California Moves to Put 1.4M Zero Emissions Vehicles on Roads by 2025
December 15, 2011 1:47 PM
comment(s) - last by
CARB is taking public comment on proposed standards now
California has been working with the federal government on the
CAFE fuel economy standards
while at the same time working inside the state government to improve the air quality. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has now confirmed more plans to help improve the air quality in the state and that plan involves mandates to get more electric vehicles onto the market. The plan calls for 1.4 million more electric and plug-in vehicles as well as hydrogen powered cars to hit the roads.
The new standards are expected to cover 2017 to 2025 model year vehicles. The plan wants to reduce greenhouse gas emission from vehicles by 34% compared with the levels set for 2016 and to drive more purchases of EVs. CARB says that the new rules will add $1,900 to the price of a new vehicle by 2025, but the efficiency will save $6,000 in fuel costs over the vehicles life.
Tesla Model S [Source: Tesla Motors]
If the 1.4 million zero emission or plug-in hybrid vehicle number is reached that would mean one in seven or 15% of all new vehicles sold would be that type of vehicle. Automakers selling cars in California would need to make 15.4% of their entire fleets ZEVs to meet the proposed standards. The rules would also force all passenger cars and light trucks sold in California to reach the state super-ultra-low emission vehicle standards by 2025. If approved by the California Office of Administrative Law, the regulations would become law in 2012.
The proposed rules by the State of California aren't good enough for the Union of Concerned Scientists reports the
. This union wants to increase the proposed standard by 30% and put 1.8 million zero emission vehicles on the roads by 2025. A public comment period on CARBs proposal is going until December 12.
The full CARB proposal is
in PDF form.
Energy Efficiency News
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
12/16/2011 9:12:44 AM
It doesn't matter, they are barking up the wrong tailpipe.
Modern vehicles put out such minimal emissions now compared to their predecessors that it almost doesn't matter. Old cars put out SIGNIFICANTLY more, hell 2012 civic vs 1991 pits out 36% less ghg. But even more so commercial vehicles like tractor trailers are the worst offenders with the least regulation. Cars have become blood from a stone.
Let's step out of that realm again because it is STILL minute in comparison to other sources like with industry and power generation. California still has 10 operational coal power plants (2005 source, might not be up to date). Why not work to shutting them down and becoming a coal free state?
According to the epa statistics (src
) , vehicles are still only 1/3 of emission totals. Where is your crackdown california on the other 2/3rds if you are so concerned?
12/17/2011 2:29:37 PM
You're mixing a lot of things up here.
First of all, GHGs are not necessarily the best way to measure pollution. I consider myself to be someone that cares about the environment, but trying to reduce GHGs gives such a shitty ROI compared to other ways to help society that I don't care much about them. Even the IPCC's own numbers don't make the case.
For bad air pollution, it's clear that it's far worse in urban areas, and that's a natural drawback for all of the other efficiencies you get with cities. Coal plants should be slowly phased out, but they are generally located outside of cities and contribute very little to urban air pollution. Put another way, pollution from a coal plant is less likely to be breathed in than pollution from a car, so the latter is still very important.
It's not harmless, either. In Canada, it's estimated 21000 people die prematurely each year from pollution:
(run by the Canadian Medical Association, not some whack enviro group)
Sure, many of them are older and would die in a few years anyway, but that doesn't make it okay. Higher estimates exist for the US, too.
Even if I lowball those estimates to 10 deaths per 100k citizens, isn't that something we should be fighting against? How about quality of life for even more that don't die, e.g. asthma?
What about the >$300 billion going out of the US each year (half of the trade deficit), often to hostile countries, for the oil that can't be produced here? Isn't that worth fighting against? Shouldn't we be replacing those imports with domestic production of batteries, PHEVs, nuclear plants, etc?
There's a lot of reasons to support ZEVs, and GHGs are the least of them.
"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller
White House Wants 56.2 mpg by 2025, Automakers Are Upset
June 27, 2011, 10:23 AM
Ford, Toyota, and Universal Pictures Celebrate "Back to the Future Day' in Style
October 21, 2015, 4:19 PM
Consumer Reports Flexes Muscle, Hits Slumping Tesla Motors Stock
October 20, 2015, 4:13 PM
Debunked: Beneath the Lies, Nigerian "Pee Generator" Is Still Pissing Into the Wind
October 19, 2015, 7:53 PM
Hot Air? President Obama, G7 Pledge to Eliminate Most Fossil Fuel Use by 2100
June 8, 2015, 5:40 PM
Study Predicts Self-Driving Vehicles Could Rake in Billions
March 6, 2015, 8:34 AM
Dual-Motor Tesla Model S P85D's "Insane Mode" Shocks Passengers
January 28, 2015, 11:18 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information