TheDetroitBureau.com reports that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is out to change the zero-emissions-vehicle (ZEV) game again, this time revising its desired numbers for vehicle sales and prodding industry to make alternative fuels more available. From 2018 to 2025, CARB wants ZEVs to number 1.4 million sales every year. According to its numbers, by 2025, that would result in a decrease of 52 million metric tons of emissions.

But what good is a car that runs on hydrogen without convenient places to refuel? The Cleans Fuels Outlet part of its plan "would require oil companies to install hydrogen refueling stations." That part of the plan sounds like it will be rather expensive for someone, but according to CARB, somehow it won't be the consumer: CARB says residents will save $22 billion on fuel costs, 21,000 jobs will be created because of the move to different fuels, and a car buyer in 2025 would save $4,000 over the life of the car even with the extra cost of the tech.

What's more, in 2017, CARB – in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency – has released an emissions-level limit of 166 g/km for cars sold in the state. That would represent another 34 percent drop from the emissions levels targeted in 2016.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 52 Comments
      EJD1984
      • 3 Years Ago
      Bicycles?
      nismokid02
      • 3 Years Ago
      I don't quite understand how this affects the rest of America. They want 1.4 million sales in CA or the US? Does it really make a difference for the rest of us what they buy?
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      JonnyO
      • 3 Years Ago
      Are these figures from the same California bean-counters who came up with their high-speed rail estimates? The federal government needs to restrict CARB's ability to make such mandates. They have no right to influence decisions or impact the lives of people beyond their jurisdiction. Their hearts may be in the right place (I don't like smog any more than anyone else) but their approach is flawed.
        Nick
        • 3 Years Ago
        @JonnyO
        Love how people are for state's rights, until the state does something they don't like. Then it's call in the feds!
      Dark Gnat
      • 3 Years Ago
      There is no such thing as zero emissions. Electric car are just replacing oil with coal. Fuel cells are great, but water vapor is actually a far more powerful greenhouse gas. There is no free energy.
        vince
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dark Gnat
        If water vapor is a "more powerful greenhouse gas" , then why are we not all dead yet? Annual CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and manufacturing cement for the entire world amount to 29,888,121 thousand metric tons(wikipedia). Thats 29.888x10^12 kg of CO2 emissions per YEAR by the entire world. DAILY evaporation of water from the surface of the earth is 1.4x10^15 kg. That has been happening for millenia. Also, ICEs put out water vapor as part of their exhaust. If you think the water vapor emissions from fuel cells will contribute to global warming your are insane.
          Dark Gnat
          • 3 Years Ago
          @vince
          I was playing devils advocate. Everyone is concentrating on CO2, while other forms of pollution seem to be ignored. The government issues feel-good legislation that demands certain numbers, and doesn't care about any potential consequences.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dark Gnat
        [blocked]
          Rotation
          • 3 Years Ago
          What do you mean? According to my thermodynamics teacher I don't consume energy anyway, just convert it to different forms. So no matter how much energy costs I don't pay a thing. Turns out thermodynamics isn't the most useful way to talk practically about energy use.
        Rotation
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dark Gnat
        I'll tell me friends with the electric cars and solar panel arrays that power them completely that there's no such thing as zero emissions. And when you say "electric cars are just replacing oil with coal", you should know that almost no electricity in California is generated with coal (I believe it is 0.2%), it almost all comes from natural gas.
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Rotation
          [blocked]
          2 Wheeled Menace
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Rotation
          dark gnat: solar panels and lithium batteries are 100% recycleable, and the recycling process is not that energy intensive. Do you have a link to any studies showing that the manufacturing emissions is higher for a solar + EV drive system are higher, versus 30 years of drilling, refining, shipping, and burning foreign oil? If so i'd loooooove to see your numbers ;) In the meantime i'll be paying $0 per gallon.
          Dark Gnat
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Rotation
          Ratation: Think about how the solar panels and batteries are made, and the toxic chemicals that are in them. Carbon isn't the only thing to worry about. Natural gas is also a hydrocarbon. It's cleaner than other fossil fuels, but it isn't perfect. Keep in mind that I generally support alternative fuel such as the ones we're talking about, but they all have their own drawbacks. Simply issuing a blanket "zero emissions" statement is short-sighted. We would be better off banning all deforestation and re-establishing rainforests.
          2 Wheeled Menace
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Rotation
          ... why did rotation get downrated? I also have solar powered transport. I have a 40mph, 40 mile electric bicycle and solar rig i put together for about $2000.
          Rotation
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Rotation
          Mr. Z: Under 20% net total in the system it seems. But it was recently rising. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-010/CEC-200-2009-010-CMF.PDF
        SAM
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dark Gnat
        Water vapor is a product of standard combustion also. Take your random hydrocarbon fuel, CxHx and burn it (combustion) and you have the following basic combustion equation: CxHx + O2 = CO2 + H2O. Since we generally use air as the source of oxygen, you end up with NOx as a product of combustion too. Also, there are multiple sources of electricity besides coal: nuclear, wind, solar, hydro and natural gas of course. There are a number of wind farms out here in Cali, a couple solar farms being built in the desert (noticed them on a drive to Vegas from LA), and Hoover Dam creating hydroelectric.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        • 3 Years Ago
        [blocked]
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 3 Years Ago
      I am an environmentalist and hard core EV advocate ( i have multiple EVs myself ). But i'll say this is another case of California being overly idealistic and trying to force magic to happen. Then again, if you want to have some semblance of freedom, you don't want to live in California anyway. There's more reasons than that to flee the state.. but that's just one that comes to mind.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        [blocked]
      IBx27
      • 3 Years Ago
      Damnit, you're gonna buy electric cars if it's the last thing we do! I would recommend voting out all the morons in that place, but it's easier to just forget it exists.
        Gubbins
        • 3 Years Ago
        @IBx27
        Voting out the morons won't happen; they had a chance recently but insisted on re-electing wackadoo Jerry Brown. What does that tell you about who the morons are---the electorate or the elected? I can't tell the difference in the PRC. I think your second suggestion is the one to go with; forget it exists.
        mookie
        • 3 Years Ago
        @IBx27
        That is not going to happen, considering the electorate.
      Joseph Augustine
      • 3 Years Ago
      Zero emissions electric cars take much more energy to produce and the batteries put off alot more pollution during nickle mining. The EPA and CARB are a waste. Let the free market run. Regulation requires more taxes and gradually takes our freedoms away.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Joseph Augustine
        Electric cars don't have nickel metal hydride batteries, so your argument about batteries is completely void. A nickel battery hasn't been used in an electric car since 2001. EPA came to be when people got tired of their rivers intermittently catching on fire back in the day when Detroit was pumping out cars. CARB exists because Southern would look like Beijing without it. Hit up google and look at what SoCal looked like pre-1970's. That's what most modern metro areas would look like today without emissions controls. You seem to like gasoline pollution and really dislike any kind of pollution from electric cars. That's a bit odd.
          • 3 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          [blocked]
          Rampant
          • 3 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          Just because they do not use nickel hydride batteries anymore does not mean that modern batteries do not use a fair bit of nickel, as well as other environmentally hazardous rare earth elements in their production. All you need to do is Google search the environmental impact Canada's mining industry and how the minerals they mine there play a crucial role in hybrid and EV production. It is also worth noting that much of our countries power production is heavily based on coal. In effect what non-fuel cell based EV's do is swap tailpipe emissions for power plant emissions. If we are to believe that EV's are our transportation future, current renewable energy technology will not be efficient enough, plentiful enough or cheap enough to power the nations transportation needs at all, let alone make a meaningful impact in our carbon footprint. That is truly 'an inconvenient truth'.
      Quest
      • 3 Years Ago
      Complete BS. These studies that indicate minimal cost o the consumer are fantasies; great for the daily headlines but in reality useless. Between CARB and a politicized EPA driving is going to become prohibitive for all bu the top 5%. No worry thought the World economy will soon be in GFC II (Global Financial Crisis/Meltdown) which will nullify this expensive nonsense once and for all.
        Rotation
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Quest
        That's ridiculous. We aren't even close to reaching a point where driving is going to be cost prohibitive for all but the top 5%.
        mapoftazifosho
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Quest
        Go take a deep breath in LA...let me know your thoughts then... At the end of the day, this can be done. http://blog.truecar.com/2011/12/01/november-transaction-and-incentives/
        Mchicha
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Quest
        Well stated
      Lemon
      • 3 Years Ago
      "Zero emissions" is such an over-used false statement. You must consider well-to-wheel emissions: everything involved in harvesting, transporting, and using the energy. That being said, BEVs are still much cleaner than a regular ICE, even using coal fired power plants to generate the electricity. Still NOT zero emissions though. I really wish people would stop saying that.
      throwback
      • 3 Years Ago
      "CARB says residents will save $22 billion on fuel costs, 21,000 jobs will be created because of the move to different fuels, and a car buyer in 2025 would save $4,000 over the life of the car even with the extra cost of the tech." In other words, "other people will pay for it". Perhaps the all the brain power at CARB will figure out a may to make people buy the cars that CARB wants them to buy.
    • Load More Comments