honda_fcx_clarity_large_16
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_16
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_01
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_02
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_03
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_13
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_04
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_15
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_09
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_06
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_07
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_08
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_10
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_11
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_12
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_14
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_17
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_18
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_19
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_20
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_21
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_22
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_23
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_24
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_25
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_26
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_27
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_05
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_28
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_29
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_30
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_31
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_32
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_33
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_34
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_35
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_36
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_37
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_38
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_39
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_40
  • honda_fcx_clarity_large_41
More states may follow the Golden State in plug-in vehicle quotas, which could make auto executives see red.

Earlier this year, California approved a rule – known as the ZEV Mandate – requiring more than 15 percent of new cars to be so-called zero-emissions vehicles (ZEV) by the 2025 model year. That rule, which was first drafted more than 20 years ago, would require about 270,000 ZEVs to be sold in the most populous U.S. state each year. Automotive News reports that as many as 10 states could follow California's lead in creating a plug-in and fuel-cell vehicle quota in an effort to improve air quality.

New Jersey and Maryland are among the other states that could adopt similar requirements. If all 10 states adopted similar requirements, automakers would need to sell more than 800,000 ZEVs by the 2025 model year, a prospect that could be disconcerting to automakers, according to the publication. Of course, the "over-compliance" loophole could be used to minimize that number. In 2011, Nissan and General Motors sold about 17,000 battery-electric Leafs and extended-range plug-in Volts, combined.


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
  • 43 Comments
      Ryan
      • 3 Years Ago
      Not until there is a battery that you only need to charge once a year, or 15,000 miles... Or better if possibly using nuclear of some sort, and that costs $5,000. Then people would only buy ZEVs, and traffic would be horrible.
        Sasparilla Fizz
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Ryan
        Well the target is only 15% (not 100%) and electricity on average only costs $1.25 a gallon equivalent, given the rapid decrease in vehicle battery prices (30% since 2009) and increases in capacity (70% increase over 2007 levels, Volt & Leaf Gen1 batts, by 2015) this seems a pretty easy target to achieve by 2025 just on economics alone.
        Turbo Froggy
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Ryan
        That is quite possibly the stupidest comment I have seen on this site, and I have read a lot of comments by goodoldgore... Do you need a cell phone with a 1 year battery life? Don't need a magical $5000 nuclear reactor, $5000 or today's solar panels will power today's EVs 15,000 miles a year for the next 25-40 years.
          Ryan
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Turbo Froggy
          And we live in a country with a bunch of stupid people who won't give up anything until a much improved product/technology comes out... Solar panels work to recharge, and that is how I am going to do it. But, they take 10 hours for a 50 mile battery to charge during the sunny part of the day.
        EZEE
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Ryan
        ? I would be happy with 200 miles and a reasonable charge time. As far as price, keep it close when fuel savings are taken into account...
        otiswild
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Ryan
        How about a thorium-laser 'battery' that has the entire vehicle's lifetime (300k-500k mi) worth of fuel installed at the time of manufacture? http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/the-thorium-laser-the-completely-plausible-idea-for-nuclear-cars (even with shielding adequate to handle any collision without leakage it probably wouldn't weigh more than, say, a V8 engine or the Voltec drivetrain including battery.. And thorium fission is extremely proliferation-resistant..)
          Ryan
          • 3 Years Ago
          @otiswild
          That is what my next project will be once I finish my battery electric truck. :) If the oil companies and government regulations don't kill it...
        Ele Truk
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Ryan
        Newflash. Traffic in CA is already horrible.
      Spec
      • 3 Years Ago
      I hope so but in today's economic climate, I find it unlikely. But it might be a moot point. In 2025, gasoline may cost $10/gallon such that people will be buying electrics anyway.
      Marco Polo
      • 3 Years Ago
      Mandates, and other forms of compulsion are unpleasant, unenforceable, and ineffective method of instituting change. Often these 'mandates' produce disastrous, unforeseen side-effects, and only create new problems. The most effective method is by increasing the Tax on gasoline at the retail level. The effect on the economy will be very difficult to manage politically . Oil is a major factor in the cost of production in almost every major industry. The inflationary effects will hit the poor hardest. President Obama has announced his desire to remove all subsidies etc, on Oil, identifying a saving of $25 billion over ten years. This is probably correct, as unlike the popular mythology, the Presidents experts revelled that Oil l receives less than $3 billion in 'subsidies'. (less than 2 cents a gallon at pump price.). $2.5 billion, is too insignificant to worry about. To be effective the US would have to impose a 10% retail surtax, raising over $50 billion per year. Although unpopular politically initially, the US would like most other developed nations simply accept a higher price for Gasoline. If the tax revenue was invested prudently in alternate technology (especially EV's) it would prove far more effective than increasingly complicated regulations.
        PR
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Marco Polo
        It is childish to believe that there is any solution that will not have unforeseen side-effects. It is childish to believe that any solution will not create new problems. Even doing nothing will have unforeseen side-effects and will create new problems in the future. So attacking any one method with these attacks is absurd.
        Dave
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Marco Polo
        A gas tax is far from the perfect solution. Gasoline tax is regressive. It hurts low income people (who drive used cars and have no say in new vehicle purchases) much more than high income people. And, as a result, a fuel tax doesnt affect the buying habits of wealthy people who can easily afford to buy brand new large SUVs and luxury cars. The OEMs are well aware that oil is a finite resource and that their profits rely on moving towards alternatives. Southern California is a great place for the OEMs (and the infrastructure suppliers) to start ramping up volume - to many of its citizens, it is akin to an island (surrounded by desert, ocean, and a 3rd world country) so they only need to be able to travel as far as Las Vegas, at most.
          Dave
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dave
          ".....it's superior to ill-conceived 'mandates. " The original ZEV was ill conceived. It was not supported by the OEMs. And the OEMs proved that they could improve air quality more by across the board improvements to ICE technology than by replacing the smallest vehicles (the ones that already polluted the least) in the fleet with BEVs. Of course, one could say that the first ZEV mandate was successful in forcing the OEMs to come to the table with saner options than the not-ready-for-primetime ZEVs of the time. The current ZEV mandate has the support of several OEMs. And the OEMs believe that by 2025, they can supply ZEVs in all size classes of automobile, not just the smallest ones. My personal belief is that we don't need a ZEV mandate or an increase in gasoline tax - it appears that market forces are pushing us towards alternatives anyway.
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dave
          @Dave, Dave, I didn't say that an "additional' gas tax is a "perfect solution", just that it's superior to ill-conceived 'mandates. I also said that any gasoline increase hits the poor first, right throughout the economy. That can't be helped. Some makers of 42 manufacturers only about 10 actually make Ev's. Some smaller volume makers would be locked out. In fact, Californians would simply by the cars in a neighbouring state. Mandates alway invite poor enforcement and any benefit is wasted in bureaucracy. Forget mandating unenforcible, efficient regulations, Bite the bullet and tax gasoline an extra 10%.
        Dave
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Marco Polo
        A gas tax is far from the perfect solution. Gasoline tax is regressive. It hurts low income people (who drive used cars and have no say in new vehicle purchases) much more than high income people. And, as a result, a fuel tax doesnt affect the buying habits of wealthy people who can easily afford to buy brand new large SUVs and luxury cars. The OEMs are well aware that oil is a finite resource and that their profits rely on moving towards alternatives. Southern California is a great place for the OEMs (and the infrastructure suppliers) to start ramping up volume - to many of its citizens, it is akin to an island (surrounded by desert, ocean, and a 3rd world country) so they only need to be able to travel as far as Las Vegas, at most.
      DaveMart
      • 3 Years Ago
      I think mandates work far better, ignoring the issue of if we ought to have them in the first place but simply addressing how to make them work if they are decided on, when they have interim goals. If you are a car company although you have to have long term planning a lot can change between now and 2025, including that if enough car companies drag their feet the mandate would have to be abandoned. Specific, if modest, interim goals for perhaps 5 years out in 2017-8 and 2020-1 would get them thinking and designing now, even if the targets were modest. Having set up the production lines and thought the technology through they would be much more likely to push on and meet the more distant target - they would have already done most of the work. We now how to build pollution free at point of use vehicles, it is cost which is the issue, which is partly a matter of volume. Targets of perhaps 3% in 2017 and 6% in 2021 would provide real present impetus.
      lad
      • 3 Years Ago
      Ha, Yes!, the old zero emissions requirement that was killed by Pete Wilson for the oil special interest and resulted in crushed GM EV-1's. I remember it well. However, the major factors for the law's success is the development of longer range batteries and the true cost of gasoline. You realize that the cost of gasoline is low only because tax money is being used to subsidize the oil companies. And, at the same time We are trying to develop battery technology with tax subsides, the Big Oil bought Republican's are supporting the continuing use of fossil fuels at the detriment of our future in clean transportation. Anyone who believes oil is our future and not a political football for the greedy is a pump ******* air.
      DarylMc
      • 3 Years Ago
      Someone tell me if I am wrong but after watching Revenge of the Electric car it seemed to me that California brought in the requirements for zero emissions vehicles because they had a problem with air quality and not as some people might find it easy to believe because they were lead astray by environmental fanatics. It makes less sense to me to mandate EV's in areas which don't have such a problem but 2025 does give a lot of time to achieve such a modest target. It seems of benefit to the industry to set a target since rising gas prices and mass production of EV's should make those sort of numbers easily achievable.
        Julius
        • 3 Years Ago
        @DarylMc
        Personally, I'm not a fan of the mandate - it's a blunt instrument forcing a solution. I'm a firm believer of the incentive route instead - it seems to work better to encourage adoption than forcing automakers to sell new technology at a loss. Case-in-point: the Prius when it came out received numerous incentives - including the famous car-pool-lane sticker from California. That along with a solid marketing campaign made it a hugely successful vehicle, but without mandates supporting or forcing its sale.
        Anne
        • 3 Years Ago
        @DarylMc
        Not all places suffer air quality problems, but all places do suffer from climate change. That will be a much more pressing environmental problem. Everybody has to contribute to the solution.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Anne
          It could be argued that some places *benefit* from climate change. Just sayin'.
        throwback
        • 3 Years Ago
        @DarylMc
        How do you mandate sales? If the car companies build the cars and people don't buy them what then? Will Cali make people buy the cars?
          montoym
          • 3 Years Ago
          @throwback
          quote from PR: - "This is basic supply/demand stuff. The first step of a sales mandate is that it mandates supply be created. Once car makers have sufficient supply, they then have all the tools of marketing that they have for every other product. They can advertise, they can provide incentives (low interest loans, incentives, etc), and they can reduce their price in order to draw demand for their product." - Basic supply/demand perhaps, except that you have it backwards. In what industry does it make sense to have an abundance of supply without a sufficient demand? In reality, it works the other way around, supply is created to fill a demand. Otherwise, you're just spending money needlessly that you don't know that you'll ever get a return on. In this case, a government entity is trying to force a demand increase by mandating a supply. That's completely against what basic economics teaches, not "basic supply/demand stuff" as you claim. Show me an example anywhere where that principle has worked, one from the marketplace, not a government mandate. it doesn't exist because it makes no economic sense.
          Dave
          • 3 Years Ago
          @throwback
          Theoretically- The OEMs would have to sell the cars at a loss in order to satisfy the mandate. Otherwise, they would have to pull out of California.
          PR
          • 3 Years Ago
          @throwback
          throwback -- This is basic supply/demand stuff. The first step of a sales mandate is that it mandates supply be created. Once car makers have sufficient supply, they then have all the tools of marketing that they have for every other product. They can advertise, they can provide incentives (low interest loans, incentives, etc), and they can reduce their price in order to draw demand for their product. If and only if each car maker exhausts their options, each car maker can apply for an exception while they develop a plan to meet the mandate. CARB has always had an appeals process for temporary exemptions for companies who are working in good faith to meet a CARB requirement. Or they can pay a fine. If there is a problem across the entire industry, CARB can delay and/or adjust the mandate when the time comes. CARB has done this in the past many times also. throwback, why do you always dive off into the knee-jerk reactionary nonsense anytime the issue of the gov't comes up in every blog? It is like you intentionally go diving into the most illogical conclusion possible, bypassing reason and reality on purpose.
      Sasparilla Fizz
      • 3 Years Ago
      15 percent of vehicles in the States that choose this standard by 2025 (and I doubt North Dakota would choose to do this) - piece of cake based on the decreases in price and increases of capacity for vehicle batts we've seen to date and are expected to continue to see through 2025 and beyond. Only a few states would be going for this (typically in the Northeast) just like the last time a zero emission requirement was pondered in the 90's. Personally I think this whole mandate a number (or percentage) of sales (that people choose on their own) probably isn't the best way to go about this...just doesn't pass the common sense test...just encourage Generation 1 and Generation 2 plug-in sales with rebates and once prices get low enough the market will take the handoff from there because the financial angle on plug-ins by 2025 will be no brainers for a huge number of new vehicle buyers. JMHO...
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 3 Years Ago
      Take the subsidies and tax code manipulation away for all energy ( that includes you, oil ) and energy using devices ( that includes you, SUV tax writeoff, and EV subsidy ) and watch electric take off on it's own accord in a few years. Trust me.... we are not paying the real price of oil at all.
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        @2WM According to the President's commission, Oil subsidies are about 2.38 billion annually. ( I calculate the figure at 3 billion.) On the other hand the three US Oil companies are easily the largest corporate tax payers and pay the highest tax levels. (you can't shift an oil field to a tax shelter). The US spends over $550 billion at the pump p.a., so $2.5 billion is pretty small change. The different to the price of gasoline, would be at the most a few pennies per gallon. On the other hand. removing government incentives from the fledgling EV market would be catastrophic. In 2011, Exxon paid, $27.3 Billion, in cash income tax payments, Chevron $17 billion and CoMoCo-Phillips $10.7 billion ! Exxon's tax rate was $43%, Chevron's was 49%, etc, these are higher than the US maximum Tax rates! Incidentally, very few of the old subsidies affect the large oil companies, but small independents on marginal leases. The answer is to bite the bullet, and impose a super tax on the retail price of gasoline. Let the motorist pay for the use of this dwindling resource.
      upstategreenie
      • 3 Years Ago
      gas tax HAS to be raised. all US auto CEOS have openly stated it is the ONLY way to fix roads get high speed rail etc...there is NO other way.....is this funding mechanism boneheaded? yes...but it is what we have....people need to incentivized to do the right thing much as right now there are too many disincentives to people being responsible and too many rewards for being d!cks in the US. tide is shifting...if you think mittens is some right wing cultist savior. think again...he will merge most depts. and immed. cut 1/7th of fed. budget. he has already openly (accidentally) let slip his first policy decisions....he is owned by big oil so he has more vested interest in doing what he is told.. obama thinks for himself but eventually just bends over to please everybody. and doesnt really 'care' until people literally protest something obviously ruinous such as citizens united fossil fuel subsidiesetc.
      upstategreenie
      • 3 Years Ago
      that is awesome and a good step towards sustainable future. I have a new prius and am very happy with 50 mpg. next car will be electric. but cos. such as subaru should be applauded for pzev vehicles as well...you can SMELL the difference as in not choking on exhaust the more of these vehicles people buy. I like ford focus elec. as well and their tie-in with solar energy provider. now we need a FEDERAL mandate to get some obstacle out the way and local bureaucratic obstructionists who will literally sell people out for fracking for instance but will ensure NOBODY can get clean energy....totally fu*(ied up NOT free market...free market only means what those in power who want money train to keep rolling from dirty fossil fuel cos. to keep rolling TELL you it means...as in democracy is diff. for congress and those in power and means less for LITTLE people; if you are poor it means sh*( up and stay in line.
      Alex
      • 3 Years Ago
      I never understand quotas. How are the manufacturers supposed to sell a large number of cars that seemingly few people (as far as the Joe-blow types who don't read automotive websites) want or can afford to buy.
        montoym
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Alex
        Exactly. It makes no logical sense period. You build supply to meet the demand, not create a supply and wait for the demand.
      Dave
      • 3 Years Ago
      "Earlier this year, California approved a rule – known as the ZEV Mandate – requiring more than 15 percent of new cars to be so-called zero-emissions vehicles (ZEV) by the 2025 model year." What this really means is that the other 85% of car sales must absorb whatever losses the OEMs take on the ZEVs. So, if the ZEVs must be sold at a $5000 loss, the OEMs would need to up the price on all of their other cars by $882 to absorb the loss.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X