Well... let's see if it works this time. I am what might be called, highly pessimistic. Me thinks they may not of thought out all of the secondary effects.
But... buying some land just over the boarder in Nevada and opening some car dealerships and small engine yard equipment (also soon to be illegal) sales stores, might be highly profitable.
One wonders what this will do to used car prices.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/08/24/california-to-ban-sale-of-all-new-gasoline-powered-cars-starting-in-2035-a-historic-turning-point/
While new carbon-fueled vehicles can’t be purchased after the law takes effect, “you can keep your current car or buy a used car,” he said. “We’re not taking anything away.”
They better start building those charging stations everywhere. A major problem is where people who live in apartments will charge their cars. With the housing situation in California I see more and more people being crammed into denser and denser apartment complexes. There aren't any rules yet about charging stations in new apartment construction. Have they really thought this out? I did hear them talk about putting plugs in garages in all new single family homes. They are going to need that.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
None of the " problems" you mention are difficult. Where there are parking meters the city can add charging stations. The city will make a modest profit to offset the costs and everyone will be happy.
Parking garages can do the same thing. Put plug ins at each location and your plug will tell the parking garage where to send the bill. ( or maybe automatically pay the bill?)
How about that? Never have to pull into a gas station again.
The average American drives 31 miles a day. In the last two weeks I've averaged less than 4. ( on a staycation)
By the time you're my age everybody's home will have their own Wind generator and solar panels. Buying gas will be a thing of the past just like chopping firewood.
They will still be connected to the grid so if the sun doesn't shine for a while and the wind doesn't blow the charge in their car/truck will cover them for a day or two more. Beyond that they'll be buying others surplus energy.
Then when they have surplus to sell they will be credited back.
Think of that. How much does your family spend on gas and electricity a year?
Somewhere around $10,000 ? Wouldn't it be nice to keep that?
aircooled said:
Well... let's see if it works this time. I am what might be called, highly pessimistic. Me thinks they may not of thought out all of the secondary effects.
But... buying some land just over the boarder in Nevada and opening some car dealerships and small engine yard equipment (also soon to be illegal) sales stores, might be highly profitable.
One wonders what this will do to used car prices.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/08/24/california-to-ban-sale-of-all-new-gasoline-powered-cars-starting-in-2035-a-historic-turning-point/
While new carbon-fueled vehicles can’t be purchased after the law takes effect, “you can keep your current car or buy a used car,” he said. “We’re not taking anything away.”
Think of this as an opportunity. Keep a ICE toy. Play with it all you want. But start saving money with an EV as your DD.
Pretty soon you'll see a lot of solar panels on roofs and wind generators for when the sun isn't shining. Instead of buying oil from a far away source your house will charge your car.
If the sun doesn't shine or wind doesn't blow ( even on cloudy days those panels will generate some electricity ) and permanent magnets start charging in a 4 mph breeze.
In those conditions you can pull some energy from your car for a couple of days. But you're still connected to the grid and those with energy in excess of their use will sell you it.
Then when you have excess energy, you'll be repaid.
How much do you spend yearly for Gas and electricity a year? Around $10,000?
Wouldn't it be nice to keep that yourself?
CrustyRedXpress said:
aircooled said:
I am what might be called, highly pessimistic. Me thinks they may not of thought out all of the secondary effects.
Which ones?
The first that comes to mind is that the current power grid infrastructure can't handle peak demands already. Yes, "most charge at night." But what about people that need to charge at work, or during a trip. I don't know how they plan to handle the increasingly large demand for electricity while also shutting down power plants.
Not enough chargers at apartment complexes seems like the least of the worries.
z31maniac said:
CrustyRedXpress said:
aircooled said:
I am what might be called, highly pessimistic. Me thinks they may not of thought out all of the secondary effects.
Which ones?
The first that comes to mind is that the current power grid infrastructure can't handle peak demands already. Yes, "most charge at night." But what about people that need to charge at work, or during a trip. I don't know how they plan to handle the increasingly large demand for electricity while also shutting down power plants.
Not enough chargers at apartment complexes seems like the least of the worries.
That would be one reason not to buy one. You live in an apartment and you can't charge it at home. Most apartments I have lived in have parking lots without any plugs nearby. Maybe the luxury apartments with parking garages would be easy to wire, but how much would it cost to stick a pole with an electrical outlet in every space in a parking lot? How many fights would you have if only a few spaces had plugs and everybody has to plug in to get to work the next day?
The role of Leadership is the set the strategic tone and direction of an organization. They then create policy to push the organization toward that direction. Government is doing what they should here. Change is painful. By setting this policy other orgs will now adjust.
Example amazon does 2 day shipping on things before it's economically viable. Eats the cost for years and is now winning big.
If PHEV (which is part of the total percentages shown on the initial graph) means a plug in hybrid electric vehicle, then IC engines in their entirety will not be banned by 2035.
It's obvious that very little thought was put into this other than making headlines today- just like the other times. They don't really care if this is possible in the future or if it even happens. They will be out of office by then. The fact that the graph above is pretty much a straight line is hilarious. Either the technology and cost will reach a point where the general public adopts it or it won't. Neither outcome would look like that. If they limited it to passenger cars, it would be a stretch. All vehicles, gas and electric? They may as well mandate everyone fly to work on a unicorn. We've had plenty of discussions about what it would take infrastructure wise, so I won't rehash that. I'll just point out that if we only addressed the infrastructure, ignoring the whole car part of the equation, it would be a monumental task to complete by 2035. This is the same state that has spent billions of dollars and decades just to build a train track from one small town in the middle of nowhere to another. This is also the same state that can't keep electricity flowing to homes to meet the current demand. Standby natural gas generators are selling like crazy. Yes, while the state is mandating that we remove gas engines from our cars, residents are installing gas engines on their homes.
While I really like the new Ford Lightning- it's at the top of my wife's list for her next vehicle- it really highlights many of the drawbacks and challenges of EV's attempt to go mainstream. A small percentage of people right now tolerate the extra time it takes to "refuel" an EV. Mostly because they can charge overnight at home. The problem is when you scale it up to larger vehicles, like most Americans currently drive. A car may have a 15 gal. gas tank that takes 5 minutes to fill. A truck, needing a larger tank, might have a 30 gallon. Twice the time at the pump. But that's only an extra 10 minutes, so not that big a deal. With EV's, doubling the size of a battery means adding hours to the recharge time. Most of the general public would not be okay with that.
The mandate would relay on a huge technological leap to be successful, on the car side- and still be facing an infrastructure crisis. But if that technological leap was on the horizon, there would not be a need for the mandate. Once again, California has put the cart before the horse. If they were really serious about this, their focus would be on the infrastructure, not the cars.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
The role of Leadership is the set the strategic tone and direction of an organization. They then create policy to push the organization toward that direction. Government is doing what they should here. Change is painful. By setting this policy other orgs will now adjust.
That makes no sense at all. If your strategic tone and direction take your organization over a cliff, that's not good leadership. If you set goals that are technologically not possible or cost so much that the organization goes bankrupt, that's not good leadership. If your goals create so much hardship that the most productive of your organization leave, that's not good leadership.
Its 12+ years away. Lots of time to overcome the hurdles, none of which seem to be technology limited. Its logistics, infrastructure, etc.
Remember it will take quite a bit of time after that for even the average passenger vehicle to be a non-ICE.
A lot of the complaints I see regarding this read like "It cant be done that way, because we haven't been doing it that way!"
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
2035 is 12 years away. That is two or three whole product cycles.
Some automakers are already working toward selling only EVs by then. Some, obviously, are already there 
I see a challenge but not a fully insurmountable one, and likely made with industry input.
As always, I am on the outside, watching with a degree of interest/fascination. One thing I am curious about is the current state of EV sales as a percentage of market share. In a recent industry forum thread, some were claiming that upwards of 20% of the cars they see on the roads in the denser populated areas there were EVs, today, which of course includes older cars and not just new sales.
einy (Forum Supporter) said:
If PHEV (which is part of the total percentages shown on the initial graph) means a plug in hybrid electric vehicle, then IC engines in their entirety will not be banned by 2035.
That was my understanding when I left back in April.
@Pete
for 2022 they are showing 16.5% of the sales as ZEV, although that does include PHEV. The numbers are in there if you want to sort them, but PHEV #s look like a pretty small fraction of ZEV sales.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/new-zev-sales
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Maybe you don't get out much, maybe things are different in the E36 M3hole that is Southern California, but 10-12 years ago when I was living in Northern California every strip mall already had chargers and most new construction was putting them in.
The overworked and terribly managed power grid in California is another story. Sure was fun watching them push EVs during rolling blackouts while fighting the wild fires.but that's a PG&E problem that they should have been figuring out years ago instead of barely maintaining their existing service.
In reply to ProDarwin :
12 years away, but 35 years since there was an ev mandate, and pretty much all of the problems still exist. The only part that has actually moved significantly has been batteries. The charging network is great for a little more. But when I see how "easy" it is to add MW of power distribution in multiple places at the same time, we must be there already.
STM317
PowerDork
8/24/22 7:41 p.m.
The actual resolution states that PHEVs will still be allowed to be sold after 2035.
"Whereas, even under the ACC II regulations, remaining internal-combustion engine, or
conventional, vehicles may continue to be used on California’s roads well beyond 2035; and
PHEVs that include combustion engines may continue to be sold and used after 2035;"
So, people that can't charge where they park will have an option besides just driving old stuff or relying solely on public charging.
The same document also indicates that manufacturers have been ahead of the game and stockpiled credits that may be used to avoid fines, etc in the future:
"Whereas, the current ZEV regulation set annual credit requirements that can be fulfilled by
manufacturers through the production of a ZEV or PHEV, which earns variable credit based
on vehicle attributes, the most influential being electric range;
Whereas, manufacturers have been over-complying with California’s ZEV regulations’
requirements since the 2012 model year, resulting in significant ZEV regulation credit banks,
under which manufacturers may carry forward surplus credits without expiration for
complying with the ACC I ZEV regulation;"
So OEMs may have some leeway when 2035 rolls around.
Regarding the "What about apartments" issue, I live in a 1950's apartment complex in California and we have EV chargers. They are popping up at most apartment complexes because the utility company will pretty much pay for them to be installed (believe it or not, they want to sell you more electricity and it's worth the cost of a L2 charger for them to do it).
Also, as noted, they will continue to allow new PHEV sales and older ICEs won't be banned or anything. And this is 12 years from now! Think about what the collective experience with/perception of EVs was 12 years ago (2010) and how far we've come since then.
I have some concerns about PG&E's infrastructure and a much more macro concern about lithium supplies but by and large this seems like a big nothing burger to me.
Thou doth protest too much...
In reply to alfadriver :
In reply to ProDarwin :
12 years away, but 35 years since there was an ev mandate, and pretty much all of the problems still exist. The only part that has actually moved significantly has been batteries. The charging network is great for a little more. But when I see how "easy" it is to add MW of power distribution in multiple places at the same time, we must be there already.
This. The history of this has been mandate, fail, move the goal post, repeat. Which is why I'm not really worried about it. If they were really serious about this, they would have started on the infrastructure back in 1990. They are just starting to put token requirements into the building code, nothing close to addressing the need should this come to fruition. Actually, they won't be be able to meet the projected demand that just normal market forces will have on EV adoption, let alone a mandate. I predict that EV adoption will plateau once charging becomes more difficult because the number of cars has outpaced the support. Those that say it's just infrastructure or logistics have no idea how this works. You are are talking about replacing most of the electrical infrastructure in the state. Even ignoring the cost and time required to do this, there are not enough materials and labor to accomplish this in this time frame. Adding EV chargers to a few houses in a neighborhood or a few spaces in a parking lot isn't hard, because the existing infrastructure has enough headroom to add a little more load. But you can't just keep adding.
Maybe by then I'll be in the market for a 400Z. 
As Pete pointed out, and we all know, the manufacturers have already begun to pivot. With VW going at it hard, beancounters desperately steering them away from Dieselgate at flank speed, Ford taking the economic chance to cut their labor budget in ICE, and even Dodge trying to build some hype amongst their segment (Kyle and all his friends). Motorcycles are getting into it as well, I know that Fortnine on the YT has covered some and is cheering them on. If Dodge is phasing out ICE then it must make more financial sense to go EV than continue to sell a rockstar platform. And if there's a way towards more profit then there's no diverting from that course, so it's coming. I'm far from excited at the prospect of one-pedaling my computer around but I can accept the inevitable, that I'll still be missing my old square body in spite of the inefficiency.
If I were a small nation sitting on lithium or cobalt, I'd be watching the horizon for a decade or two of American Freedom coming my way.
In reply to pointofdeparture :
Regarding the "What about apartments" issue, I live in a 1950's apartment complex in California and we have EV chargers. They are popping up at most apartment complexes because the utility company will pretty much pay for them to be installed (believe it or not, they want to sell you more electricity and it's worth the cost of a L2 charger for them to do it).
This is a great example of where people think that because something works at a low adoption rate that it will work the same if you scale it up. How many chargers in your apartments? How many units? How many parking spaces? Your 50's apartments aren't likely to have more than 50A-100A per unit. Those level 2 chargers that you mentioned are another 30-40A each, there is zero chance that the apartment's service could even handle a fraction of the extra load required by widespread adoption, as it's likely the few they already added put it at capacity. It would be like if we removed all but one gas pump at all of the gas stations. It would still work in theory, but it would suck and require changes to our lifestyles.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I totally get what you are saying, I was more responding to the earlier comment that implied people who live in apartments are screwed come 2035. Just saying, I don't think getting the chargers installed in apartment complexes is the issue of the day here.
For what it's worth we have 40 units and ~10 chargers so far (anyone who moves in with an EV pretty much gets one installed no questions asked). I don't think each charger shares the service of the unit that the parking space belongs to, there is a row of carports behind the complex with its own subpanel where all the chargers are.
Still think it's a giant nothing burger because I don't see the population of California all deciding that 2035 is the year they finally buy a new EV all at once, PHEVs will still be sold anyway, ICEs will still be on the road, and even big projects with a fair amount of public support like the San Jose BART stop can't get done on time anyway.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Having 9 billion people on the planet also requires changes to our lifestyles, if our lifestyles worked great when there were only 2 billion. *shrug emoji*
RevRico said:
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Maybe you don't get out much, maybe things are different in the E36 M3hole that is Southern California, but 10-12 years ago when I was living in Northern California every strip mall already had chargers and most new construction was putting them in.
The overworked and terribly managed power grid in California is another story. Sure was fun watching them push EVs during rolling blackouts while fighting the wild fires.but that's a PG&E problem that they should have been figuring out years ago instead of barely maintaining their existing service.
North Texas isn't Southern California. There are some chargers in shopping centers in Plano and North Dallas. Nothing in the cheaper parts of town. I see a few in new shopping centers in Rockwall where I hang out. The underground garage in my office has a grand total of five chargers for a 10 story building. Just five. There are actually more Teslas parked here during the day than there are chargers. This is in the so called "High Tech Corridor" in Richardson. There are fewer chargers Downtown. There are hundreds of old strip malls in the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex that do not have chargers. Most of the politicians here in Texas don't even like EVs.
As for the electric grid in California, PG&E does not exist in Southern California. That's all Southern California Edison territory. Blackouts during the wildfires have more to do with not cutting trees around electrical lines than they do lack of capacity. Old transformers that need to be replaced blowing up can set wildfires too. They used to do a better job of maintenance. Now not so much. Doing less maintenance saves money for the stockholders. At least until the fires and then the lawsuits start. But lack of capacity is also a big problem in a State that is growing fast with NIMBYs who don't want a substation or a power plant in their backyard. I find it interesting that Governor Newsome wants to keep Diablo Canyon going now. Governor Brown wanted to shut it down. Even PG&E wants to shut it down. For some politicians and most shareholders on the private side infrastructure spending is a bad thing. They don't want to spend money maintaining the old systems. They don't want to spend money building new systems. They don't want to spend money at all. But when their constituents start screaming when power goes out and the rolling blackouts come they want to blame somebody or everybody but themselves. Oh yes. The G in PG&E is for gas. Remember the gas line explosion in San Bruno a few years ago. Another example of lack of maintenance. But replacing old gas lines costs money too and leads to higher gas bills. There are no simple solutions.
I actually know a little bit about this. My Father used to be a Distribution Engineer for PG&E and he actually designed a lot of the grid in Northern California back in the day.
