One of the big complaints that automakers had with America's fuel economy legislation a few years ago was the potential for California to lead the way in setting up its own, more-stringent rules that would lead to a "patchwork" of mpg laws. That never happened because the federal government came in and established a national standard of 54.5 mpg by 2025. A newer automotive legislation push – again led by California – is aiming for another big milestone by that same deadline.

This time, the issue is electric vehicles. California and seven other states (Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont) want to make regulating the new powertrains easier and thus get more people behind the wheel of a zero-emission car. They're even willing to set a target: 3.3 million EVs by 2025. It's unlikely that the US will see President Obama's target of one million EVs by 2015 become a reality, but can we ready 3.3 million over the next decade? It looks like the US is on track to only sell around 45,000 EVs this year, which, if we extend that out to 2025 and add in the last few years of sales, gets us only to around 600,000. Still, given the trends, finding another 2.7 million ZEV sales over 12 years sounds entirely reasonable to us.

Not everyone agrees. Karl Brauer, a senior analyst at Kelley Blue Book, said in a statement that, "While 2025 is a long ways out, it's difficult to imagine electric and fuel cell vehicle sales hitting multi-millions in 10 years. The cost, functionality and infrastructure for these vehicles limits them to a relative sliver of the car-buying market." But the Sierra Club's executive director, Michael Brune, said in a separate statement that, "This announcement is possible because the president's strong new fuel economy standards have put electric vehicles in the fast lane." See the full statements (and more) below.

The issues that the coalition proposes to tackle include things that just make sense: EV-friendly building codes, more HOV lane access, promoting time-of-use electric utility rates and charging stations that all take the same type of payment (where have we heard that before?). The states are also committing to buying more ZEVs for governmental fleets. Another key thing to note is that the coalition is promoting all zero-emission vehicles, which is why hydrogen vehicles will be supported, should they become popular before 2025.
Show full PR text
Jack R. Nerad, executive editorial director and senior analyst at Kelley Blue Book:

"The year 2025 seems a long way off, but in auto industry terms it is closer than most would imagine, since product plans typical run in five-year cycles. Though there has been an upsurge in electric vehicle sales recently, much of that has been prompted by previous government-mandated sales requirements, not by pure consumer demand. Unless a major battery breakthrough brings the cost and weight of automotive batteries down significantly, the new mandate will put additional cost burdens on every major manufacturer and will, in effect, require the buyers of conventional cars to subsidize the purchase of electric cars by their often-more-well-to-do neighbors. As evidence of that simply look at current Tesla Model S sales."

Alec Gutierrez, senior analyst at Kelley Blue Book:

"While, increasing market share for zero-emission vehicles will go a long way toward reducing pollution and improving air quality, convincing consumers to migrate en masse into the electric and hybrid vehicle segments will be a lot tougher than signing a mandate into law. As it stands today, zero-emission vehicles, such as electric and plug-in hybrids, remain out of reach for the typical budget conscious consumer, especially when compared to far more affordable compact and subcompact cars. Until battery costs come down, electric vehicle range increases, and infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles improves, we expect to see market share continue to grow at a snail's pace in the short term."

Karl Brauer, senior analyst at Kelley Blue Book:

"While 2025 is a long ways out, it's difficult to imagine electric and fuel cell vehicle sales hitting multi-millions in 10 years. The cost, functionality and infrastructure for these vehicles limits them to a relative sliver of the car-buying market. Technology will somewhat address these issues over the next decade, but not enough to make them mainstream models. In addition, advances in internal combustion technology will continue to improve the gasoline engine's fuel efficiency while reducing its emissions output, further negating the advantages of more expensive electric and fuel cell vehicles."


UCS Applauds Multi-State Effort to Develop More Robust Market for Electric Vehicles
Statement by David Reichmuth, Senior Engineer, UCS Clean Vehicles Program


SACRAMENTO (Oct. 24, 2014)-Eight states announced a joint plan today to put 3.3 million zero-emission vehicles on America's roads by 2025.

The agreement - signed by the states of California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont - will support zero-emission vehicle policies in those states by providing incentives for electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles modeled on the successful efforts by California.

Below is a statement by David Reichmuth, senior engineer with the Clean Vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists:

"Today's announcement shows commitment from these states to support a successful and growing market for electric vehicles, a key solution for tackling climate change and cutting our nation's projected oil use in half over the next 20 years.

"Reducing barriers to electric vehicle adoption through incentives and support for refueling infrastructure will provide more choices for consumers, lower fuel costs, and reduce pollution.

"Auto manufacturers, lawmakers, and citizens need to work together so that we can enjoy cleaner vehicles across the United States. Today's agreement, signed by eight states representing a quarter of all new vehicles sales, is an important step toward ensuring that the market for electric vehicles continues to expand."

###

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. For more information, go to www.ucsusa.org.


Statement from Global Automakers' President and CEO Michael J. Stanton on Multi-State Effort to Promote Zero-Emission Vehicles

Washington, DC, October 24, 2013 – Global Automakers and its members remain committed to the success of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technology. We are pleased to see that California and the seven additional states have signed a cooperative agreement to develop an action plan to help build a robust national market for electric and hydrogen-powered cars.

These advanced vehicles face significant barriers in even the most "friendly" market environments. Each state presents its own unique challenges such as consumer preferences, incentives, codes and standards, fueling/charging infrastructure, weather and topography. Getting the marketplace ready to support ZEVs is a shared responsibility and automakers are already making huge investments in developing the technologies. We look forward to continuing to work with California and the states to ensure success of the program.


EIGHT STATES COMMIT TO 3.3 MILLION NEW ZERO EMISSION CARS AND TRUCKS BY 2025

October 24, 2013

Today the governors of eight states announced an ambitious partnership to accelerate the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles. Together, the states will develop fueling infrastructure and EV-ready building codes, purchase electric vehicles for state fleets, and expand incentives and public education programs to dramatically increase number of plug-in electric and fuel cell vehicles.

The eight states are: California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

In response, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune released the following statement:

"The Sierra Club applauds these eight states for leading the way nationally with this ambitious plan to slash carbon pollution by putting 3.3 million new electric and zero-emission cars and trucks on American streets. When it comes to fighting climate disruption, EVs are where the rubber hits the road.

"This announcement is possible because the president's strong new fuel economy standards have put electric vehicles in the fast lane. Sales doubled in the first half of 2013, and more models are available now than ever before. Last month, more than 35,000 people attended events in 98 cities across the country during National Plug In Day.

"Today's announcement will ensure that all new cars won't just use less gas, many won't use gas at all.

"The facts speak for themselves, EVs are cleaner and more efficient than internal combustion engines and U.S. automakers have roared back to life by betting big on efficiency and the new innovative auto technologies that Americans demand."


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
  • 87 Comments
      car-a-holic
      • 1 Year Ago
      It would be a lot be better if geriatric brown and the California legislators could reign in the fiscal mess and pound out other immediately pressing problems first......
        Ryan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @car-a-holic
        They are doing that. And not sending billions of dollars to the oil companies and out of your local economies is a good place to start.
          Walt
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Ryan
          So then you'd agree that it is time to end tax credits for EV's sourced from foreign automakers?
      scott3
      • 1 Year Ago
      I would love to fly just by flapping my arms too but like this the technology is just not here for wide spread use yet. By all means keep working on it but do force on the people what they do not want. Let the market determine what they sell not the government.
        carguy1701
        • 1 Year Ago
        @scott3
        This x9001
        CoolWaters
        • 1 Year Ago
        @scott3
        You clearly haven't driven an EV. "Let the Market determine..." is right wing bull for "Keep the Current Monopoly In Control", and that has lead to the US being a SLAVE to Foreign Oil. Clearly, you need to learn that corporations aren't run for the benefit of America, just the benefit of their CEO's to make money.
          carguy1701
          • 1 Year Ago
          @CoolWaters
          Nick Kordich: I'm well aware that technology doesn't advance in a vacuum, but battery tech isn't where it needs to be yet to appeal to a large segment of the population. Most if not all of the EVs out there right now are loss leaders.
          carguy1701
          • 1 Year Ago
          @CoolWaters
          EVs aren't practical right now, and won't be for a while. When they have range equivalent to that of a comparable gasoline fueled vehicle and charge in 10 minutes or less, then, and only then, will a mass shift take place. Until then, they're niche vehicles.
          AngeloD
          • 1 Year Ago
          @CoolWaters
          Yeah, letting the free market provide what the consumer actually wants is "right wing bull". Just like Obamacare. Everyone is just so happy now to have this leftist boondoggle forced on us by the DemocRats. BTW- when do you think they'll finally have that $953 million dollar Obamacare website finally running?
          carguy1701
          • 1 Year Ago
          @CoolWaters
          Also >thinking oil companies make their money solely from fuels Shiggy Diggy Doo, Where Are You? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_product
          Nick Kordich
          • 1 Year Ago
          @CoolWaters
          @carguy1701 - There is more than one kind of car. People buy what they want because it meets their needs but is also the most compelling to them (which often comes down to styling). Diesel meets your criteria - Hell, you can even travel further on it and refill further because it's denser. You can argue that it hasn't taken off in the US because of California politics, but I believe a big factor is it's "the same, just different." You've got something that does the same job about as well, but people don't find it compelling. Electric drive is appealing to a certain segment now because driving it and factors surrounding it are different. Whether this appeal (less air pollution, not having to fill up weekly at a gas station, etc.) will translate to a larger market, I honestly don't know. I believe it will for at least 10% of people. I think it would be reasonable for up to 40-50% of people by the time the technology is there and the technology is getting there, or in some cases is there already. They way you get 'there' is by doing it. Technology doesn't advance because you wait for it, it advances in spite of it, because someone else wasn't as content to wait and they seized the business opportunity or research funding to develop it. Here, this XKCD comic explains it better than I do: http://xkcd.com/989/
          Nick Kordich
          • 1 Year Ago
          @CoolWaters
          AngeloD and CoolWaters. One has a scar on his right side and the other on his left from where the two were separated at birth.
        Nick Kordich
        • 1 Year Ago
        @scott3
        Since you can't fly by flapping your arms and no technology shows commercial potential to let you do so, I recommend you don't invest in it. Since you can reduce oil imports, reduce air pollution, leverage underutilized power plants for nighttime charging, and get the American auto industry to modernize itself and produce an internationally desirable car (Tesla sold about $150M in cars to Europe over the last two months), a little money to pave the way might be worth it. Or you might feel it's not worth it. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion, too. What's important is knowing the difference between business (and government providing a little support for businesses along the way) helping technology develop and magic. The former is where we are today, the latter is what people had a thousand years ago. It's taken a thousand years of business with various levels of government backing to get us from flying being magic to an industry making about half a trillion dollars a year and letting over 1.5 billion people fly.
      Angelt
      • 1 Year Ago
      uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $4323, I didn't believe that...my... mom in-law woz like realey taking home money part-time on their laptop.. there friend brother has been doing this for less than a year and just repaid the debts on their house and purchased a great new Acura. discover this >>>>>>>WWW.JOBS37.COM
      carguy1701
      • 1 Year Ago
      The real question is, are there 3.3 million people out there who want EVs?
      danfred311
      • 1 Year Ago
      The thing is California could have made it happen long ago simply by having the leadership to actually make car factories instead of lame incentives. All it takes is a decently engineered EV sold at a fair price unlike the dumb Leaf and Volt at 40k. LGchem sells cells at under 200$/kwh. Put a few of those in a light aero car and the cost burden is negligible. 20kWh is plenty in an efficient car, that's only 4000$. With no ICE costs. But the impact on the car world would not be negligible. That said, despite the PTA lameness of Cali's initiatives, they did trigger the EV1 and the subsequent crushing and the documentary that changed the world. And very recently their ZEV credits was just the golden touch that gave Tesla Motors the illusion of profitability and skyrocketed their success which would otherwise have been fairly devastating. It's much too thin a margin for my taste, requiring what appears to be divine providence, but they did make a difference in the world. A big difference.
        usa1
        • 1 Year Ago
        @danfred311
        You want the state of California to create EV car factories? Really?
          DarylMc
          • 1 Year Ago
          @usa1
          Tesla is a good example. I would say in effect that California "has" created electric car factories.
      Marcopolo
      • 1 Year Ago
      " Put not your faith in Princes " [Psalm 146:3] Policies driven by the political ideology of one government, can be altered, repealed or diluted by new governments with different agenda's. Science and technology is on the side of EV development. How to adjust economically to major change is a far more complex question, often ignored by enthusiasts. Too often enthusiastically idealistic government policies, ignore complex downsides, resulting in economic confusion and problems for future governments. The two main hurdles for EV's are the development of economically viable ESDs (Electricity Storage devices), and large scale generation of "green" power. Both technologies are still at a very early stage of R&D, yet even the early results have been astonishing. With or without government incentives, the technology will continue to improve to the point where EV's are simply superior vehicles. This week's international meeting of scientists, will reassess the environmental realities of Thorium reactors. Hopefully, the agenda will confine itself to the science and avoid the sort of emotional and ideological considerations, that have prevented any real assessment over the past 20 years. Lithium-sulfur batteries, ( developed originally as large scale storage for Solar power ), have revealed a potential for adaptation to EV transport, including trucks and buses. Lithium-sulfur batteries are potentially much cheaper to produce, charge faster, with 4 times the storage capacity and can be significantly smaller and lighter. The downside of Lithium-sulfur batteries, is a shorter ( 2/3rds) life expectancy. But, since fully recyclable, that doesn't appear to be a major defect.
      1454
      • 1 Year Ago
      Are you a paid chinese troll? I don't spell anything right, and then you claim to be smart with talking points. What gives? I would rather we end you now.
      FatManChew
      • 1 Year Ago
      Is that EV charger placed next to a a busy street? Am I the only one who sees the apparent danger of an electric hose on the ground?
      • 1 Year Ago
      Full electrification will be challenged by lower cost, split-cycle air hybrids getting 54.5 MPG. Read "Splitting I.C.E." Even the government reports say IC engines will still dominate by 2030.
        1454
        • 1 Year Ago
        The government is a reflection of it's populace. The populace isn't smart therefore the government is equally as bad.
        Nick Kordich
        • 1 Year Ago
        Hell, even Elon Musk has said that be believes it will be 20 years before EVs outsell non-EVs (I don't have a link to the reference handy - it was sometime after the Model S lease alternative was presented). Given that he's speaking about the majority of sales, not cars in service, neither he nor EV critics are arguing that EVs won't be in the majority through 2030.
          Nick Kordich
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nick Kordich
          @Joe, my point is just the opposite: this is a CEO who everyone swears is an egomaniac saying that the technology his company produces WON'T outsell competing technology, not for at least 20 years. Coming from a Silicon Valley billionaire, where everyone else is thriving off a smartphone industry that's less than 10 years old, that's an unimaginable level of confidence in the strength of existing technology. I drive an EV myself, but ICE is an amazing family of technologies and their continued refinement even after the last century's efforts to wring out more performance is making them tough competition for EVs.
          Joe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nick Kordich
          A CEO stating that the technology his company produces will outsell competing technologies is not significant. Right or wrong, CEOs don't talk down their own products.... except Domino's Pizza.
      malgu
      • 1 Year Ago
      Are you serious right now? Okay fine, dictate fuel economy targets for cars but don't set absurd targets for selling EVs that not many people want. **** you California.
      • 1 Year Ago
      That picture of the Nissan leaf charging was taken in downtown Orlando in front of City Hall. I work downtown and see that charging station everyday.
      CoolWaters
      • 1 Year Ago
      US Drought Monitor: Looks like Drought is the New Normal.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X