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
      autonimous
      • 2 Years 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
        • 6 Months Ago
        @autonimous
        About 40% of CA power comes from Hydro, Nuke, Solar or Wind.
        Joeviocoe
        • 6 Months 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
          • 6 Months 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
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I told you we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
          Grendal
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I sense a Monty Python skit somewhere in there.
        GR
        • 6 Months 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.
      magus47
      • 2 Years Ago
      My subaru has Partial zero emmissions. I don't know how that can be.
        Dave
        • 6 Months Ago
        @magus47
        When you park it and turn it off, it is zero emmissions.
      efvann
      • 2 Years 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
        • 6 Months Ago
        @efvann
        wow... points for using the word "stupidity" in your comment. Right on the money. Now read the article again.
        Weapon
        • 6 Months 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
          • 6 Months 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
          • 6 Months 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
          • 6 Months 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?
      bassettgl
      • 2 Years 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.
      JakeY
      • 2 Years 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".
      JakeY
      • 2 Years Ago
      @Reggie The credits are only designed to jump start the market. The idea is that by the time they expire, the prices would have dropped more than the credit amount (for example the Leaf had a $6000 price drop recently). If they can't do that by then and "fails" then so be it.
      JakeY
      • 2 Years 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).
      mikesells4u
      • 2 Years 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
        • 6 Months Ago
        @mikesells4u
        People that drive gas hogs SHOULD pay more since they pollute more.
          Jesse Gurr
          • 6 Months 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
          • 6 Months 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.
      Grendal
      • 2 Years Ago
      It's important to note that the EV tax break was created by G. W. Bush. Also the ATVM program that gave Ford, Nissan, Tesla, and Fisker was also created by G. W. Bush's administration. That's not to say that Democrats don't spend money but to be clear that Republicans also love to spend taxpayer money. Democrats get blamed for electric cars but most of the programs supporting them were created by Republicans. Why did they do that? Because they knew that if the United States wanted to be an industry leader in automobiles that their car industry needed to come up with new technology and ideas. So far, it has been a big success. In the mean time the Right that created the programs is busy hammering the Left for wasteful spending because of the programs. Some irony in that, huh?
        Marcopolo
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Grendal
        @ Grendal It's true that a lot of GOP rhetoric has become hysterical and irrational. But it's important to hold any government to account for the effectiveness of taxpayer funded programs. Even the best programs, can become bloated with administration, wasteful expenditure, or outlive usefulness. Ethanol is a good example. Created with the best of intentions 40 years ago, it have become a wasteful industry due to the inherent unsuitability of it's corn based feedstock. The trouble begins when some many lives, careers and votes depend upon the maintenance of an obsolete program. Other programs become mismanaged. The job of an opposition, is to hold the executive government to account in a constructive way.
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Marcopolo
          De-corrupting the political-capitalist complex is not impossible! Very difficult, however, since the system has had centuries to develop and evolve the corruption. http://www.rootstrikers.org/ and http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/jan/17/how-money-corrupts-congress-and-plan-stop-it/ Lawrence Lessig has ideas on a few pathways that may work to remove the influence of a few from Washington. It may take a Constitutional Convention as a worst case scenario... but maybe not. "The Constitution talks about the republic being "dependent on the people alone." But now it is dependent on corporate funders, and more and more JUST on corporate funders. His solution is to return the republic to being dependent on the people alone. His solution is an innovative kind of campaign finance reform. Give every voter a $50 campaign voucher. The $50 comes from the tax pool. It can be given to any candidate who accepts only money from the vouchers (and maybe a limit of an optional voluntary $100 per single voter). Thus all campaign money would come in very small amounts from The People. Lessig calculates that the total amount of money raised this public way would be 3 times the amount raised by private means in the last election cycles, and therefore more than adequate. But it would break the grip of corporate influence over what is voted up. The result would not be harmonious utopia, but the usual give-and-take compromises of politics -- which the US has not seen in decades. The issues that people cared about would return to the agenda."
          JakeY
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Marcopolo
          @Weapon "Grendal, get rid of lobbying, get rid of campaign contributions and while it may not solve all problems it will make things a whole lot better." Neither side is advocating for that (why would they? since both sides cater to a huge amount of lobbying). Instead we have trashing of programs and finger pointing for political gain. Now we also have super PACs which accomplish the same thing (with unlimited funding) without being a direct campaign contribution.
          Grendal
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Marco. Those are the privatized homes. The government simply regulates those businesses to make sure they are not taking away someones basic human rights. You'd be surprised how often that happens.
          Weapon
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Grendal, get rid of lobbying, get rid of campaign contributions and while it may not solve all problems it will make things a whole lot better. In that case scenario, your describing again an outdated program. With the technology we have now there is no way you can't be able to check up on them whenever necessary or receive alerts instantly in case of emergency.
          Weapon
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Marcopolo
          @Marcopo - I would not disagree with it being practically impossible to get rid off. But I would disagree that it would lead to more corrupt practices. Yes, people and organizations have a right to be heard by those that tax them, that is called the right to vote. Otherwise you are insinuating that people who have money's voice is more important to the government rather than each person's voice is equal (at least from the perspective of the government). Ok, then you have citizens committees that endorses people, how is that any different from now? We have those already and that is fine. But I can't imagine the government every being efficient when companies get no-bid contracts from politicians they lobby/contribute to. Without lobbyists and campaign contributions all they have to answer to is the voters. Which is how it should be. Now if the voters can be tricked or deceived, well that is the voter's problem @Jakey - yes its getting worse and worse before it gets any better. Give it a bit more time and politicians will be like nascar drivers with logos all over them.
          Marcopolo
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Marcopolo
          @ Grendal Or you could simply privatize retirement homes, providing incentives to do the job properly. There will always be abuses, but government funds are better used when the government enter the market place as a consumer, than as an operator. @ Weapon It's impossible to get rid of lobbying. even more impossible to get rid of campaign contributions. Such regulations would only promote even more corrupt practice. People and organizations have a right to be heard by those who tax them. Registered lobbyists are at least overt. If campaign contributions are allowed, at least they are registered and open. Otherwise, there would be a whole growth industry in 'Citizens Committees' endorsing candidates and parties.
          Grendal
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Weapon. Totally agree about lobbyists and campaign contributions. It's a vicious cycle that has gotten out of control. Business should have a say but right now it is out of balance. A new balance needs to be created.
          Grendal
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Marcopolo
          I have nothing to disagree with in what you wrote. Government spending is a necessity but government is bad at doing things efficiently and timely. It's very easy to point fingers from the outside and say you can do better. The reality is that government spending is unbelievably complex. It's easy to think that regulating retirement homes is a simple process that should be able to take care of itself, for the most part. That is until your mother is put in one and she suffers from dimentia so the home decides to strap her to her bed for her safety. You arrive to visit and find your mother has been strapped to the bed for 10 hours. A government worker/social worker is in charge of going in there and telling that home that they can't abuse your mother by strapping her down, then checks up on them to make sure they never do it again. That takes time and money for someone to regulate that home - a government expenditure. That is but a very small example of how the government spends money to protect a citizen's welfare.
      Ram426
      • 2 Years 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.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 6 Months Ago
      "slavery was abolished way before machines could make them obsolete." No. The industrial revolution fed the demand for slave labor. The cotton gin cleaning cotton faster than possible by hand, the mills of New England spinning thread and weaving cloth faster and faster, the steamships transporting cotton more cheaply and quickly... all aspects of the Industrial Revolution that drove demand for cotton higher and higher, requiring more slaves on more plantations to meet demand. Then it busted, in the 1830's. Slavery was so effective at producing cotton, it drove the price to nothing. Slavery created a cotton bubble - slaves could repay their capital investment in a matter of years - and the South took in enormous profits. The slaveowners expanded production, and oversupplied the market, crashing it. No doubt, they could have invested in mechanical means of harvesting cotton, but slaves were cheaper and easier to implement. I agree with Marcopolo that investment in slaves was ultimately a bad investment, and that it retarded development overall. But in the short run, slavery made huge profits for those at the top of the system. But when slavery was ended, all that tied-up capital was released from their chains, and those slaveowners were in many cases bankrupted because they owned nothing other than land and slaves, and the land was worthless without the slave labor to work it.
      Grendal
      • 6 Months Ago
      I half understand your point Marco. Please clarify it in a different way because I'm curious about the point you are trying to make. To clarify my point, it was from the POV of the slave owners. They viewed slaves as cheap labor. In modern times we view slavery as evil but back then many did not. We have grown as a culture. One hundred years from now I can easily see the burning of fossil fuels as a wasteful historical footnote. It might be two hundred years but hopefully I explained it better.
    • Load More Comments