Take all of the registered motor vehicles in Oregon, move them one state south and turn them all into hybrids, plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles. That's pretty much what the California Governor Jerry Brown has in mind, and the state has taken 32 pages to lay that process out.

According to the state's 2012 ZEV Action Plan (available in PDF), California is looking to have 1.5 million ZEVs (zero-emissions vehicles) on its roads by 2025. Among the methods laid out, the state would subsidize utility price discounts for ZEV charging, create enough of an infrastructure to support one million ZEVs statewide by the end of the decade, and work with insurance companies to possibly reduce premiums for ZEV drivers. The state government would also have 10 percent of its light-duty vehicle purchases be ZEVs by 2015, and 25 percent by 2020.

The plans are par for the course for a state that accounts for about 12 percent of the country's approximately 250 million vehicles but about 40 percent of the country's plug-ins. In January 2012, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) came out with its proposed requirement that at least 15.4 percent of new vehicles sold by a major automaker in the state would have to either be plug-in or hydrogen powered by 2025. California has also long been at the forefront of cutting vehicle emissions through initiatives such as pushing for stricter fuel-economy standards and emissions controls.


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
  • 228 Comments
      Grendal
      • 1 Year Ago
      I'll go with 1.5 million plug-ins maybe. To have them be ZEV's sounds a little ambitious. Oh, I got it. I can see it happen with bicycles and tricycles. Those are zero emission vehicles. 1.5 million BEVs and FCVs sounds a bit outrageous. I'd be super happy if it happened but I certainly don't see it.
        Greg
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Grendal
        People emit CO2, so even bicycles aren't *zero* emission.
          DaveMart
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Greg
          From what you have told us about your weight, a 2WM propelled bike might be better for you than a solar powered one! ;-)
          EZEE
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Greg
          @dave Oooooooooohhhh snap!
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Greg
          I do pedal, actually. It's just that i like to go 20-50mph rather than 10-20mph, and go distances far longer than most folks would like to ride a bike. How much exercise do you get done during your commute? bet you got a strong right foot :)
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Greg
          My solar charged electric bike doesn't produce any emissions. <-- wins this thread
      2 wheeled menace
      • 1 Year Ago
      Keep on throwin' money at it. Eventually it'll stick, right? Maybe take care of that half a trillion dollar debt first.
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Year Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        Switching from gasoline to natural gas is a HUGE reduction. It may not eliminate emission... but it certainly isn't nothing. It is a step in the right direction. Half the CO2 (which is not California's problem, but the world)... and reduction of many other pollutants at the power plant. Plus the elimination of local emission. Definitely worth "throwing money at". Yes, I understand that CA has been spending and spending on these programs with little to show for it. But they need to keep up the fight, instead of giving up. The world, the country and the state are different places than they were in the 90's. It may not have been wise to spend on certain projects back then.... but now, the situation is very different. EVs have a fighting chance now. With gasoline prices on the rise... now is the time to strike. Spend money on projects that get the state ready for consumers to buy EVs/PHEVs because if they wait until AFTER gasoline spikes to $5/gal.... then it will be too late and consumers will once again say, "where are the electric cars, where are the chargers". It may seem like a waste now, but everything now must be in preparation for when demand spikes in parallel with gasoline prices.
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Year Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        Or we could just keep throwing money at healthcare to fix the problems cause by pollution. You know, the whole reason CARB was created. Either way, the state is throwing money somewhere... it can be an investment to change the future, or it could be status quo expenditures. Ignoring needed investments, for the sake of focusing on the debt is the equivalent of ... Ignoring the leaks in the boat to focus on bailing out the water. Our dependence on Oil and the consequences of burning it, are leaks in our economy. Paying down the debt cannot happen until we address them.
          fa1thful1
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Tell him about saving the cost in lives and dollars for oil wars too please!
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        Hey, i'm not against CARB. Shoot, i wish we had CARB here in Utah. But look at California's track record, they've been blowing money on EV's since the early 1990's. Look at all the money they're wanting to spend now, as well, in the middle of a deficit. It's consumer demand ( as a result of a good product! ) that will drive EV adoption, not subsidy ( which in the case of California, is deficit spending which adds to debt ). EVs will take the world by storm when they're good and ready. By the way, the majority of California's electricity comes from fossil fuel sources, so an electric car doesn't fix pollution there as well as you'd think. Now if we were talking about a place that had a decent deployment of solar, hydro, etc then we'd be talking about a notable emissions reduction. Not so for California. They can't even manage to approve a 177 megawatt solar panel farm that's paid for and has been ready to be installed for 5 years... Energy dependence is a leak in our economy indeed, which is why i am a big fan of not hurling 3000lb steel boxes around. You can burn coal, natural gas, or oil in California, but by switching from one to another, does not magically change the situation there with emissions ( which compared to the rest of the united states, aren't bad.. come visit me in Utah and you'll be amazed what people live into their 80's and 90's in! )
          EZEE
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          The result of a good product? That's crazy talk. I would rather have a car that costs thousands more, with a range that is 1/3 that of the gas counter parts, and takes hours to recharge. I will buy these cars enmasse. Result of a good product... Bah
          fa1thful1
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Still you earn a thumbs down because you don't consider the MPGe of EV's which takes all your cost of electricity in account saves gas. I got 48mpg from hybrids for years.If we had chargers in place I would by an EV in a heartbeat. BTW look up the % of solar+wind power generated in Calif+the Midwest, it is more than you think and increasing. As for subsidies we have subsidies for oil over 80 yrs to install their infrastructure.End those, we have plenty of gas stations and give them to EV manufacturers so we can get enough chargers built!
        fa1thful1
        • 1 Year Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        If we didn't have oil wars we wouldn't have half the debt my friend. And my fellow vets would have far fewer injuries.I know a gal with half an arm who lost it defending an oil well! A man who lost both legs defending an oil refinery. The list could go on....But point is reduce demand and USA could rely on its own oil. Save a soldier when you save gas!
      mikesells4u
      • 1 Year Ago
      Having never been to CA I hope they have a plan in place to collect fees for their roads besides off gasoline taxes. I have always advocated toll booths instead of gas taxes because people that drive gas hogs pay an unfair burden towards the road use. EV=no gas tax=no road repair revenue.
        Spec
        • 1 Day Ago
        @mikesells4u
        People that drive gas hogs SHOULD pay more since they pollute more.
          Jesse Gurr
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Spec
          This year the fee got raised for everybody in CA. I paid mine already this year and it was almost double what it was last year.
          Chris M
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Spec
          The "gas hogs" also tend to be bigger, heavier, and do more damage to the roads. Makes sense that they should pay more to maintain the roads. California does collect an annual licensing fee for all vehicles. There was some controversy a few years back over whether that fee should be increased, that lead to the Governator getting into office.
      Ram426
      • 1 Year Ago
      They should have built the border fence around California, to keep the kook's in. They're always taking credit for setting the standards, that is force on the rest of the country. Also, it was reported, that over 1.7 million people have moved out of California in the years and a half. That's not counting the Hollywood elite, who are moving out of the country. Oh! They can have the damn EPA too. That's another damn bunch of useless ass-hole's.
      bassettgl
      • 1 Year Ago
      The best thing that could happen for mexifornia to go green is for it to go blue. The kind of blue when the next earthquake dumps the state and that little brown thingy into the Pacific.
      Dave
      • 1 Day Ago
      "Also, only the Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle would emit water vapor." Power plants emit massive amounts of water vapor (steam)
      autonimous
      • 1 Year Ago
      Exactly how are these 'zero emissions'? They run off electricity, and unless that power is coming from hyrdo or nuke it is most likely producing emissions.
        Sean
        • 1 Day Ago
        @autonimous
        About 40% of CA power comes from Hydro, Nuke, Solar or Wind.
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Day Ago
        @autonimous
        The words you used, "these" and "it". Explains it. You are talking about the car itself. And the car itself does not have any emissions. Upstream and indirect emissions are valid points for another argument. But you are making a semantic argument now. Technically, your body emits CO2 and Methane into the atmosphere. Should the EPA regulate your body too, based on the semantic definition that you have emissions? No. So let's keep this sane please.
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @ Joeviocoe Should the EPA regulate your body ? Excellent suggestion ! can we come round Tuesday ? Signed, 'Manny' Norbert And a bunch of guys who should get out more, EPA branch office Moose Dropping WA
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I told you we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
          Grendal
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I sense a Monty Python skit somewhere in there.
        GR
        • 1 Day Ago
        @autonimous
        Sure, electric vehicles CAN produce emissions, but they also have the possibility of NOT producing emissions if refueled via renewable energy. In contrast, ICEs (internal combustion engines) will ALWAYS produce emissions when they are in use as they always need oil (which is non-renewable). It should be noted though that even if EVs are refueled with coal power they will STILL produce less emissions than ICEs. This is what makes EVs such a good option when compared to ICEs.
      Greg
      • 1 Year Ago
      Promoting the building of infrastructure is good. But expecting auto companies' sales to be 15%+ is out there. Right now, there aren't enough people who can afford them, so they must be expecting costs to drop significantly over 10 yrs. I hope they do, but I just don't see it happening.
        fa1thful1
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Greg
        Gregg the cost of a Nissan Leaf or pluig in Prius is less than that of SUV's plus if you drive locally you can go months without buying gas. Ever count the dollars you spend per month on gas? Once you do you realize hybrid or EV is the way to go!
      magus47
      • 1 Year Ago
      My subaru has Partial zero emmissions. I don't know how that can be.
        Dave
        • 1 Day Ago
        @magus47
        When you park it and turn it off, it is zero emmissions.
      efvann
      • 1 Year Ago
      Typical Liberal stupidity. How in heck are they going to FORCE people to sell their existing cars and buy these failures? They can build the cars, they can ship them to CA, but they can't force CA'ians to buy them.
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Day Ago
        @efvann
        wow... points for using the word "stupidity" in your comment. Right on the money. Now read the article again.
        Weapon
        • 1 Day Ago
        @efvann
        So you are aware they are not going to "force" people to buy them. They might be able to pass laws requiring certain efficiencies for new cars but overall by 2025 they will easily have that many people driving EVs without any laws.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Weapon
          The EVs have timers on the charging system. There is ZERO threat of "everyone" starting to charge their EV at the same time that A/C units are "going into overdrive".
          Weapon
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Weapon
          kesac, nothing will happen. Most of the charging is done at night where there is much less strain on the system. 2nd of all your describing a scenario where everyone magically gets EVs over night. That is not going to happen. Oh and by 2025 I would even be surprised if A/C waste 1/2 power that they do now. By 2025 all these issues will be sorted out, if the demand for EVs go up, so will the demand for infrastructure, it is simple supply and demand. Now then about the subsidies, so you are aware a lot of the subsidies and loans are actually from money given to California by the federal government. Second of all, subsidies are not "welfare" because the subsidies are tax subsidies, that means your getting a tax cut on the taxes you pay, not equivalent to grants or loans when you get money though loans you have to pay back. The people are generally given tax subsidies and manufacturers tend to be given loans. Keep in mind that the conditions that these loans are given out for require that companies: A) Match the loans with their own money B) Spend both their own money and the loan money in california C) Hire a minimum amount of workers in california These are the conditions for qualifying for the loans. Most of the money loaned california makes back just from tax revenue on these employees and afterwards they get their loans back as well. And if anything California can always request more money from the federal government, California is one of the 17 states that pays more taxes to the federal government then it receives back.
          kesac
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Weapon
          "Easily" What will they cost? What will happen when everyone goes home and plugs in the battery chargers at the same time the A/C goes int overdrive? California has had rolling brownouts not to long ago. Are they ready for that again? What about all those subsidies that Letter promises to manufactureres and insurerers, etc? The Calif. Taxpayer is going to get the bill for that. Will they pay those increased taxes "easily"? How long before those subsidies will begin to be called "corporate welfare", and Liberals and occupiers march to demand they are retracted?
      JakeY
      • 1 Year Ago
      @2 wheeled menace The responsibility of the government is to collectively take care of the people. That's the idea behind government run programs like schools, healthcare, social welfare (unemployment, disability, etc.) and in this case CARB. The goal of private enterprise is only to make the most profits (non-monetary costs are rarely considered), so we can't depend on it to care for our own well-being. Depending on gas prices to drive demand is not enough, esp. if you consider the short term memory of US consumers. They rush to buy a more fuel efficient car when that happens, but then shortly afterwards when the gas prices go back down somewhat, they rush back to SUVs. There may be a policy to address this, like an auto-adjusting gas tax rate that keeps gas prices high, but those policies are obviously no politically viable (and it may disproportionately impact lower income families that depend on their car). Purchase incentives and infrastructure projects are politically viable and achieve the same thing. Plus infrastructure is something we can't really depend on private companies to provide (because of the chicken and egg problem).
      JakeY
      • 1 Year Ago
      @Reggie Obviously they only drop the price $6k because it makes financial sense (in this case it is because of exchange rate advantages from the new US factory and they also save on shipping costs). Nissan is still making a gross margin on the vehicle with that price, which means with enough volume they can make up for the overhead costs of the new factory. I don't know why you assume a price drop means a "loss".
    • Load More Comments