California AB 1745 -- "Clean Cars 2040 Act"

[McRat]

Less than half of California's power comes from natural gas. It's the largest chunk, for sure, but to say that it's where we get our electricity isn't honest. It's where we get less than half of our electricity, which is significant and not to be dismissed, nor is it to be overstated.

California uses 62.5% natural gas for our power, higher at night when EV charging is normally done.
There are several new NG plants undergoing the approval process all across the state even though we have surplus capacity.
Unless something dramatically changes, that ratio is going climb. It currently (har) is the cheapest way to make power in California.

How clean is the electricity I use? - Power Profiler | Clean Energy | US EPA

 

[McRat]

This article is 5 years old:

investing in energy sources of the future

The tech is not ready for cars at this stage, but if it were, it would be cleaner than FCEV H2 and night charging EVs.

 

[McRat]

...
Just like today, GM didn't want to make or sell EVs...

While off topic, GM has 1/2 their engineering monies focused on Advanced Propulsion. They have the largest EV battery testing lab in the world if I'm not mistaken. They hold more FCEV IP than any other company, not sure about EV IP though, but it could be the highest as well.

Much like the widely held belief that GM crushed the test fleet of EV1's (but not all the S10EVs) in order to kill off electric cars, there is absolutely no proof of this. What there is evidence of, is that it was a failed experiment.

And the theory that battery production capacity is the Achilles Heel of EV production is also wrong. If it were correct, you'd see a dramatic jump in battery costs in 2017 which was the best year so for EVs. If you need to make 10 times as many widgets to meet demand, the increased unit pricing will fund plant expansion. Shortages create high margins which drive investment.

 

[LCR1]

All of my non-EVs come from the factory at 10K because it's simpler for registration purposes in my state, Some states consider 10K a commercial vehicle some states it's 10,001 This is the exact reason you can get two exact same F250s, one with a 9900 sticker and one with a 10K sticker. You can get the F350 with either 11,400 or 10,000 for that exact reason as well. If something like this passes all manufactures will do is offer the 'CA Package' and slap a 10,100lb sticker on the exact same vehicle. This will also push people from an F150 or similar midsize vehicle into larger ones, If manufacturers already offer free stickers to get around current laws, what makes you think they won't offer stickers to get around future laws?

You also have to realize that EVs work for daily life of most every person, however some people don't want to sacrifice their long distance travels. for every 2 hours of travel you'll spend 20-30 minutes of time charging. Going to family in the eastern US that adds 4ish hours of charging to my 12 hour trip. That means instead of leaving after breakfast and getting there in time for dinner I now get there when everyone is asleep. Adding hours to a trip may work for some families and be a nightmare for others, when I was younger I’d get horrible car sickness and our trips to California would add time to an already long drive, add in charging times and we would have probably traveled less, or they may have chosen to fly (a much more polluting activity) I have 100 gallons of diesel on board my truck This allows me to travel all across California without having to stop, and everywhere I’ve traveled I haven’t seen a place to charge, let alone a place to charge with a trailer, Tesla who everyone says is leading the way has no place to charge in west Texas still, even though this was their plan from day one. If I’m towing a trailer I can fill up in Houston and stop El Paso, if I’m empty I can make it all the way to LA without stopping. If I want to make that trip in my S I’d spend over 6 hours charging, that turns my single day drive into almost two.


All of this is in addition to forcing people to do something and taking away their freedoms. How would anyone feel about legislating away soda, butter, fast food, or why don’t we just legislate away meat and force everyone to be a vegetarian, that would do so much more for the environment. When will you accept that just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean you need to legislate away their freedoms? If EVs are the godsend that everyone makes it out to be then there should be no need to make legislation for it. If they are so cheap and reliable like everyone says then the ICE should have become obsolete a long time ago. There are so many threads on here that EVs pay for themselves or whatever but they account for less than 1% of sales. If EVs are so great, why do we need politicians to tell us that? Most every car manufacture I’ve run across makes a 100% EV and I’m pretty sure every single one makes a hybrid. If these things are so great why aren’t they sold out? Why aren’t Leaf, Bolts, Focus, and e-Golfs on back order? Why does it take a law to force people to buy the best thing ever?

 

[mspohr]

All of my non-EVs come from the factory at 10K because it's simpler for registration purposes in my state, Some states consider 10K a commercial vehicle some states it's 10,001 This is the exact reason you can get two exact same F250s, one with a 9900 sticker and one with a 10K sticker. You can get the F350 with either 11,400 or 10,000 for that exact reason as well. If something like this passes all manufactures will do is offer the 'CA Package' and slap a 10,100lb sticker on the exact same vehicle. This will also push people from an F150 or similar midsize vehicle into larger ones, If manufacturers already offer free stickers to get around current laws, what makes you think they won't offer stickers to get around future laws?

You also have to realize that EVs work for daily life of most every person, however some people don't want to sacrifice their long distance travels. for every 2 hours of travel you'll spend 20-30 minutes of time charging. Going to family in the eastern US that adds 4ish hours of charging to my 12 hour trip. That means instead of leaving after breakfast and getting there in time for dinner I now get there when everyone is asleep. Adding hours to a trip may work for some families and be a nightmare for others, when I was younger I’d get horrible car sickness and our trips to California would add time to an already long drive, add in charging times and we would have probably traveled less, or they may have chosen to fly (a much more polluting activity) I have 100 gallons of diesel on board my truck This allows me to travel all across California without having to stop, and everywhere I’ve traveled I haven’t seen a place to charge, let alone a place to charge with a trailer, Tesla who everyone says is leading the way has no place to charge in west Texas still, even though this was their plan from day one. If I’m towing a trailer I can fill up in Houston and stop El Paso, if I’m empty I can make it all the way to LA without stopping. If I want to make that trip in my S I’d spend over 6 hours charging, that turns my single day drive into almost two.


All of this is in addition to forcing people to do something and taking away their freedoms. How would anyone feel about legislating away soda, butter, fast food, or why don’t we just legislate away meat and force everyone to be a vegetarian, that would do so much more for the environment. When will you accept that just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean you need to legislate away their freedoms? If EVs are the godsend that everyone makes it out to be then there should be no need to make legislation for it. If they are so cheap and reliable like everyone says then the ICE should have become obsolete a long time ago. There are so many threads on here that EVs pay for themselves or whatever but they account for less than 1% of sales. If EVs are so great, why do we need politicians to tell us that? Most every car manufacture I’ve run across makes a 100% EV and I’m pretty sure every single one makes a hybrid. If these things are so great why aren’t they sold out? Why aren’t Leaf, Bolts, Focus, and e-Golfs on back order? Why does it take a law to force people to buy the best thing ever?

Not sure what a 10K sticker is but it sounds like a loophole that doesn't exist in the proposed legislation.
Really need to keep the fossil fuel industry from putting loopholes in the legislation.
Are you proposing that people have the "freedom" to kill their neighbors with pollution?

 

[ohmman]

You also have to realize that EVs work for daily life of most every person, however some people don't want to sacrifice their long distance travels. for every 2 hours of travel you'll spend 20-30 minutes of time charging

Today. Do you expect that’ll be the case in 22 years?

 

[LCR1]

Not sure what a 10K sticker is but it sounds like a loophole that doesn't exist in the proposed legislation.
Really need to keep the fossil fuel industry from putting loopholes in the legislation.
Are you proposing that people have the "freedom" to kill their neighbors with pollution?

The proposed legislation exempts vehicles of 10,001lbs or more GVWR. Right now specifically speaking of your state California a commercial vehicles is anything 11,500lbs or more. So if I have an F350 that's rated at 11,500lbs GVWR to tow my RV or horse trailer California says that is a Commercial Motor Vehicle and I fall under the sames rules and regulations as something like a Semi-truck. well That's complete BS that someone needs to have a commercial license and pay commercial fees to move their horse, boat or a TV around or even drive it empty simply because it's rated at 11,500lbs. As a result in California Ford (and everyone else) offers the 11,400 package which literally changes the sticker on the door jamb out for one that now says 11,400 instead of 11,500.

California and a lot of other states have increased registration fees for anything listed at 10,001lbs or more. as a result manufactures also offer the 10K package that changes out the sticker for one rated at 10,000lbs instead of 11,500 or whatever. Some states it's 10,000 even and manufactures offer a 9900 package.

So in the proposed legislation that exempts vehicles of 10,001lbs or more people will simply opt for the higher sticker that puts them above the limit for EV and under the limit for Commercial regulations. This nothing to do with the "fossil fuel industry" as you put it and everything to do with governments putting undue restrictions on private citizens.

EDIT: and if you think that they will legislate that away of just changing a sticker, the manufactures can and have changed something so subtle like spring packs as the reasoning for the changed weights. Make another law that says the springs need to be rated at X and the manufactures will simply start making the request from their suppliers that springs need to be rated for X and the spring manufactures will simply start selling the same spring under two different part numbers with two different ratings, then that removes the vehicle manufacture from the loop.

 

[LCR1]

Today. Do you expect that’ll be the case in 22 years?

If they will work for people in 22 years then there should be no need to make it a law and people will simply buy it because it works and it's super cheap and uber maintenance free like everyone already claims. If it works and it's completely badas what's the need to waste tax payer money making laws about it?

 

[mspohr]

The proposed legislation exempts vehicles of 10,001lbs or more GVWR. Right now specifically speaking of your state California a commercial vehicles is anything 11,500lbs or more. So if I have an F350 that's rated at 11,500lbs GVWR to tow my RV or horse trailer California says that is a Commercial Motor Vehicle and I fall under the sames rules and regulations as something like a Semi-truck. well That's complete BS that someone needs to have a commercial license and pay commercial fees to move their horse, boat or a TV around or even drive it empty simply because it's rated at 11,500lbs. As a result in California Ford (and everyone else) offers the 11,400 package which literally changes the sticker on the door jamb out for one that now says 11,400 instead of 11,500.

California and a lot of other states have increased registration fees for anything listed at 10,001lbs or more. as a result manufactures also offer the 10K package that changes out the sticker for one rated at 10,000lbs instead of 11,500 or whatever. Some states it's 10,000 even and manufactures offer a 9900 package.

So in the proposed legislation that exempts vehicles of 10,001lbs or more people will simply opt for the higher sticker that puts them above the limit for EV and under the limit for Commercial regulations. This nothing to do with the "fossil fuel industry" as you put it and everything to do with governments putting undue restrictions on private citizens.

People would have to pay commercial fees and have a commercial license to use this loophole. This would make it uneconomical. I doubt anyone would do this. If the auto companies and fossil fuel industry lobbied for further loopholes, they should be stopped.

 

[LCR1]

People would have to pay commercial fees and have a commercial license to use this loophole. This would make it uneconomical. I doubt anyone would do this. If the auto companies and fossil fuel industry lobbied for further loopholes, they should be stopped.

As California laws stands now, they would not. The proposed EV restriction ends at 10,000lbs. Commercial starts at 11,500. There's a 1,499lb gap from 10,001-11,499 where you can have a Non EV and Non Commercial.

 

[mspohr]

As California laws stands now, they would not. The proposed EV restriction ends at 10,000lbs. Commercial starts at 11,500. There's a 1,499lb gap from 10,001-11,499 where you can have a Non EV and Non Commercial.

The proposed law specifically states that cars over 10,000 GVW are commericial vehicles.

 

[ohmman]

California uses 62.5% natural gas for our power, higher at night when EV charging is normally done.
There are several new NG plants undergoing the approval process all across the state even though we have surplus capacity.
Unless something dramatically changes, that ratio is going climb.

This suggests the ratio is going the other direction as you mention, realizing that the report was issued after a comfortable start to 2017.
California electricity mix in 2017 has involved more renewables, less natural gas - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

This shows attributable energy generated in California and imported at 36.48% natural gas, and 14.39% unspecified. Even if that unspecified is all natural gas, I only get to 50.87%.
Total System Electric Generation

Personally, I have solar on the roof and subscribe to geothermal power for any excess.

If they will work for people in 22 years then there should be no need to make it a law and people will simply buy it because it works and it's super cheap and uber maintenance free like everyone already claims. If it works and it's completely badas what's the need to waste tax payer money making laws about it?

That's not what you said above. If you're using the charge time as evidence why it's a bad idea, then stick with that claim or come clean and back off of it. As far as why it wastes (very minimal) tax payer money, do you agree that there are savings to be had from both the societal and government side due to reduced air pollution?

This American Lung Association report estimates California's 2015 externalities at about $15B due to vehicular exhaust. Specifically, health-only costs attributed to passenger vehicle exhaust are in the $4B/year range. Is it not worth moving to reduce these costs, not to mention the underlying suffering? California has higher than average asthma rates due to airborne particulates as well.

Personally, I'd prefer pricing externalities, but that is difficult, costly, and has zero traction. This is simple, digestible, and it mobilizes market forces.

 

[LCR1]

Wait, if that proposal is going to require every privately operated vehicle to be an EV that will never fly. Stock the Ford has a 54 gallon tank, the smallest they come with is a 30 gallon tank and towing you'll get 8-10mpg in order to get the same energy from a battery you'd need 3-400kwh. the 100kwh battery pack already weighs 1,300lbs. Even if you get more density and cut 30% you're looking at 1,000lbs; a 300kwh battery for a pickup would weight 3,000lbs. The aluminium Ford F250 already weighs 6,700lbs add a 30% reduced packsize and you're at 9,700lbs. The Class 2b which the F250 falls in has a max GVWR of 9700lbs that would leave 300lbs for driver, passangers, cargo, etc. See how this becomes a problem? On a F350 with a 11,500lb GVWR and curb weight of 7,000lb and 3,000lb battery that leaves 1,500lbs for driver, passengers and cargo. Again, see how this becomes a problem.

The expedition, a family SUV is limited to 7520lbs and falls into the SUV class limited at 8,500lbs, that same 30gal tank transferred to the expedition in a battery puts the SUV over it's weight limit before you even put a driver in it. The Model X is limited to 5,000lbs towing compared to the expeditions 9,300. A model X towing gets about 150 miles of range which is shorter than a lot of superchargers are from one another and charging would almost always be from near 0 to near max and take forever as a result. An ICE SUV can go 250-300 miles between stops and doesn't take an hour to charge. So again you're asking too much from a technology that even using future numbers is stretching what would work.

Going off your wording of the bill, it completely strips peoples freedoms now, hoping technology finds a way. What happens when technology doesn't make it? countless tax payer dollars would have been wasted and there still wouldn't have been fix all solution. In the last 35 years, ICE technology has only improved 20%. Even at a 30% improvement the numbers won't work; you all think batteries will double in half the amount of time?

 

[ohmman]

Wait, if that proposal is going to require every privately operated vehicle to be an EV that will never fly. Stock the Ford has a 54 gallon tank, the smallest they come with is a 30 gallon tank and towing you'll get 8-10mpg in order to get the same energy from a battery you'd need 3-400kwh. the 100kwh battery pack already weighs 1,300lbs. Even if you get more density and cut 30% you're looking at 1,000lbs; a 300kwh battery for a pickup would weight 3,000lbs. The aluminium Ford F250 already weighs 6,700lbs add a 30% reduced packsize and you're at 9,700lbs. The Class 2b which the F250 falls in has a max GVWR of 9700lbs that would leave 300lbs for driver, passangers, cargo, etc. See how this becomes a problem? On a F350 with a 11,500lb GVWR and curb weight of 7,000lb and 3,000lb battery that leaves 1,500lbs for driver, passengers and cargo. Again, see how this becomes a problem.

The expedition, a family SUV is limited to 7520lbs and falls into the SUV class limited at 8,500lbs, that same 30gal tank transferred to the expedition in a battery puts the SUV over it's weight limit before you even put a driver in it. The Model X is limited to 5,000lbs towing compared to the expeditions 9,300. A model X towing gets about 150 miles of range which is shorter than a lot of superchargers are from one another and charging would almost always be from near 0 to near max and take forever as a result. An ICE SUV can go 250-300 miles between stops and doesn't take an hour to charge. So again you're asking too much from a technology that even using future numbers is stretching what would work.

Going off your wording of the bill, it completely strips peoples freedoms now, hoping technology finds a way. What happens when technology doesn't make it? countless tax payer dollars would have been wasted and there still wouldn't have been fix all solution. In the last 35 years, ICE technology has only improved 20%. Even at a 30% improvement the numbers won't work; you all think batteries will double in half the amount of time?

Let's stay focused before you jump off onto another tangent.

Are you backing off of the battery charge time issue, given that this bill asks absolutely nothing until 2040?

I will ask what kind of countless dollars you're expecting this to cost as well.

 

[LCR1]

So you expect the government to pass this law and not spend another minute looking at it until 2040? They're going to spend money on "campaigns" and other other ways to make this know, and there is no guarantee that anyone can meet that deadline. So they're going to spend money on studies, etc to find out where the market is then spend more time and money on adjusting goals and studies on what the new date should be. Or the government can simply stay out of it and let the super duper awesome EV market flush out ICE vehicles naturally. If EV is truly superior in every way then there is no reason to legislate anything that will come naturally.

 

[ohmman]

So you expect the government to pass this law and not spend another minute looking at it until 2040? They're going to spend money on "campaigns" and other other ways to make this know, and there is no guarantee that anyone can meet that deadline. So they're going to spend money on studies, etc to find out where the market is then spend more time and money on adjusting goals and studies on what the new date should be. Or the government can simply stay out of it and let the super duper awesome EV market flush out ICE vehicles naturally. If EV is truly superior in every way then there is no reason to legislate anything that will come naturally.

I must have missed your answer.

 

[LCR1]

Read it again, possibly slower this time. I answered your question on where the money would go.

 

[ohmman]

Read it again, possibly slower this time. I answered your question on where the money would go.

I’m trying to go through your arguments individually. I asked if you are backing down from your argument about charge times being an issue in 2040.

 

[mspohr]

Wait, if that proposal is going to require every privately operated vehicle to be an EV that will never fly. Stock the Ford has a 54 gallon tank, the smallest they come with is a 30 gallon tank and towing you'll get 8-10mpg in order to get the same energy from a battery you'd need 3-400kwh. the 100kwh battery pack already weighs 1,300lbs. Even if you get more density and cut 30% you're looking at 1,000lbs; a 300kwh battery for a pickup would weight 3,000lbs. The aluminium Ford F250 already weighs 6,700lbs add a 30% reduced packsize and you're at 9,700lbs. The Class 2b which the F250 falls in has a max GVWR of 9700lbs that would leave 300lbs for driver, passangers, cargo, etc. See how this becomes a problem? On a F350 with a 11,500lb GVWR and curb weight of 7,000lb and 3,000lb battery that leaves 1,500lbs for driver, passengers and cargo. Again, see how this becomes a problem.

The expedition, a family SUV is limited to 7520lbs and falls into the SUV class limited at 8,500lbs, that same 30gal tank transferred to the expedition in a battery puts the SUV over it's weight limit before you even put a driver in it. The Model X is limited to 5,000lbs towing compared to the expeditions 9,300. A model X towing gets about 150 miles of range which is shorter than a lot of superchargers are from one another and charging would almost always be from near 0 to near max and take forever as a result. An ICE SUV can go 250-300 miles between stops and doesn't take an hour to charge. So again you're asking too much from a technology that even using future numbers is stretching what would work.

Going off your wording of the bill, it completely strips peoples freedoms now, hoping technology finds a way. What happens when technology doesn't make it? countless tax payer dollars would have been wasted and there still wouldn't have been fix all solution. In the last 35 years, ICE technology has only improved 20%. Even at a 30% improvement the numbers won't work; you all think batteries will double in half the amount of time?

It would be good to take a few minutes to sit down and take a few slow deep breaths.
I think your hysteria about freedom (to pollute) and mythical taxpayer dollars is warping your armchair engineering calculations.
Since Tesla can build a practical semi truck today, I don't think it will be unreasonable to expect that someone can come up with a practical EV to meet your requirements 20 years from now.

 

[mspohr]

So you expect the government to pass this law and not spend another minute looking at it until 2040? They're going to spend money on "campaigns" and other other ways to make this know, and there is no guarantee that anyone can meet that deadline. So they're going to spend money on studies, etc to find out where the market is then spend more time and money on adjusting goals and studies on what the new date should be. Or the government can simply stay out of it and let the super duper awesome EV market flush out ICE vehicles naturally. If EV is truly superior in every way then there is no reason to legislate anything that will come naturally.

You're starting to go a bit off the rails here. Why would the government spend money on "campaigns and other other (sic) ways to make this know (sic?)" and then you state "So they're going to spend money on studies, etc to find out where the market is then spend more time and money on adjusting goals and studies on what the new date should be."
Not sure why you're afraid of government spending money on studies or even why they would spend money on market studies when the technology is available today.