Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United States Government

California To Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars (nytimes.com) 385

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: California is expected to put into effect on Thursday its sweeping plan to prohibit the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, a groundbreaking move that could have major effects on the effort to fight climate change and accelerate a global transition toward electric vehicles. The rule, issued by the California Air Resources Board, will require that 100 percent of all new cars sold in the state by 2035 be free of the fossil fuel emissions chiefly responsible for warming the planet, up from 12 percent today. It sets interim targets requiring that 35 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in the state by 2026 produce zero emissions. That would climb to 68 percent by 2030. The restrictions are important because not only is California the largest auto market in the United States, but more than a dozen other states typically follow California's lead when setting their own auto emissions standards.

California's action comes on top of an expansive new climate law that President Biden signed last week. The law will invest $370 billion in spending and tax credits on clean energy programs, the largest action ever taken by the federal government to combat climate change. Enactment of that law is projected to help the United States cut its emissions 40 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade. Still, it will not be enough to eliminate U.S. emissions by 2050, the target that climate scientists say all major economies must reach if the world is to avert the most catastrophic and deadly impacts of climate change. To help close the gap, White House officials have vowed to couple the bill with new regulations, including on automobile tailpipe emissions. They have also said that reducing emissions enough to stay in line with the science also will require aggressive state policies. Experts said the new California rule, in both its stringency and reach, could stand alongside the Washington law as one of the world's most important climate change policies, and could help take another significant bite out of the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide. The new rule is also expected to influence new policies in Washington and around the world to promote electric vehicles and cut auto pollution.
"This is huge," said Margo Oge, an electric vehicles expert who headed the EPA's transportation emissions program under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. "California will now be the only government in the world that mandates zero-emission vehicles. It is unique."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California To Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars

Comments Filter:
  • Buggy whips are a Strong Buy.
  • by cirby ( 2599 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @05:12PM (#62819621)

    They're going to need an awful lot more electricity, and they don't seem to have a reasonable plan to get more.

    • Re:Power plants? (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday August 25, 2022 @05:23AM (#62821347)

      No they won't. The charging profile of consumer EVs flattens out the duck curve. You don't need a reasonable plan as you already have idle peaking plants in place to handle this load.

      Now if you're clever you'll plan ahead anyway, but this isn't some critical issue that is unsolvable, rather it would naturally develop over the coming decades.

  • by Pollux ( 102520 ) <speter@[ ]ata.net.eg ['ted' in gap]> on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @05:14PM (#62819643) Journal

    1) Can California construct a state-wide charging infrastructure for all these electric vehicles, and do they have the grid capacity to support it?

    2) When Californians want to take their electric cars on a road trip out-state, will they find sufficient charging infrastructure to take them where they need to go?

    3) Will California provide 800V-charging solutions state-wide? If not, what's their plan to keep their citizens happy when it takes >45 minutes to "fill up" a vehicle?

    • 1) Can California construct a state-wide charging infrastructure for all these electric vehicles, and do they have the grid capacity to support it?

      2) When Californians want to take their electric cars on a road trip out-state, will they find sufficient charging infrastructure to take them where they need to go?

      3) Will California provide 800V-charging solutions state-wide? If not, what's their plan to keep their citizens happy when it takes >45 minutes to "fill up" a vehicle?

      The answer to all your questions is probably some form of "We're California, so you knuckledraggers east of us are coming along for the ride, like it or not. If we do this, you'll have no choice but to join in and build the infrastructure". The attitude of the state has largely been one of "Either you play by our rules or you suffer economically, because we'll throw our weight around". They love tossing around the "Sixth Largest Economy" talking point when they're trying to civilize the rest of us.

      Are they

      • You are taking the California legislature way too personally. The required fuel mixtures are for the air quality here in CA, and seasonal. I have a hard time believing that anyone not currently chained to an oilwell is bothered that our summer gas blend has not been adopted where it isn't needed (we switch to something cheaper in winter).

        It would be healthier to think of California laws as trying to create economies of scale, rather than trying to force drivers in your neck of the woods to drive a Bolt.

        An

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Petersko ( 564140 )

      1) and 3) - Things to be worked out. As the manufacturers adapt, these will turn to concrete pressing issues - the only kind that actually get resolved. Deadlines self-imposed, but deadlines no less.

      2) - Not their problem to solve. If other states like those tourism dollars from your road trip, they'll adapt.

    • 2) When Californians want to take their electric cars on a road trip out-state, will they find sufficient charging infrastructure to take them where they need to go

      I don't see how that is California's problem. Sounds like those other states will be losing tourist cash.

    • by crow ( 16139 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @05:54PM (#62819821) Homepage Journal

      1) Most charging is at home, so infrastructure is needed for apartments and traveling. Most charging is at night, so the grid is fine.

      2) I took an 8,000 mile EV road trip this summer, and had no problems charging.

      3) With 250kW chargers, I found it rarely took more than 15 minutes, and the car was almost always ready to go before we were.

      So in short, stop making up problems. The market is already solving the remaining issues, and the federal money for charging will help fill in the gaps.

      • by u19925 ( 613350 )

        Completely agree. Most of these is phobias are fueled by fuel industries.

      • At the gas station where i live average time to fill up is 3 minutes.

        If all the cars, not just mine, needed 15 20 minutes to charge up, the queue to the gas station would be 2 mile long. Every gas station.

        Good luck.

      • 1) Most charging is at home, so infrastructure is needed for apartments and traveling.

        Most charging is at home because most EV owners are affluent. And infrastructure for apartments is far far harder than for a home. There is a little hand waving going on here.

        Most charging is at night, so the grid is fine.

        Most charging is at night because most EV owners are affluent enough to live in homes or condos with garages or driveways. Apartment dwellers will be far more dependent upon daytime charging at work or when shopping.

        In short, sometimes early adopters are a bad model for the population at large. That seems the case with EVs.

    • 1) I thought you guys were all for free markets. Why would anyone rely on the government to fill a need the market can meet? California doesn't own gas stations after all.
      2) When a Californian wants to travel to Vermont (for instance) to see whatever it is that Vermont has to offer, why the hell would they drive? There are airports in California, I've seen a couple of them. I would think Vermont has airports too.
      3) Once again. Free markets baby! That sounds like something people can make a nice living f
  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @05:15PM (#62819651)

    California to ban California by 2050!

  • by ihaveamo ( 989662 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @05:17PM (#62819657)
    Norway will have gasoline phased out by 2025 [electrek.co] With Pandemics, global warming, the threat of nuclear war etc, it's wonderful to see a few small flowers of hope blooming.
  • CARB is retarded (Score:3, Informative)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @05:19PM (#62819665) Homepage Journal

    CARB also banned denatured alcohol, the primary fuel of my sailboats old stove. It was clean burning enough it could be used as a heat source, it was stable, and I didn't have to worry about it collecting in my bilge. Now I have a propane stove. Had to install a blower to suck any latent propane that might have settled in my bilge. Can't leave it on all night, since it gives off enough CO2 to kill a person in their sleep. Had to install a special propane container. NOT a renewable fuel like alcohol is.

    CARB is fucking retarded, I can't wait to move out of this state.

    • Make sure you can take your boat - Ciao!

      Growing up in LA, and not seeing the San Gabriels even from 5-10 miles away, and breathing gunk that hurt and made being an active kid often painful, I can't feel much empathy. California leads the way. And surprise surprise, here we are 50 years later, still alive and thriving.

    • Re:CARB is retarded (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @06:29PM (#62819979)
      I did a bit of googling. It sounds like your stove is a casualty of a couple of things. The first is small portable stoves used by hikers were a fire risk. California is just a wee bit on edge after all the wildfires. The second is that it's used extensively as a industrial solvent for cleaning and apparently doing so creates noticeable emissions that contribute to smog. That's not about global warming that's about making the air in the city more breathable and reducing the cost of medical Care due to breathing smog which is substantial.

      Your little boat probably isn't an issue but I don't know a way to solve the problems above while also maintaining your supply.
  • Nevada (Score:5, Insightful)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @05:36PM (#62819727)

    The big mystery is why isn't the border with Nevada populated with stores selling everything banned in California?

  • California - dragging the rest of the US, kicking & screaming, to the level of the rest of the world
    • by aergern ( 127031 )

      shush. Facts don't matter to Johnny Reb ... they'll just roll coal to own the libs. I use to ask them about climate change and their kids' futures ... after hitting 50, I don't. I'll be dead and have no children, let them burn is my attitude now. It's a shitty attitude but all the facts and hand waving have done nothing.

      • by sfcat ( 872532 )

        Don't you know that the democratic party's platform banned those pesky laws of physics some time ago. We have plenty of Li (even if it is mostly beyond Mars) and actually understanding energy production is so passe. It is far more important to virtual signal to the crowd (even if all you have proved is that you don't understand thermodynamics). Also, if the poor have any complains on the continuing decline in their standard of living or they actually do the math and research to know that your plans are a

  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @05:52PM (#62819809) Homepage Journal

    Farmers, wineries, etc are probably exempt.

    I see the value in putting the brakes on adding more gas-powered vehicles on the road. But when I first heard this discussed a year or two ago, often the question asked was why aren't we doing a phase-in and tax instead. Almost everyone I talked to felt that a soft landing to lower our state's emissions was less disruptive while still accomplishing the core goals.

    Charge me $1k for a new ICE car starting in 2023. Add $1k every year for ICE and $500 for hybrids. By 2035 that's a $12k tax over an EV. Pretty damn sure everyone that can is going to either get an EV before that point.

    Instead, we're all going to wait until 2034 and buy the last ICE and then drive it for the next 20 years. For me, I might be too old to even be driving by that time. I'll give up my old run down truck and ride on a senior shuttle service. And in my case it seems like I never have to buy another EV again.

    • Farmers, wineries, etc are probably exempt.

      And the wealthy. The wealthy are always exempt in California.

      Here is my historical / classic car registration. Yes its a new car but its internal combustion, that makes it historical in California.

    • Electric utility equipment for single-site applications like farms is becoming more popular. Farmers are always reluctant to spend money on anything, but some of them are getting persuaded by the lower cost of energy to operate the equipment.

      • the winery near me doesn't have to get a water meter, but I got a notice that I do. so I'm a bit jaded on this topic of exemptions. It's totally backwards from what I understand of de minimis category for domestic water usage.

  • by iamnotx0r ( 7683968 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @05:55PM (#62819831)
    If the above loop hole exists, then I am fine with California doing the experiment.
    • by drnb ( 2434720 )

      If the above loop hole exists, then I am fine with California doing the experiment.

      There will be an exemption for historical / classic cars. The definition of classic cars will be updated to included internal combustion. If you can afford the extra annual registration fees for a "classic" car California will be happy to accommodate you. California is always happy to accommodate the wealthy.

  • ...towards doing something meaningful against global heating. In the USA, cars, motorbikes, buses, & taxis account for about 45% of 15% of total CO2 emissions. That makes a reduction of just under 7% of total CO2 emissions by the time all the gasoline cars are scrapped some time after 2035. How long do gasoline cars run for before they're scrapped?

    It's a small but symbolic start.

    In contrast, if the fossil fuels industry were required to maintain their equipment in good working order & prevent le
    • It's a symbolic start towards doing something meaningful against global heating.

      It's virtue signaling. It's how politicians win in California. Whether the plan will work or be a horrible failure won't matter. Its only the "good intentions" that matter.

      Plus as the date gets closer there will be some alternative registration process for internal combustion. One will just have to pay an extra annual fee.

  • by BobC ( 101861 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @06:10PM (#62819877)

    ICE vehicles will be equipped with stretchy tailpipes that can reach Arizona or Nevada. Done.

  • Car dealerships in Texas will be happy to ship them used luxury vehicles with a few thousand (or less) miles on them, in pristine condition.

    P.S. Back in the 90s Honda, and maybe others, had ultra high efficiency cars with exhausts that put out air cleaner than that of downtown Los Angeles. It's sad to see legislation that discourages innovation like that, and which acts with blunt force.

    • Car dealerships in Texas will be happy to ...

      Engage in fraud across State lines? It wouldn't really surprise me, but I suspect it will be a bit different than that, and people who want to get around this law by buying a Texas car will have to go to Texas and buy one.

  • I hate outright bans like these. Just gradually crank up a fee for new gas cars. That has two advantages. First, it brings in revenue for the coffer, and second those who really want a gas car can still get one.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @06:18PM (#62819927)

    From the comments, you'd think that California was the only place phasing out ICE vehicles. This page has a nice list of what's happening around the world:

    Countries Are Banning The Use Of Petrol Cars, See The Dates They Have Set
    https://autojosh.com/countries... [autojosh.com]

    Posting anonymously because I'm moderating...

You can be replaced by this computer.

Working...