold as to make this claim, almost 1 month from election, he might as well drove Republics votes to the mail now.

To even think manufacturers are going to just roll over and play dead on ICE vehicles is naive.

The reality is this needs to stop being an all or nothing approach. We need to stop following these European Country approaches because they just do not have the wide open spaces like we do in America. You can NOT compare life here to there.

Being an auto enthusiast my whole life and owning some rare and high performance cars and trucks, I fully welcome EVs to the market. Competition drives innovation. But some of these elected officials are just not living in the real world. You do not just open a mine in a month to meet demand. Power Transmission and Distribution doesn’t just happen in a year or two.

Expect American Automakers to severely challenge the “carbon footprint calcs” to include the carbon foot print of the source materials from mine site to manufacture and from manufacture to end sale point AS WELL as the eventual battery disposal in the actual carbon calc comparisons. Won’t look so advantageous then. I know Rivian is doing everything to try to reduce that footprint and recycled materials. People will pay a premium for the truck if it lives up to the hype. Kind of like why I paid a lot for our Avacado Organic beds. But bought them for the non chemical aspect due to allergies my family has.

Me, I will be buying a Rivian Truck for the performance, style and utility. The politician pandering is a side show. The consumer will dictate what they want to buy.

Rivian, keep doing what you are doing for your approach to this vehicle because people will buy it for that, not because government takes away all other options.
 

electruck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
681
Reaction score
781
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicles
2018 Volvo XC60
Sometimes you have to set stretch goals to motivate. The thing about stretch goals though is you know there are many challenges to meeting them and you don't necessarily expect to succeed. The timelines for bans like this can, and likely will, get pushed out. In the mean time, much progress will be made and it will help flush out the obstacles to success so that they too can be addressed.
 

discsinthesky

Active Member
First Name
J
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
27
Reaction score
32
Location
Colorado
First Name
J
Vehicles
Honda Element
To even think manufacturers are going to just roll over and play dead on ICE vehicles is naive.

The reality is this needs to stop being an all or nothing approach. We need to stop following these European Country approaches because they just do not have the wide open spaces like we do in America. You can NOT compare life here to there.

Being an auto enthusiast my whole life and owning some rare and high performance cars and trucks, I fully welcome EVs to the market. Competition drives innovation. But some of these elected officials are just not living in the real world. You do not just open a mine in a month to meet demand. Power Transmission and Distribution doesn’t just happen in a year or two.
Yep, so it's a good thing this goal is 14 years into the future then, right? Plenty of time for the market to figure it out.

There is a growing body of research that is saying two things of relevance to the discussion here. Firstly, we have about ~15-20 years if we want to right the ship and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. And secondly, that only implementing market-driven solutions won't get us there quick enough, our window for relying on that approach probably closed 10-20 years ago. I think that is why we're seeing countries/states take a more heavy handed approach. It truly unfortunate we've dragged our feet so long on taking action on this.

I would actually welcome some further examination of the lifecycle carbon footprint of all of these technologies, so long as we're fully accounting for everything on the ICE side as well. If EVs end up not being as advantageous as previously thought that is important for society to know. Ultimately, its more important that we get the right answer. But the studies thus far are very supportive of EVs being a net positive from a carbon perspective right now, and get better as the grid gets cleaner. I think that is the crux of what makes EVs a better long-term solution is that the pathway to eliminating/minimizing carbon pollution exists, which simply isn't the case for ICE vehicles.
 
Last edited:

jjwolf120

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
239
Reaction score
207
Location
Arcadia
First Name
John
Vehicles
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Occupation
TPA
While it will be nice to see some practical EVs on the market, like the Rivian pair, to say that in just 14 years the gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be the minority is ludicrous. It is going to take a lot longer then that. Not because EVs will not advance (because they will) but these people like Newsome have zero clue as to the utility requirements, mining requirements, etc. to support that level of EVs. Sorry but there is no amount of wind and solar to achieve that. You are going to need a few Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) all over the state and a number of Natural Gas Peaker’s to have a “reliable” power source. Oh and stop suing the very utility that powers you.
Write the ludicrous statement down on something edible, because you will be eating your words. No amount of wind and solar that can achieve that?? Of course there is an amount of wind and solar that can meet our needs, it's only a question of if we build it. We don't need peaker plants, we need battery systems and compressed air power systems. People will stop suing the utilties when their equipment stops causing fires that burn down their homes.
 

timesinks

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
24
Reaction score
49
Location
Seattle
Vehicles
Volt, FJ, Sprinter
Write the ludicrous statement down on something edible, because you will be eating your words. No amount of wind and solar that can achieve that?? Of course there is an amount of wind and solar that can meet our needs, it's only a question of if we build it. We don't need peaker plants, we need battery systems and compressed air power systems. People will stop suing the utilties when their equipment stops causing fires that burn down their homes.
To add to that, PV isn't the only way to harness solar either. Some plants use mirrors to heat (and melt!) salt, which is subsequently able to spin the turbines long after the sun has set (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...4-hour-renewable-energy-crescent-dunes-nevada).

They're also working on mechanical alternatives to air compression and water pumping, like stacking and unstacking concrete blocks: .

There are plenty of alternatives to building gas peakers. We need to stop pretending natural gas is green and start building those alternatives en masse.
 

davrow_R1T

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
132
Reaction score
111
Location
Riverside, CA
First Name
David
Vehicles
2 Toyota Siennas, Isuzu Amigo, Kioti tractor
Just curious, doesn't anyone remember California did this a decade ago? CARB (California Air Resources Board) decreed a set percentage of new manufactured cars had to be zero emission. GM sued and the oil companies bribed the head of CARB. CARB reduced the requirements, then got rid of them, then the head of CARB took his new position at an oil backed company making tons more than at CARB.

Deja vu. Newsome is being political, not realistic. This plan won't last.
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
499
Reaction score
519
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
Just curious, doesn't anyone remember California did this a decade ago? CARB (California Air Resources Board) decreed a set percentage of new manufactured cars had to be zero emission. GM sued and the oil companies bribed the head of CARB. CARB reduced the requirements, then got rid of them, then the head of CARB took his new position at an oil backed company making tons more than at CARB.

Deja vu. Newsome is being political, not realistic. This plan won't last.
The CARB rules for % of Zero emissions vehicles actually started 3 decades ago in 1990. CARB itself has been around since 1967.

The requirements have been modified many times, with hybrids losing PZEV credits and the formula for both BEV and TZEV (PHEV) credits being modified an tweaked several times. Although I have no proof, the emphasis and very generous credits/incentives for Hydrogen vehicles likely was influenced by Big Oil. 90% of hydrogen is derived from petroleum, and they like the business model of you pulling up to the pump anytime you need to fuel and giving them money.
 

davrow_R1T

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
132
Reaction score
111
Location
Riverside, CA
First Name
David
Vehicles
2 Toyota Siennas, Isuzu Amigo, Kioti tractor
The CARB rules for % of Zero emissions vehicles actually started 3 decades ago in 1990.
Yeah, I didn't get my first EV until 2002, so was somewhat oblivious before that. Thanks for the clarification. :)
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
974
Reaction score
456
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Sorry but there is no amount of wind and solar to achieve that. You are going to need a few Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) all over the state and a number of Natural Gas Peaker’s to have a “reliable” power source.
California has about 15 M cars registered. The average American is keeping his car about 10 years now so that says that 10% would be replaced each year i.e. 1.5M. Each of those would travel about 10000 mi/yr at on average of, say 0.25 kWh/mile for 2.5 MWh each. But those are spread out over 365*24 hours so the average demand is 285 W. Multiplied by the 1.5 M new BEVs gives 0.427 GW increased capacity required each year. California's current generating capacity is about 80 GW. The increased annual requirement for these BEVs is thus about 0.5% of the current capacity. That does not seem like much of a growth burden. Assuming a square meter of full sun can produce 200 W and 5 hrs per day that 427 MW could be produced by about 4 sections of PV arrays in the desert. Modern wind turbines are in the 2 - 4 MW range so few hundred of them could take up a lot of that. So there is indeed plenty of solar and wind for this load. The technology related question is storage. The political reality is that the government is bound to stuff it up just as it stuffs up everything
 

Colosaleen

Member
First Name
Rick
Joined
Nov 1, 2019
Messages
16
Reaction score
24
Location
Colorado
First Name
Rick
Vehicles
Porsche Cayenne Turbo, Porsche Cayenne Turbo S, Aston Martin Vantage Roadster, Dodge Viper RT/10, Saleen S351R Speedster
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
Look fellows, I am saying EVs are good and worth investing in. What I am saying is it is going to take a lot longer than 14 years to do so. So the government needs to set realistic targets not these pie in the sky "try to get votes now" gimmick all or nothing timeframes. That is just the reality of the world. Do you know there are over 140 Lithium mines in various parts of the world "proposed" but stuck in various stages of permitting and NI-4301 mine lifecycle studies to get funding. If you knew anything on mining, you would know it is not as simple as put your shovel in the ground and dig. To open a mine today you have to prove you have the funding to return the entire mine to the way it was before you touched it and you are environmentally responsible throughout it's lifecycle and the product delivery it produces. There is a lot more here to make it all work. Quite frankly a majority of those mines non-North American would simply not cut it by global standards to even open if you leveled the playing field across them all to be held to the same standard. Tesla is moving fast on their Nevada Lithium Mine because the Junior they bought had already performed these things and permitting, so their short 3 years to production is possible but very audacious and will need luck on top of a lot of hours to get there.

Just as the dual citizen just above me showed simple math. This is where the "green new deal' stuff falls apart. You can not just plug in all these nebulous variables and matrix math yourself into the answer you want in the real world. Reminds me of a good accountant joke. "Asking my accountant what does 1 plus 1 equal. He replies, what do you want it to equal." It is obvious a number of people do not understand the reality of utility companies, the grid and power generation. Stop with the, it has to be this way or that only, black or white only, positive or negative only and realize that it takes time for some of these things to be implemented. You need both to implement both right now. I am well aware of the various forms of power generation. While the Abengoa Solar thermal arrays look cool and sound good, the reality is they are just not that perfect in the real world of on-demand power. Yes there are Molten Salt Heat Transfer Thermal Energy plants to try to pick up the power during night when the sun goes down. It is fairly simple controls to implement. Again, if you have ever worked on these plants, you would realize they are horribly inefficient. Tesla Battery Utility is a start to help the situation move forward but like nuclear, there is a waste disposal problem with the batteries. There is always a undesired aspect to energy conversion. Fusion holds hope so we will see where that goes. SMR nukes are going to be be a big play in the years to come and we are going to need that to meet demand.

Without opening up too much, the company I am part owner in and work for performs engineering work on everything from asset and enterprise control over your favorite utilities (electric, gas and water/wastewater) to mine sites to O&G to manufacturing, etc. worldwide. been doing this for over 25 years now. There is no eat my words on fake edible paper (no need to get so triggered). What I am telling you is if you are serious about making a change then get serious about making the change. Set realistic targets which should just be smaller step-place goals up front not blurt out the end goal and kill it before it even starts. If it is the right thing, the end goal of no more ICE vehicles that will come naturally at a certain point of market penetration and acceptance but like I said, don't just expect current ICE manufacturers to just roll over and die. Electric powered anything is great until you do not have electricity to power it. Extreme remote areas will always have this problem. Last I checked, don't think the utilities are to blame for any of the wildfires this year so yes, stop suing them. It is rather hypocritical. Like a smoker puffing away on a cigarette and calling out the cigarettes' companies to blame for producing their product to start with. I don't smoke but it is the same use and reliance an individual has on the power company. People need to take personal responsibility for what they do.

And yes, if people want to tout carbon footprint and zero emissions, then look at the entire lifecycle of that product including what it took to provide all the raw elements to make it, and then dispose of it when the Lifecyle has finished, then compare everything. Take for example Oil & Gas in Canada. You are telling me that Saudi Oil shipped all the way from the middle east has the same carbon footprint as oil produced in the tar sands, refined near by and then shipped in a pipeline with electric pumps for liquids and electric compressors for compressors? Sorry not buying that. Same for batteries produced from metals, minerals, etc. from all over the earth shipped to the giga-factory for the battery cell production. Look at everything from the complete beginnings of production/Lifecyle of the product and you might be surprised at how those calculations turn out.

Again, I am not for or against either as I will continue to own ICE vehicles AND EVs once Rivian is produced. I am stating that it needs to be a level playing field to realistically look at these things. AND that it need not be an all or nothing, left or right decision. One can argue that a person should be trying to maintain a vehicle for longer than 10 years to be responsible on footprint analysis. I think so and the newest vehicle we have is 6 years old, but some as old as 25 years old. But that is me.

It is obvious this response will trigger a response from others, so guess my reaction score will go up, whatever that is or like that matters.

In the end, I very much applaud Rivian and can not wait until RJ and team produce production models as I will be amongst the first to buy their highest preforming model for our daily drivers. Range anxiety is something I do need to overcome and is the single biggest issue I personally have with EVs, but then again I grew up way, way up North and in a remote village. Drove hours to even get to the next town. Change is difficult and different for everyone.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
974
Reaction score
456
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Just as the dual citizen just above me showed simple math. This is where the "green new deal' stuff falls apart. You can not just plug in all these nebulous variables and matrix math yourself into the answer you want in the real world.
OK, I did some simple math based on numbers from the state of California which shows that the additional electric load would be about 0.5%. I don't know what this has to do with any matrix algebra on the part of any dual citizen so perhaps I shouldn't even be responding here. But the notion that California cannot support an additional half percent load per year is plainly ridiculous.
 

Advertisement












 


Advertisement


Top