New gasoline-powered cars will be banned in California beginning with 2035 models under a new groundbreaking regulation unanimously approved Thursday to force car owners to switch to zero-emission vehicles.
In its biggest move yet to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and fight climate change, the new rule approved by the state Air Resources Board culminates a decades-long effort to transform the auto and power industries and change the cars people drive — the state's leading source of air pollution.
The regulation is the first in the world to end the sale of traditional gas-powered vehicles and ramp up sales of cars powered by electricity. A small number of other states and nations have set only voluntary targets.
The proposal was first unveiled in April. In response to several board members' concerns, the staff made minor revisions Thursday to address issues related to electric car battery durability and added provisions to enhance assistance for low-income residents.
"This regulation is one of the most important efforts we have ever carried out to clean the air," said Air Resources Board Chair Liane Randolph. "Our previous regulations to make cars cleaner made improvements, but those improvements were incremental. This regulation will essentially end vehicle emissions altogether."
Automakers will have to gradually electrify their fleet of new vehicles, beginning with 35% of 2026 models sold, increasing to 68% in 2030 and 100% for 2035 models. As of this year, about 16% of all new car sales in California are zero-emission vehicles, twice the share in 2020.
The millions of existing gas-powered cars already on the roads and used car sales are unaffected by the mandate, which only sets a zero-emission standard for new models.
The switch to zero-emission vehicles marks a historic precedent that would ripple across the country, paving the way for other states, and perhaps countries, to follow.
John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing automakers, said automakers support the transition to electric cars, but called the timeline "very aggressive," adding that it will be "extremely challenging" for the industry to adjust in time.
"Whether or not these requirements are realistic or achievable is directly linked to external factors like inflation, charging and fuel infrastructure, supply chains, labor, critical mineral availability and pricing and the ongoing semiconductor shortage," he said. "These are complex, intertwined and global issues well beyond the control of either the California Air Resources Board or the auto industry."
Environmental justice advocates, who had been calling for a sales goal of at least 75% zero-emission cars by 2030, expressed disappointment at Thursday's hearing. While the rule is a "step in the right direction," the board missed an opportunity to include more robust provisions in the policy to make sure low-income people can afford them, according to Roman Partida-Lopez, legal counsel at the Greenlining Institute.
"California had an opportunity to set a stronger standard," he said. "The board came up short by not making this a more stringent rule or one that has environmental justice provisions that are mandatory rather than voluntary."
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday called it "a groundbreaking, world-leading plan" that "will lead the revolution towards our zero-emission transportation future." He touted $10 billion in state investments that will make it "easier and cheaper for all Californians to purchase electric cars."
Concerns about affordability, durability
For many families, electric cars are an attractive option, but barriers keep them out of reach. New electric cars range in price from $25,000 to $180,000. Price markups at dealerships due to car shortages and high demand have also inflated the cost of some electric cars by more than $10,000, sometimes as high as $15,000.
Air board officials project that the cost of an electric car will be equal to a gas car's price as early as 2030 as supplies surge to meet the mandate.
Despite the higher upfront cost, the air board's analysis projects that drivers will end up saving much more in maintenance and operation expenses. Charging at home costs about half as much as gas for the same number of miles driven. Drivers in California already pay some of the highest gas prices in the country.
At Thursday's hearing, air board members, environmental justice advocates and members of the public echoed concerns they raised during a June hearing about the proposal — challenges with high vehicle costs, lack of charging infrastructure and consumer reluctance.
The state's subsidy programs, designed to help low and middle-income residents who purchase electric cars, have repeatedly suffered from inconsistent and inadequate funding. Meanwhile, auto groups said the industry is already dealing with global supply chain disruptions, battery shortages, and other constraints.
Air board staff member Anna Wong, who is part of the agency's sustainable transportation and communities division, acknowledged that the plan has a "stringent but achievable path." Many of the changes they proposed in the revised policy include provisions to help manufacturers cut costs for consumers, she said.
Under the mandate, electric cars must have a range of at least 150 miles on a single charge. Batteries will need to be more durable and carry a manufacturer's warranty. At least 80% of the original range must be maintained over 10 years, starting in 2030, a year earlier than initially proposed.
To ease the strain on automakers, the staff reduced the range requirement to 75% for the first eight years that a new car is on the road, extending it by an additional three years.
Automakers will be allowed to use a credit system that allows them to meet a lower percentage of sales if they offer cheaper cars at dealerships and participate in state subsidy programs.
To ensure enforcement, state officials could penalize manufacturers that don't meet their yearly percentages with hefty fines of $20,000 for every car they fail to produce in a given year, according to air board staff. Automakers that fail to meet those requirements would need to get credits from another manufacturer that already met their targets. Air board staff also assured the public that they could amend the regulation at any point to address lingering equity and compliance issues.
Can the power grid cope?
Critics say the state needs more charging stations as electric car sales surge. California has about 80,000 stations in public places, falling short of the nearly 1.2 million public chargers needed by 2030 to meet the demand of the 7.5 million passenger electric cars anticipated to be on California roads.
Another question remains: Will there be enough electricity? Experts say California needs a more reliable power grid, sourced from climate-friendly renewables like solar and wind.
California's electricity consumption is expected to surge by as much as 68% by 2045. But the power grid — marred by outages and increasingly extreme weather — needs massive investments to attain the clean-energy future outlined in California's five-year climate roadmap, called a scoping plan.
Newsom in recent months has been pushing the idea of keeping the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open, introducing draft legislation earlier this month that would continue operations past its scheduled 2025 closure date. It's part of a wider effort to maintain the reliability of the state's increasingly strained power grid and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels as California makes progress on transitioning to renewables.
But the contentious proposal, which would give owner Pacific Gas & Electric $1.4 billion, has widespread opposition. A new draft bill is being circulated within the Legislature and instead proposes using that money for renewable infrastructure.
California already has the largest zero-emission car market in the country, with more than 1.13 million plug-in vehicles registered across the state. Nationally there are about 2.64 million. That means California accounts for 43% of the nation's plug-in cars.
The board's move Thursday "is the most important action it has taken in 30 years," said board member Daniel Sperling, who also is director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis.
California often sets tougher climate change policies that the federal government then follows. There are also at least 16 states that currently follow the state's strict auto emission standards that are expected to adopt these regulations. These states, along with California, represent about 40% of the country's new car sales, according to the board.
Healthier air
Air board staff project that the new rule will reduce passenger vehicle emissions by more than 50% by 2040. That results in 395 million fewer metric tons of greenhouse gases — the equivalent of emissions from burning 915 million barrels of gasoline.
The rule is considered essential to reducing smog and soot pollution, which violates health standards in much of the state, and to meeting California's goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.
Battling California's severe air pollution for longer than half a century, the air board has long believed in the promise of an electric vehicle future, initially implementing a zero-emission mandate in 1990, requiring that 2% of new car sales between 1998 and 2000 be emissions-free, increasing to 5% in 2001 and 2002. The board reversed its decision six years later after automakers expressed concerns that the technology and battery lifespan were not advanced enough to comply.
"The mandate has led a very tortured life and it was basically weakened for almost 20 years and then in 2012, we started strengthening it again," board member Sperling said. "So this represents an embrace of the original vision. It's important for California, it's important for the U.S. and it's important for the world."
State officials said Newsom's $10 billion investment in vehicle incentives, charging infrastructure and public outreach over the next six years will be a critical tool to ramping up sales and improving access and affordability.
The proposal comes just a couple of weeks after Congress passed a sweeping climate bill, which pours billions into clean energy projects and renewables. The new law includes electric vehicle tax incentives that offer up to $7,500 in rebates for Americans who want to purchase a new zero-emission car or $4,000 for a used one. That rebate, in addition to the state's multiple subsidy programs, are expected to help provide some financial relief for car buyers.
Comments
Registered user
Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 29, 2022 at 12:10 pm
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2022 at 12:10 pm
I hope somebody in charge will have the wisdom to delay this if it turns into the absolute nightmare that it sounds like. "Embracing a vision" that is not connected to physical and economic reality is California's specialty.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Aug 29, 2022 at 1:08 pm
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2022 at 1:08 pm
I've started investigating an electric vehicle. I was blown away by the demo yesterday. However, I was reminded this morning by a friend about lack of infrastructure for 'filling' stations, and how long an EV takes to recharge.
I drive up to SF a couple of days a week (not convenient by Caltrain - would still need Uber rides in SF.)
Registered user
Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 29, 2022 at 1:25 pm
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2022 at 1:25 pm
Stuart Soffer, whatever preferences you have will be irrelevant in 2035, as the great state of California has decreed that all must conform to the whims of the Air Resources Board, regardless of expense or any practical concerns.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Aug 29, 2022 at 5:42 pm
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2022 at 5:42 pm
This reminds me of the boondoggle High-Speed Rail, and is just one more reason for hardworking middle-class people to flee the state, lots of good-paying jobs in Texas and Florida.
p.s. there won't be the grid or the charging stations to support this,
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Aug 29, 2022 at 5:49 pm
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2022 at 5:49 pm
The difference is while a bad decision to fund high-speed rail at least we voted on it,
This boondoggle was done by Bureaucratic Fiat.
bureaucratic:
Bureaucratic means involving complicated rules and procedures which can cause long delays. adj usu ADJ n
Diplomats believe that bureaucratic delays are inevitable..., The department has become a bureaucratic nightmare.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Aug 29, 2022 at 6:35 pm
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2022 at 6:35 pm
Westbrook:
people may have voted for HSR but they were told a pack of lies to get them to.
Registered user
Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Aug 30, 2022 at 10:12 am
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2022 at 10:12 am
Two power outages in two days in Portola Valley. California's grid is in no state to handle the additional load this action will put upon it.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Aug 30, 2022 at 9:10 pm
Registered user
on Aug 30, 2022 at 9:10 pm
Roughly 2M new cars are sold in Ca. every year,
The CAISO announced today that because of what would normally be called a typically mild "heat wave" "fairly common in the State", This weekend they will be issuing "Emergency Notifications" to reduce energy use.
On Aug. 14th, Two weeks ago, the CAISO announced a Stage 2 Emergency Alert. Again a mild heat wave.
They are shutting down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant in 2026,
That's without having to power millions of new EV Cars.
Is this starting to sink in?
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Aug 31, 2022 at 7:57 pm
Registered user
on Aug 31, 2022 at 7:57 pm
According to a story in Newsweek today,
Californians may need to take measures to conserve energy, including by avoiding charging electric vehicles, to prevent strain to the state's power grid over the Labor Day weekend, officials said
The top conservation actions are to set thermostats to 78 degrees or higher to reduce air conditioner use, avoid using large appliances and charging electric vehicles, and turn off unnecessary lights, it said.
When there are millions of new EV's do you really think there will be enough power to charge them?
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Sep 1, 2022 at 8:10 am
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2022 at 8:10 am
"When there are millions of new EV's do you really think there will be enough power to charge them?"
Not a chance. Especially when the virtue signalers force everyone into all electric everything. No gas used for anything, everything powered by electricity. More demand on a grid barely able to handle the load that it is trying to carry now, and in some cases, it can't even do that. And where will all this additional power come from? Not hydro, with global warming you can pretty much forget that due to drought. Solar? Nope, not after PG&E and their lapdog the CPUC get done making private solar unaffordable. Wind? No, can't build enough windmills. Nuclear? It could, but the virtue signalers in addition to wanting to make everything electric, don't want a nuclear plants built. So what's that leave? Natural gas. But, that produces CO2 and that's bad.
So, does anyone see where this goes and that these virtue signalers have no idea how to actually make it possible for everything to be electric AND not produce CO2? They just want to "save the world" at everyone else expense with no idea how to actually make it happen beyond "doing something", anything as long as it makes them feel better.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Sep 1, 2022 at 2:20 pm
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2022 at 2:20 pm
To understand the requirement/boondoggle that is only new EV's in Ca. as of 2035. One need only review the history of HSR. Passed in 2008', took till 2013' to award contracts, to 2015 to start construction, to now 14 years later and not even being close to laying a single mile of track between Merced and Bakersfield? With completion originally scheduled to be 2023. And they want the whole state to be carbon neutral by 2045 after shutting down the last Nuclear plant.
And you can't charge your car for 5 days due to lack of power generation.
I'm not the brightest guy around but with a little common sense and all this information being readily available, It's not hard to figure out.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Sep 1, 2022 at 2:28 pm
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2022 at 2:28 pm
Westbrook:
most of it is easy to figure out. Politicians are getting paid to make these decisions. In the case of HSR, the labor unions and large contractors that specialize in large, heavy construction gave lots of money to politicians to be sure this project didn't get killed. Because it's a public works project it is built primarily by union labor. And there are few contractors with the size and experience to take on projects of this size. A project like this means billions of dollars to them. A few hundred million is nothing to politicians to get what they want.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Sep 1, 2022 at 3:17 pm
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2022 at 3:17 pm
As long as it's business as usual the same thing will happen when the infrastructure is needed for thousands of new charging stations to supply the millions of new EV's.
what I'm always curious about is does the average person not understand this or do they choose to look away and just hope?
I mean it's really not complicated.
Registered user
Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Sep 2, 2022 at 11:19 am
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2022 at 11:19 am
This is clearly a means of controlling the population as well. The government can shut off the grid at any time -- leaving you unable to charge your vehicle and leave wherever you are. This is very scary.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Sep 2, 2022 at 3:49 pm
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2022 at 3:49 pm
Yesterday, 9/2/2022, PGE turned off the power in our immediate neighborhood for 12 Hours while they replaced a power pole to raise the height. Power was restored after 10PM. It was really dark outside and inside.
Consider the telephone poles. This is technology that goes back to the late 1800's -early 1900's for Telegraph, and then for telephone and power.
The City of Palo Alto owns their utilities. See, "Web Link
"Origins
It was the forward thinking of two Stanford University professors, Charles "Daddy" Marx and Charles Benjamin Wing, who were largely responsible for the emergence of the municipally owned utility service in Palo Alto. Marx and Wing argued that the City could provide utility service at rates significantly below those charged by private companies. One of the founding principles of those early pioneers was that the utilities must show a financial return to the community. This has continued to be a priority. In the most recent fiscal year, the electric and gas utilities provided millions in financial support to community services such as libraries, parks, police and fire protection. These contributions to the community do not occur in areas served by private power companies. This makes Palo Alto a unique place to live and work."
"Palo Alto is the only city in California that owns and operates a full suite of municipal utility services, including electric, fiber optics, natural gas, water and wastewater. We have been providing quality services to the citizens and businesses of Palo Alto since 1896."
Palo Alto has eliminated overhead wires, and underground the services.
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Sep 2, 2022 at 5:23 pm
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2022 at 5:23 pm
You might want to research a new CPUC tax on rooftop solar on your own home. $300-$600 a year may not sound like a lot but as we all know when the door opens for a new method of collecting tax it never closes and keeps expanding.
The CPUC is also recommending reducing the amount of money you receive by selling back your solar power to Utility co.s. Will fewer people install solar?
First, they tell you not to charge over a 5-day period, Now new taxes. My guess is Brownouts and Blackouts to follow.
Why is lithium extraction bad for the environment? Any type of resource extraction is harmful to the planet. This is because removing these raw materials can result in soil degradation, water shortages, biodiversity loss, damage to ecosystem functions and an increase in global warming.
The production of lithium through evaporation ponds uses a lot of water - around 21 million litres per day. That's a lot of water, The largest deposit of lithium in the US is in Northern Nevada. Where will that water come from?
It's easy to pat yourself on the back and say "Wow we are reducing greenhouse gases but at what cost? Lithium, Cobalt, aluminum, etc. all have to be mined.
Suggest you research the horrible effects on the environment to mine these minerals. Mostly from Countries being exploited by big corporations. What is the mining environmental impact?
The repercussions of mining can touch almost every aspect of life." Waste generated from mining cobalt and other metals can pollute water, air and soil, leading to decreased crop yields, contaminated food and water, and respiratory and reproductive health issues.
Is this an out of sight out of mind situation?
Do your research.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Sep 3, 2022 at 8:34 am
Registered user
on Sep 3, 2022 at 8:34 am
"Is this an out of sight out of mind situation?"
Yes. The people "saving the world" don't think about any inconvenient things like the big picture.
Registered user
Hillview Middle School
on Sep 15, 2022 at 6:21 pm
Registered user
on Sep 15, 2022 at 6:21 pm
In response to the article and some of the comments:
1: While I support the overall goal (lower emissions in the long-run) I don't support the approach (mandating the end of internal combustion engines). This could be accomplished simply by gradually requiring higher and higher MPG on ICE vehicles and letting market forces do the rest.
2: That said, the 'lack of EV charging stations' argument depends more on someone's housing status than infrastructure. If you have access to an electric outlet near your vehicle, a BEV can work for you. Every mainstream manufacture of a BEV has batteries that can go at-or-well-over 200 miles. The bulk of driving for most people is well under that on a per-day basis.
Currently, a BEV can be problematic for people who *routinely* drive either out-of-state or to Southern California. And it would likely be a non-starter for anyone living in an apartment complex that had no access to an electrical plug or charging station, which I agree is likely a lot of apartment/housing complexes.
Living in Menlo Park and routinely driving to/from SF is easily achievable in a BEV.
3: The 'BEV vehicles pollute, too' argument has been studied to death, and the results are clear:
a: at the completion of manufacturing, a BEV has polluted more than an ICE vehicle.
b: at the end-of-life for a passenger vehicle (on average, 12.2 years), a BEV has polluted far LESS than its ICE equivalent. Anyone that argues a BEV pollutes as much (or more) than an ICE vehicle simply doesn't know what they're talking about or is deliberately cherrypicking.
c: that said, it can take anywhere from simply 3-ish years to 8+ years to overcome the polution from manufacturing a BEV, depending on the energy source used for recharging.
Registered user
Hillview Middle School
on Sep 15, 2022 at 6:30 pm
Registered user
on Sep 15, 2022 at 6:30 pm
Followup thought:
Personally, once I was educated on the matter, the arguments against BEV are pretty weak except for 3 circumstances:
1: your housing situation does not allow you to charge your BEV at night.
2: you really do routinely drive further than the max capacity of your BEV between home...or work...recharge. (this is a relatively small group of people).
3: you really need a very reliable vehicle. Because BEV technology is still relatively new, they...on average...do not score as well in reliability rankings compared to their ICE equivalents. If that is very important to you, you really can only consider ICE vehicles from Lexus, Toyota and Mazda (and Porsche, if you can afford the maintenance costs).