KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

To be clear, this looks to be similar to the same proposals from China, the UK, France and Germany in that it would stop the sale of brand new IC powered vehicles at a fixed point 15-23 years from now. Not tomorrow. Still... it's on par with what the above countries are proposing.

Curiously this proposal does not specify "pure internal combustion vehicles" as being what is banned, which at this early stage of announcement/rumor makes the plight of advanced hybrid cars which are EV's but either use an combustion engine in tandem or as a generator up in the air. At least a couple of countries have made this important distinction where so far California has not.

Personally I drive a classic restored Lexus in CA so I am interested to see how this goes.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/californ...nt-to-ban.html

RXSF

Highly doubt this would pass even in CA. What stops people from driving over to neighboring states to purchase any vehicle they want and then getting it registered here? In addition, making a law that comes into effect 20 years from now allows it to be repealed

Johnhav430

CA does need to do something they say LA is the next Silicon Valley. Wonderful if you own property there, we all shoulda bought 2nd and 3rd homes during the recession like my coworker in AZ did....(the ol' shoulda coulda woulda, and I shouldn't have sold facebook which I got through the IPO)

mmarshall

I don't think they could enforce an IC ban. Too many people in the state, too many drivers, too many of them want IC vehicles, and too many of them would simply rebel, ignore the law, and drive with un-registered cars and/or old, outdated license-plates. Even if the police or CHP set up road-blocks or checkpoints to look for outdated plates and unregistered vehicles, they couldn't even begin to truly enforce the law....people would evade them.

Nope, I think California (which is known for restrictive laws) may have finally outdone themselves with a proposal like this.

Johnhav430

CA has clout. I'll always remember when various states tried to jockey for position and have their own emissions standards, and it got slapped down by the Federalis. Either follow CA, or follow everyone else. You (such as NY) don't get your own standards. i.e. the CARB states. I don't get the politics behind them, meaning NY was on board early, as was CT/MA....but states like VT, MD, PA, RI, what did they gain by joining? Believe it or not, I wanted a more restrictive car. My 1998 Nissan had two versions, CA and Fed., and it was a CA car. Impossible today to get correct exhaust parts. So when I bought the BMW I called BMW Manhattan and asked, if I buy a car from you, I have Cali emissions, right? They came back and said all BMWs are 50-state cars. I was skeptical, but they were right.

Coleroad

California lawmakers are just like over zealous HOA's. They want their nose in everything they possibly can. Then they find out they are short of money do regulate all of that so fees skyrocket.
Lon this one though I think it's pretty much a non factor. Look at the direction auto manufacturers are going already. Even without any new regulations cars are going to all hybrids, or alternative fuel vehicles. The infrastructure will be fast coming in the next 10 years to support it. Once that happens, fears of ev's range won't be what it is now. So California can make the law, but I think it's happening even if they don't anyway.

Johnhav430

When you say overzealous/CA lawmakers, I think about my cousin getting a summons for not curbing his rental car in SF. Yes, that is common sense and it's nonsensical how people in the east rarely do it, but the punishment did not fit the crime so to speak. How about $540 for red light violations....too steep. $100 is about right imho.

ArmyofOne

Yet another reason why I stay far away from the Communist Republic of California. It will be a sad day when Internal Combustion Engines are banned.

I personally don't see how they could get away with it. Someone, somewhere will tuck away vintage cars, and drive them much to the dismay of law enforcement. It would be nearly unenforceable.

rogerh00

I'm waiting for the huge Oil industry/lobby to say something.

riredale

I see the oil industry as nothing if not pragmatic. They are in business to make money, and if they see a future with EVs then they will build battery plants.

UDel

California and their politicians are never short on extremely stupid ideas and legislation.

swajames

Some of the posts above clearly assume ICE cars would be banned full stop, which isn’t the likely intent (if the proposal mooted were to gain any traction, it would seemingly compel manufacturers to sell only non-ICE vehicles after a specific date.)

The more salient point is that it’s quite likely that market forces could drive and indeed are driving much of the CA market in that direction anyway. The number of electric/non-ICE cars in the Bay Area and greater LA region even today is staggering. As non-ICE infrastructure expands and improves, that’s only going to further drive the market. Legislation to drive that outcome may be somewhat moot, as that transformation is actually already well underway.

You'll be able to drive non-ICE vehicles in future. You may not be able to buy (or easily buy) a new one in California in 2037, and you may not want to anyway, but it’s not at all likely that those in use at that time would be legislated out of existence overnight.

The key point, however, remains: Whether or not you agree with the proposal may be a distinction without a difference, to one extent or another, as much of the CA market seems to be trending in this direction anyway.

dicer

They need to first start with banning internal combustion turbine engines, ie jet planes. A nice ban like that would pretty much move all commerce and businesses out of that crap state. Only Tesla would be left, with some computer joints.

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

^^ I also didn't read into this article anything to suggest that existing ICE vehicles are going to be affected, even up to whatever year they'll choose. Aggressive smog/ARB testing every two years seems to do what they want in terms of making it expensive to keep 1976 and newer vehicles registered. 1975 and older cars have it easier.

This talk is aimed directly at making a future cutoff date for new ICE car sales in the state of California. It also doesn't address how this would affect bringing in a 1-2 year old new-ish ICE car originally bought out of state for registration past that date. This is something that has been allowed for years with little penalty so long as the person has owned the car for a minimum number of months (or a year or two, I forget).

Still... they're beginning to talk about this now while at the same time in L.A. at least I have yet to see any:

1) Aggressive rollout of public charging kiosks next to curbside parking meters. Why is this not yet becoming a common thing out here?

2) Code mandates for 240V EV charger wiring hookups (at least the pre-wiring) at every new apartment parking garage spot built in new complexes. And more EV chargers in public garage spots (currently you find a couple on some levels but not many at all). And code requirements to retrofit old apartment building parking garages with 240V EV charging stations. This point is very important because a LOT of people rent apartments in L.A. and are in no position to buy a house with a garage or drive port in which they can install their own charging station. (And this is important to note because the renter to homeowner gap is only increasing in L.A. year after year. San Francisco is already getting far ahead in this trend where it's becoming too expensive for some to even rent in that city regardless of whether or not they own a car).

3) Aggressive rollout of public charging kiosks on residential streets. See point #1 as even some people who own or rent small homes have street parking only and still require some place to plug in to recharge for the night.

4) Fast charging station deployment on a wider scale throughout L.A. and all over the major California highway systems. If Tesla Supercharger stations are not pay-accessible for ANY electric car, even custom built EV's with the proper wiring hardware (and there will be many classic and custom EV conversion cars on the road in the future... not just stock OEM EV cars), then they don't really count for but a minority of Tesla owners

While battery R&D improves at a trickle every year with the promise of eliminating range anxiety that has far from happened yet. These are some big elephants in the room that must be addressed in spades well before a new ICE sale cutoff date goes into effect. This is currently a chicken and egg problem. Even with a new whiz-bang battery technology that is affordable, high output and long lasting these charging stations in specific places will still be needed.

Also, at current time there is no battery technology that works as well for fast refueling and long distance as gasoline for cross-country driving. So whatever happens between now and whatever new ICE cutoff date occurs there had better be a major breakthrough in that area. Most people can only afford one car and sometimes they want or need to drive it far more than 300 miles in a single day, let alone the 100 or less miles a "cheap" $30k (before whatever incentives are available) disposable rolling appliance Nissan Leaf will give you in 2017.

Practically, yes, we'll have many gasoline and some diesel powered vehicles on the road for a long time yet.

AZLexicon

I agree with some of Kahn's points, specifically the distance travel of a pure electric vehicle. There's also the question of what to do with tens of millions of old batteries from these vehicles. At present time, only about 20% of the components are recyclable and that will be a problem down the road.