California Governor Jerry Brown is drafting behind President Barack Obama's drive for one million electric vehicles in the US. In his "State of the State" speech on January 22 in Sacramento, Brown made mention that, "We're on our way to a million electric vehicles."

Brown has been backing transportation electrification for awhile now. On National Plug In Day in September, he signed Assembly Bill 8, a $2-billion bill extending electric vehicle credits and building a network of up to 100 hydrogen stations. Brown sees EVs as part of the state's leadership role in dealing with climate change. The state's biggest challenge is the volume of gasoline Californians use – more than 14 billion gallons each year to travel over 330 billion miles, he said.

Brown's speech was lauded by the Charge Ahead California campaign, a coalition of groups advocating putting one million electric cars, trucks and buses on California's roads. The governor's support closely follows his January 9th budget proposal, which included "up to $200 million in proceeds from the state's cap and trade auctions to support electric vehicles programs." One of the Charge Ahead California groups, National Resources Defense Council, issued a statement from Roland Hwang: "Governor Brown continues to be a climate leader by supporting electric vehicles and we will work with him to continue finding solutions to the problem that will define our generation. Read more in the press release below.
"We're on our way to a million electric vehicles"
Governor Edmund G. Brown
State of the State Address, January 22, 2014

CHARGE AHEAD CALIFORNIA GROUPS REACT TO GOVERNOR'S SUPPORT FOR CAMPAIGN'S GOAL OF ONE MILLION ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON STATE'S ROADS

SACRAMENTO – As part of his 2014 State of the State address this morning, Governor Edmund G. Brown included a full-throated endorsement of one of the chief objectives of the Charge Ahead California campaign, putting one million cars, trucks and buses on California's roads. The support comes on the heels of the Governor's January 9th budget proposal, which included up to $200 million in proceeds from the state's cap and trade auctions to support electric vehicles programs.

Statements from several Charge Ahead California groups follow:

Coalition for Clean Air:

"Governor Brown's commitment to electric vehicles will, with the cooperation of the Legislature, translate into cleaner air and reduced oil dependence for all Californians." – Bill Magavern, Policy Director

Communities for a Better Environment:

"We are grateful that Governor Brown highlighted the impacts of climate change in his address with the expressed need to aggressively reduce our consumption of fossil fuel in transportation. We believe that the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel in all sectors, including transportation, is urgent and possible, and we look forward to working with the governor's office and the Legislature to create an equitable and effective system in putting one million electric vehicles on the road."– Bahram Fazeli, Policy Director

Environment California:

"California has a critical opportunity-and responsibility-to head off the worst impacts of climate change on local communities. We look forward to working with the Governor on his plan to put California in the driver's seat on clean, electric vehicles." – Michelle Kinman, Clean Energy Advocate

The Greenlining Institute:

"We are strongly encouraged that the governor not only recognized the importance of cutting our gasoline use and putting a million electric vehicles on the road, he pointed out the crucial role that immigrants and communities of color can play in that effort. We must move ahead with policies that put clean vehicles within reach of all Californians, regardless of income, race or neighborhood." – Vien Truong, Environmental Equity Director

Natural Resources Defense Council:

"The days of fossil fuel-powered vehicles in California are numbered. With Governor Brown's unequivocal support and growing consumer demand, California's cars, trucks, and buses are going electric. Powered by clean and increasingly renewable energy, this growing fleet is cleaning the air in communities exposed to dangerous pollution. Governor Brown continues to be a climate leader by supporting electric vehicles and we will work with him to continue finding solutions to the problem that will define our generation."– Roland Hwang, Transportation Program Director


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
  • 75 Comments
      mylexicon
      • 1 Year Ago
      The fundamental problem in the US legislature and most state legislatures is that the government has abandoned its sworn duty to spend the budget on vital public services, thus, increasing economic productivity. Picking winners and losers is a fools errand, but in the grand scheme, transportation spending and environmental beautification (in tourism states) is not really the crux of the problem; especially when you consider the cost of pollution and oil imports for California's economy. The problems start when programs like this one fall woefully short of the mark. ZEVs are not selling, and the credit trading is just a form of corporate wealth redistribution. These mandates have the potential to turn into another Prop 98, a well-meaning piece of "investment" legislation that ultimately institutionalizes counter-productive largesse.
        Marcopolo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @mylexicon
        It's easy to ignore the downside to Gov. Brown's policies on the promotion of EV's, and i applaud his enthusiasm and vision. But that doesn't mean downsides don't exist. California has grown so large, that it's policies affect other US states, whether those states like it or not. Some Californian policies, are only in response to problems unique to California, yet because of California's size and influence, national, and international, corporations find it uneconomic not to comply. Nor is it always wise for any government, (especially only a state) to try and pick corporations and technologies, using taxpayer money. Unless incentive programs and government sponsored activity is carefully planned with realistic, (not ideological) objectives, and equally careful monitoring, the danger of politically expedient, but economically wasteful practices with occur. Getting the mix right is a real test of an administrations ability.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Sounds like Musk is perfectly OK with the train, as long as it doesn't go to Bakersfield or Fresno. "I've talked to California Governor Jerry Brown about this. He got a little mad and called me up. He said, "how come you are saying our bullet train is not good." I said, "going only 120 miles per hour from LA to San Francisco - people can do that on I-5 in their car." He said, "well, it has to go 150 miles out of its way so it can stop in Bakersfield and Fresno." I said, "well, you are making my point for me. It may be great for people living in those places, but not if you want to get from LA to San Francisco quickly." Musk prefers a direct route.
          mylexicon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Marcopolo
          The trouble with government is that it is always trying to shoot the moon by nascent segments within the economy don't really have entrenched interests. Conventional hybrids are capable of making us oil independent before this decade is out, yet the government is fiddling around with zero-emissions tax credits and cap-and-trade. Stepping over a $20 bill to pick up a $1 bill. Instead of leading the nation, California is potentially creating the next big hydrogen-highway or high-speed-rail boondoggle.
          Grendal
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Here is an article where Elon Musk tells about how he chewed out Jerry Brown over the high speed train idea: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/elon-musk-interview_n_4613227.html It's just after the hyperloop train picture.
          Rotation
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Don't listen to Musk about trains. He's completely off his rocker. He says Hyperloop would be cheaper, but it's all based upon bad math and the idea that you can put hyperloop in the median strip of I-5 so you don't have to buy land. He's eliding a lot of the difficult issues on Hyperloop to make it look better. That's not going to happen in the real world, his figures aren't really trustable. I do agree the high speed rail route on offer is ridiculous. But you try building a high speed rail that bypasses every community in the central valley. It's very difficult to do politically.
        Grendal
        • 1 Year Ago
        @mylexicon
        The government picks winners and losers every day. In many ways it what government does. The government doesn't build anything. It spends the money to have contractors build things. Those are always independent companies. There is no government entity that builds a road. Roads are still built though. The same is true for a bridge. Does the government have a factory that builds an M1 tank? No. Do the people need an M1 tank? Arguably yes. Do we need roads? Yes. The companies that win those contracts are the winners and those companies that lost the bid are the losers. This has been happening for a very long time. Only recently have politicians turned this into a political talking point to focus negativity on their political enemy. Meanwhile that political party is picking their winners and losers just as much as every other politician. It is just political maneuvering and an obvious one at that.
          mylexicon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          @ Grendal You should be able to differentiate between public monopsony and open marketplaces. Roads and national defense are basically public monopsony. The government must choose winners and losers, but this is not what "picking winners and losers" means. Picking-winners-and-losers is an economic phenomenon that results when regulators centralize decision-making in a decentralized marketplace, like passenger vehicles. Furthermore, the ATVMF is not functioning like research and development, but as short-term loans to bring a specific product to market. We already have viable technologies on the market to eliminate US oil dependence and reduce pollution. The government is stepping over a $20 to pickup a $5. These criticisms are not recent. While they may be politically motivated, they are not less accurate. Demand-subsidies and misappropriation of the government R&D concept is not beneficial in the long run. CAFE has been a mixed bag as well. The situation seems to be taken to the extreme in California, where regulators experiment even more than the Feds, with virtually no historical results.
          mylexicon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          There is a fundamental difference between government agencies picking winners and losers for government consumptive activities, and government agencies picking winners and losers for the market. The phrase "picking winners and losers" refers to the latter scenario. Long story short, the government fails because failure is what the people and US corporations demand. Politicians are not as dumb as they look. They know that demand subsidies, like tax credits, and supply-side subsidies, like subprime green loans, are ill-conceived. However, the former makes voters happy, and the latter keeps corporate donors happy. Systemic pressure creates government bureaucracies that intentionally fail to address our socio-economic difficulties. Obviously, this is not the government's primary function.
          JakeY
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          @mylexicon "The situation seems to be taken to the extreme in California, where regulators experiment even more than the Feds, with virtually no historical results." I think that's patently false. The current air quality of California is largely due to the efforts of CARB (the California Air Resources Board). And their policies do include the ZEV mandate and demand subsidies.
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          @ Grendal It's not really helpful to persist in damning 'governments'. If you accept that a civilized society must have a government, and that government will consist of human beings, then it's only a matter of degree that determines good government from less effective governments. The US is a nation of 313 million people, in a world of 7 billion. Most of the world governmental systems, evolved in a simpler, less complicated time, when the majority of the people lived on the land and could compare the farm economy with the world economy. A post industrial revolutionary world, is vastly more complex. Political systems haven't evolved as fast as the corporate world, or technology, and for the average citizen the world is mindbogglingly complex. Well intentioned (or even cynical ) politicians are forced by an increasingly sensationalist and simplistic media, to sate the voters with what they want to hear. We elect politicians who are like ourselves, not brilliant experts, but popular and likable. These men are seldom 'leaders' but follow the sad remark of Napoleon the Third, to the British Ambassador, when observing a mob rioting in the Champs-Élysées, " I must follow them, for you see, ...I am their leader !" . So much scorn and blame has been heaped on politicians, and the media encourages the public to afford politicians such little respect, that democratically governments, have become ineffective, and frightened of the people they serve. Mylexicon's complaint about populist government program's, based on ideologically motivated, but ill-conceived and badly executed planning, inevitably creates debt and waste. These failure and unpopular austerity measures necessary to repair the damage, further lower public opinion of government and other institutions. Worse, these failures encourage the citizens to blame the politicians, not themselves, for the failure of the programs they once cheered. IMO, responsible government, starts with a responsible electorate.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          "Only recently have politicians turned this into a political talking point to focus negativity on their political enemy." You should read the newspaper articles I've been scanning recently about the steet-paving scandal in my city's mid-1920's elections. Those guys hate each other, based on whose concrete company got the city contract. Don't get me started over the wharf-building projects either, sheesh. Politicians have used infrastructure issues (and the contracts around them) for a lot longer than you think.
          Grendal
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Orbital, and thousands of others are all publically traded companies. Getting government contracts have large effects on the stock price. So I don't get your point. Again, this is just political maneuvering. The government buys things from companies. The government essentially bought a new design for electric cars from Tesla by giving them a loan. They also bought new engine designs for Ford and a new lineup of cars. In the case of the ATVM loan program and the other DOE loans the government bought a lot of experimental technology to strengthen the USA's position in battery tech (including cars) around the world. It is really no different then giving a bunch of money to Lockheed Martin to build a new strike fighter so they can then sell the older generation strike fighter to Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Canada. Sorry, politics is politics as far as I am concerned. And just like the politicians I'd like to see government funds spent on things I prefer to be made. The government is going to spend my money anyway. More than half will be frivolously wasted. When it comes to government and politics I am horribly cynical and I don't like the distracting name calling when I know that it is mostly sleight of hand designed to do nothing more than distract me from the truths and what is really going on.
        Rotation
        • 1 Year Ago
        @mylexicon
        Are you kidding? You cannot be out of sight of one where I am. At every stoplight there are multiple EVs. How is keeping the air clean and reducing dependency on foreign oil not vital public services?
          Rotation
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rotation
          Marcopolo: If they weren't selling, no one could see "lots". And you're making a poor comparison. You have to compare sales of EVs versus sales of other cars. Because few existing cars become EVs. Either way, what I'm trying to say is EVs aren't selling like the Prius wasn't selling 15 years ago. That is to say they are selling, just not everywhere. You gotta start somewhere and EVs seem to be getting started. They are selling. Considering the prices, considering the limited selection of cars, considering that infrastructure still has to be built in a big way, EVs are selling and plug-ins are selling quite well.
          JakeY
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rotation
          @Marcopolo It's all relative. For a new car segment it's selling quite well (vs the hybrid growth curve for example). In California plug-ins actually took in 1.1% market share in Q1 2013, and EVs 0.3% market share. That's pretty good at this stage. http://insideevs.com/in-california-electric-vehicles-grab-1-1-of-automotive-market-in-first-half-of-2013-plug-in-hybrids-take-0-7/
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rotation
          @ JakeY, True, I have no problem with your informed ( and qualified) rebuttal. But simply saying " I see lots", is not a satisfactory dismissal of Milexicon's position, given the contest of his post.
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rotation
          @ Rotation That's not a very satisfactory rebuttal of Milexicons statement. California has more than 30,000,000 cars, and 30,000 EV's. ( 0.01%) ! Just saying you see "lot's" , as evidence of that his claim is absurd, isn't exactly scientific......
        Spec
        • 1 Year Ago
        @mylexicon
        They are not selling? You clearly do not live in the SF bay area or Los Angeles.
      jebibudala
      • 1 Year Ago
      California struggles bad enough when summer hits. The electrical grid is beyond capacity when everyone runs A/C and forces them to borrow electricity from neighboring states. I have no idea how he plans on spawning magical electricity to support such a vast amount of EV's. Last I heard there was no plans on approving new coal, nuclear, hydro plants. Unless he plans on implementing light & wind collectors on every single home in Cali, he's living in a wonderland dream world where reality doesn't exist. How many Californian's would support rolling brown outs again to support EVs? I wouldn't.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jebibudala
        I understand what you mean, you just kind of phrased it like a republican troll. California's government definitely wants certain things to exist, while simultaneously preventing the things necessary for them to exist from coming into being. Like, if you want more electric cars on the road, you are going to need more power plants. It doesn't matter which power source, you just have to allow them to be built. Even the Carrizo solar field, which was fully paid for, sat waiting for approval for like half a decade. They are going to have to figure it out, one way or another.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          "Like, if you want more electric cars on the road, you are going to need more power plants. It doesn't matter which power source, you just have to allow them to be built." Natural gas being the most likely fuel source for new baseload generating capacity. I would personally encourage nuclear, but I know that has its detractors as well. Interesting article: "Early in 2013 California was focused on avoiding an electricity crisis partly arising from its growing reliance on wind and solar power, and partly from one nuclear power station being shut down with steam generator problems. According to the California Energy Commission, since the 2001 crisis, power plants with maximum output totaling about 20,000 megawatts have become operational. An additional 3,900 megawatts are under construction and 4,700 MW more have been approved and are in pre-construction phases. The new plants should boost the state's energy independence. It currently produces about 71% of the electricity it consumes, and imports 8% from the Pacific Northwest and 21% from the Southwest." "California power consumption rose 2.9% in 2012 to 234.9 billion kilowatt-hours, the highest since 2008 because of warmer weather and a recovering economy, according to the ISO. In 2011 generation plus imports totaled 285 billion kWh, including: 90.8 gas, 36.7 nuclear, 42.7 hydro, 12.9 geothermal, 8.6 wind and solar, 5.8 biomass, according to California Energy Commission data. Renewable power's share of the state's power supply grew to 5% in 2102, up from 3.9% in 2011. About 700 MWe of new renewable generation was added in 2012 and 1,300 MWe of new natural gas-fired generation, the ISO report said." http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/California-s-Electricity/
          Vlad
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          That's only partially true. a) they can also offset increased electricity consumption by EVs with efficiency gains elsewhere. Which CA is doing. b) EVs that are charged at night may not need any new generation capacity at all Also, in cooling-dominated climate
        JB
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jebibudala
        Plenty of solar coming online if you have not noticed. AC days are good solar days. Most EV owners charge at night when the rates are low and there is oodles of spare capacity. EV effectively load level the grid making the grid more efficient. Enter Vehicle to Grid Technology (V2G) and EVs can save the grid from a blackout without any noticeable change in charge level.
          Rotation
          • 1 Year Ago
          @JB
          V2G is not cost-effective. The value lost through pack degradation is so high that even if you could put electricity into the pack for free at night and draw it out at $.20/kWh in the day, it still doesn't make financial sense.
        Vlad
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jebibudala
        Were there any blackouts once Enron stopped messing with "maintenance"?
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Vlad
          Yes, PG&E's state-sanctioned near-monopoly has had problems for years. Last year, there was a major power outage along the coastal regions of the state. Didn't you hear about it?
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Vlad
          Yes.
          Rotation
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Vlad
          No. Blackouts have been no more common in California than anywhere else since the Enron problem was fixed. 2wm: PGE serves less than half the population of California. About 15M customers and the population of California is 38M. PG&E doesn't have the LA or San Diego areas. Here's a map of PG&E's area: http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/financialassistance/medicalbaseline/understand/ Note their area runs out a bit below SLO & Fresno.
      EVnerdGene
      • 1 Year Ago
      California should secede, so they can print their own money. That would solve a lot of issues.
      • 1 Year Ago
      I wonder if Gov. Moonbeam uses an electric or hybrid vehicle for his personal/public transportation.
        Rotation
        • 1 Year Ago
        You aren't really familiar with Jerry Brown? When he was governor the first time he drove an Accord. He uses his own car and not the governor's limo this time too. When he was governor this time, he flew Southwest airlines, alone, not even paying for seats for his security detail. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/10/jerry-browns-bargainbasem_n_821624.html
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        Maybe he could get a hummer and convert it to hydrogen.. ..that'd fix it
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          You said: Maybe he could get a hummer Huh...huh...huh....
      JakeY
      • 1 Year Ago
      What California should get started on is DC charging. Now that SAE DC is ready, it's time to do the California leg of the West Coast Electric Highway on I-5. Washington and Oregon already done their part (even though it's CHAdeMO-only for now).
        Rotation
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JakeY
        Agreed. The next big step is SAE Combo. California should work to get this out as widely and as fast as possible.
      JB
      • 1 Year Ago
      I don't think California is ready to spend money on hydrogen fueling stations. Let the car companies do it if they want to sell hydrogen cars so bad. They only way I think they can do it is to rap money around each one they sell. I don't like incentives for buying EVs either. People should naturally want to buy EVs because they are free of fuel tax. Also, fuel tax is too low because it only pays for 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost of the roads.
        JakeY
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JB
        I see a silver lining in this. Despite being quite far from a hydrogen advocate, actually I do support *initial* hydrogen fueling station funding (but not beyond that until initial market viability is proven). The reason is simple: automakers have said they would support hydrogen *only* if the infrastructure is built first. So if you don't build it, automakers will continue promising and making excuses about infrastructure (with a nice reason to pare back or delay ZEV obligations, much like what happened in the previous decade). So build the initial infrastructure with enough stations to support an initial HFCV market (for sale, not the limited leases so far). If the cars fail miserably in this market, you can stop right there and you have only burned tens of millions rather than billions (but I should note that I'm not necessarily advocating spending all $200 million, only enough to have a clear picture of the market trend). If it's a success (meaning there's a significant upward trend like hybrids and plug-ins), then that money was well spent.
        lad
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JB
        Hydrogen is a winner for the Oil companies because H2 is made by reforming Natural Gas/Oil and will be distributed at Gasoline Stations in the future. Nothing changes under hydrogen from the same model you have with gasoline. The costs will be set by the oil companies just as they are today. No one has been able to create H2 directly from electricity by electrolysis in the numbers required to fuel a large population of personal automobiles. And, at this time electrolysis produced H2 is way too expensive for mass distribution. It's a mystery to me why Brown supports this idea...surely as bright as he is he knows hydrogen is red herring stalling tactic by Big Oil just as it was back during the EV-1 era. If Brown is serious about electric cars, why doesn't he finish the build out of L2 charging station along I-5? Washington and Oregon finished their part in 2012.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @lad
          --" It's a mystery to me why Brown supports this idea" Because it is political suicide to completely disregard the Hydrogen (Natural Gas) lobby.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JB
        The $200 million allotted for 100 stations is a drop in the bucket money-wise. My small city is spending $140 million just to remodel our downtown performing arts center. "According to Carter, a recent study concluded that 68 stations placed in key locations in Silicon Valley, San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California could support a community of 10,000 fuel-cell powered vehicles." http://www.autonews.com/article/20140106/OEM05/140109923/toyota-gears-up-for-more-fuel-cell-vehicles-will-add-stations#ixzz2rMFcYMN9 California is investing infrastructure to help support the very automobiles that they have legally mandated the automakers to build and sell. The overall positive is that the money will contribute to a reduction in the use of imported oil and will also reduce the amount of GHGs emitted by vehicles at ground level in congested urban areas like L.A.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JB
        California mandated that 10% of vehicles sold in California were to be zero emissions vehicles by 2003, but we know that a mandate does not necessarily mean action, nor does it mean that if something is forced to be built despite market forces being absent, that it will be utilized.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Exactly, even though the automakers have been forced to build "compliance" cars by the mandate, sales of those "compliance" cars have not been as strong as hoped.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          "Joeviocoe is the one who claims that the ZEV mandate is the primary driver behind FCVs - a claim I've unsuccessfully tried to dissuade him of in many discussions." "I said that ZEV mandate is the primary reason why some automakers are favoring FCVs over BEVs... " I stand with my statement. Joeciocoe claims the ZEV mandate - and the credits it offers - are the primary reason automakers are pursuing FCVs. Joeviocoe believes that otherwise, the automakers wouldn't seriously make ZEVs at all; FCV, BEV or otherwise. "Automakers like that are not really serious about Zero Emissions, other than meeting compliance."
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          I think my arguments for FCVs revolve around the combined investments of the automakers and the hydrogen providers. Joeviocoe is the one who claims that the ZEV mandate is the primary driver behind FCVs - a claim I've unsuccessfully tried to dissuade him of in many discussions. If anything, my mentioning of a lack of government action (specifically regarding the creation of codes and standards relating to hydrogen infrastructure) are the one segment that is hindering FCV commercialization.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          LTAW... sorry, wrong. That was never my point. I said that ZEV mandate is the primary reason why some automakers are favoring FCVs over BEVs... because they get an unfair amount of credits. Automakers like that are not really serious about Zero Emissions, other than meeting compliance. So they want to take the shortest route, fewer vehicles with 3 times as many credits. It was DaveMart who has been fawning over Hydrogen fuel cells as a viable way to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, citing that "33% of hydrogen will be mandated to be produced from renewables".
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Right, so why do you and others continue to use mandates as a strong point, especially when it comes to promoting your favored technology?
      Letstakeawalk
      • 1 Year Ago
      A general announcement: The SAE 2014 Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Technologies Symposium will be held Feb. 11-13 at the Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines, in La Jolla CA. More info: www.sae.org/events/hybridev/ "This event will address market and technical views and developments of interest to everyone dedicated to the electric and hybrid vehicle industry. Prominent representatives from the industry will be present to inform and exchange information relevant to engineers engaged in research and development, technical and product managers as well as those involved and interested in this growing industry." Some highlights: Feb 11 - Adv. Vehicle Market Price projections PEV Infrastructure Deployment Costs (data from 103 million test miles, 3.5 charging events, 8,100 vehicles) Feb. 13 - FCV development (Charles Freese, GM) Hydrogen Fueling Standardization (Jesse Schnieder, BMW) California's H2 Infrastructure for FCEV Commercialization (Ca. Fuel Cell Partnership) Advanced High Energy and High Power Battery Systems (Jun Lu, Argonne NL) I hope that some ABG commentators might be able to attend, and I certainly encourage ABG editors to send to staff to cover this event.
      Levine Levine
      • 1 Year Ago
      Jerry Brown is the best California governor that the socialist labor unions have bought and brought into Sacramento. He'll say and promise anything as long as he gets his vote -- paying for them with your tax dollars, of course. In the 70s in his first term as the newly elected governor coat-tailed into office using his daddy's money, political connection, and reputation, Jerry was soon renamed as Mr. Moon Beam when his philosophy of "less is more," natural pastoral living, and other 'far out' ideas were proposed. After his one term, Californians put his butt to the curb. After several decades of political absence , Jerry re-emerges as the new, improved Free-for -All Socialist governor with the help of labor unions and illegal immigration support groups. True to form, Jerry came through with reduced college tuition and free scholarships to illegal immigrant students. Most recently, he gave them the right to have California driver license. Meanwhile on the labor front, Jerry is hard at work to raise the State minimum wage to $15/hour by 2015. As any good socialist politician worthy of his name, Jerry is increasing taxes and fees, and borrowing more money to disguise California's insolvency for the past 15 years, despite creative financing.
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Levine Levine
        Do you even live in California?
        Spec
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Levine Levine
        Does any conservative know what the word 'socialist' actually means?
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          @ Spec More importantly, do "socialists' still remember what socialism actually means ? Forgetting, levine levine, who like DF, is a misanthrope, not a conservative, does anyone still conform to these old stereotypes any more ?
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          @ EVnerdGene "communism is socialism at the end of a bayonet" Will that help with their understanding ?" It depends on which end of the bayonet, they're at :)
          motorhead
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          Wow, good read Nerd. I would like to say it should be required reading in schools, but the lesson would probably be distorted. Notice the word "progressive" used in the last multi-sentence paragraph.
          EVnerdGene
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          @EZEE and Marco, It is so sad that our nationalist socialist indoctrination centers (gov-funded and controlled schools), are convincing our kids that big-gov good - all-biz evil. It is so obvious this has a bad ending as EZEE's brief history lesson pointed out. "which end of the bayonet" Maybe I'd be wiser to STFU, so I could be one of elite with the state-authorized bayonets. Who knows, maybe raping, pillaging, torturing, and exterminating those that disagree with us will be fun. a short history lesson - with a little more detail: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/7/halbrook-the-key-to-this-german-pogrom-is-confisca/ if link doesn't work, google "holocaust possible halbrook"
          EVnerdGene
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          "communism is socialism at the end of a bayonet" Will that help with their understanding ?
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          Jerry Brown and most democrats are now corporatist so or fascists. I know...I said it. But in every way, they are working hand in hand with corporations. Spec - did you know a bail out of big insurance is built into Obamacare? And due to the numbers of who is signing up, it will have to happen fairly soon. A bailout of big insurance..... When people are just barely making it by in the USA, and unemployment amongst minorities is at its highest, and the gap between rich and poor continually grows due to fed pumping money into the stock market, via the big Wall Street financial houses. We need another bail out? Of big insurance? I just wish for once, Obama could do something for Main Street, instead of Wall Street.
          EVnerdGene
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          Does any liberal know what the word progressive means ?
      Grendal
      • 1 Year Ago
      We still might pull off 1 million plug-ins by the end of 2015. It will be close. I'd say 2016/2017 for sure. How about 2 million by 2020. That will happen.
        Grendal
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Grendal
        If we're talking ZEVs then it's going to be after 2020 for 1 million. Right now you've got the Leaf and the Model S and a few incidental EVs. FCVs and other EVs will be arriving soon but those two are currently the driving force in ZEVs since you can't count any plug-in with a range extender. I can't really see any ZEV selling more than 100K cars a year until the Model E. It's first year will be 2018, if we're lucky, where it will sell over 100K cars. Am I missing something?
      Spec
      • 1 Year Ago
      I'm so happy with Jerry Brown's work. I like his austere fiscally conservative Jesuit ways. Supporting EVs, moved us from deficit to surplus, holding the line on spending . . . keep up the good work, sir!
        Edge
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Spec
        Wow, I did not know he was in a Jesuit seminary for three years! Jesuit ways? You don't know a lot about Jesuits if you think he is following their ways.
          Spec
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Edge
          He is certainly not a Catholic type but he is humble and not a big spender.
        EZEE2
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Spec
        Lately I have thought that you have been off your game. You missed sarcasm, said some odd stuff, but this...ahhhh classic Spec! Nearly every spoken word is right wing, to make a left wing point. I can just imagine that you must have been smiling the entire time you typed that (as I am smiling now in response). Here is the only thing you missed: The best part is, by increasing the number of electric cars, we will not be as beholden to the price of oil, and world events. And, as it love and support out military families, I dream of the day they will all be brought home, and not have to fight wars in foreign countries. (You had religion, conservative spending....all you needed was a nod out to the military). Just love it when you post like that. I can imagine some right wingers looking and thinking, 'wait....what?'
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EZEE2
          Actually you were probably smart for not going overboard. I do that sometimes in the opposite direction and quote everything msnbc has ever said and it ends up being just funny and absurd (then again, I am trying to be funny and absurd). If I were to simply stop by saying something like, 'admittedly, however, we have to pay for roads, and this extra tax will be onerous for the poor and minorities' it would probably have a liberal stop and wonder. I just have too much fun using every last bit of left wing rhetoric. So yea...your way was probably right.
          Spec
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EZEE2
          Thanks. Yeah, you are right . . . I missed the military angle.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Spec
        Yes, i definitely appreciate all the business that California's leadership has been driving out. Utah is getting their very own tech boom thanks to these great works. You Californians didn't need those jobs anyway, and having your state make up 33% of the nation's welfare recipients is just fine and dandy. Go high tax, high regulation markets! "SACRAMENTO -- California business leaders are trying to get their state to make some changes after more California companies announced they are expanding in Utah. The California Chamber of Commerce and others want the Legislature to pass a more business-friendly budget. Some leaders are expressing concerns that e-Bay, Adobe, Twitter, Electronic Arts and Oracle are all expanding in Utah." http://www.ksl.com/?sid=12172379
          Vlad
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Funny thing: Economist ran articles about economic success of California and Utah. One about Utah talked about how Utah benefits from proximity to California. One about California didn't mention Utah at all. Utah is directly benefitting from the massive boom that was born with California's push to establish itself as a leader in public high education. Boom so massive that it born whole new industries, and benefited the entire country. And you, 2mw, instead of appreciating it, are finding failure in that California can't keep all benefits of it for itself.
          Rotation
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          I'm glad you like it 2wm. Suffice to say it's not for everyone, or else property would be as in-demand and expensive in SLC as in Walnut Creek (let alone SF).
          Vlad
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Please, don't bring up "resources". If you don't ship them, you starve, but the buyer only has to pay a slightly higher price to get them from another willing seller. In the grand scheme of things, cheap places can always get a piece of a pie from rich places. Then they become less cheap, and next in line gets a piece from them. Utah is to California what Vietnam is to China. Now, I freely admit, Utah is playing the hand it was dealt in a decent way (except it allows its business to poison its citizens), but it is in no position to look down at the big neighbor.
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Sure, a small state benefits from what a larger state has pioneered. But we have our niches in industry here that California benefits from too. Your state actually has a huge trade deficit with ours. Your state wouldn't be what it is without the resource-rich mountain states willing to ship you all the resources and finished products you need but can no longer produce due to lack of resources or regulations. California's big investment in education it had a long time ago did pay off for a while. Then everyone took the cheap education and moved. People couldn't stay because all the economic factors worked against them. First, the high tech manufacturing went away in the 80's, now the IT world is starting to move In a way, they are a loss leader. They often invest in things and reap the reward for a while but ultimately lose. That's why you have a rollercoaster economy with bubbles that inflate and pop so often! You can keep educating people on your dime and sending us your industries as well. If you wanted your tax dollar investments to pay off, maybe it's time to 'catch and release' your business! But still, somehow, we have higher educational attainment levels than your state though. There aren't a lot of Californian transplants here yet, so you can't say it's your state that's responsible for that.
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          I'd rather deal with the imperfect weather over crime, traffic, high taxes, bad attitudes, a crappy economy, hustlers, constant worries about water, and insane home prices. Businesses do not 'save a few dollars' here. Their tax liability is literally less than half here and real estate is smoking cheap compared to California. They can pay their employees thousands of dollars less because the money people make here goes much farther. I took a 30% paycut when i moved here for example, but i can buy a decent house here on what i make, whereas i couldn't do that in California. I am an atheist by the way. And a former Californian. Learning how to deal with a little snow and appreciating the awesome mountains and lakes here took some time, but isn't a big deal.
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Actually Ryan, more people leave California than enter. Most that enter are illegals, due to the santuary status of some cities. A good job for those who like driving is driving empty U-Hauls. There is such a stream of U-Hauls heading from California to Texas, that U-Haul had to lay people good money to drive them back. In most cases, when a U-Haul is driven from say, Michigan to Ohio, U-Haul simply has that vehicle on the lot and schedules it when someone moves from Ohio to Michigan. Not in the case of California. They are all leaving. The producers, that is. Ditto NY, ditto Illinois....
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          I meant to say 'stop catching and releasing your business', fyi. edit function would be nice ..
          Ryan
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Well, that's what happens when all the people want to live in CA, but companies want to make a few more dollars an control the governments of smaller states in the West... Who would want to live in Utah year-round (if you aren't a Mormon)?
    • Load More Comments