Jump to content

California shakes up auto industry, says all vans and trucks must be electric by 2024


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

This goes back to FordBuyer's suggestion about defining "electrified vehicles". Autothink Research in 2019 recommended revising vehicle categorizations for consumer facing communications to emphasize whether a vehicle is ICE dominant or electric motor dominant. See attached table. All hybrid (including plug-in) models in the U.S. market for 2022 model year except Karma GS-6 are ICE dominant.

 

With the revised categories, their conclusion was as follows.

autothink.PNG

You know who started this silly crap or who at least started people on confusion in advertising?

It was GM with the Volt insisting that it was EREV when in fact it was a PHEV with charge sustain.

In order to be EREV, automakers have to make a PHEV that can’t sustain charge and can’t run with

a flat battery, that sucks and will never sell to buyers so forget about widespread EREV.

 

There is no need to redefine electric vehicles, if you’re buying one you already know what you’re buying

and in a few years time there won’t be any option as strait ICEs will probably be gone from passenger 

vehicles anyway. The only exception to that is a BEV owner trying to have more than a trickle home charger.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The price of nickel spiked because of Chinese billionaire taking a short position, not completely across the story but  the spot price has already come back down a long way so I suspect a lot of the heat in nickel price will subside in the next month or so when this guy is forced to eat his short position….

I wasn’t aware of that aspect.  Russia is one of the major nickel suppliers and the sanctions contributed to the pricing speculation.  Reality is Russia will just export to friendly nations, like China, and prices will moderate.  Still not wise energy policy to rely on those two for critical materials.  For that reason, I see LFP being used where maximum energy density isn’t required (battery walls, short range EVs) and additional nickel mining in the US.  Otherwise we are trading Middle East oil dependence for Russia and China mineral dependence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, slemke said:

I wasn’t aware of that aspect.  Russia is one of the major nickel suppliers and the sanctions contributed to the pricing speculation.  Reality is Russia will just export to friendly nations, like China, and prices will moderate.  Still not wise energy policy to rely on those two for critical materials.  For that reason, I see LFP being used where maximum energy density isn’t required (battery walls, short range EVs) and additional nickel mining in the US.  Otherwise we are trading Middle East oil dependence for Russia and China mineral dependence.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-15/nickel-price-tsingshan-short-bet-london-metal-exchange-/100909150
 

 

Indonesia was the largest global supplier of Nickel ore but decided to ban exports in 2019, the price has been increasing before that announcement. China was hurt the most by that announcement 

 

https://www.mining.com/web/china-hurt-most-by-indonesias-move-to-keep-nickel-at-home/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mackinaw said:

The biggest nickel mine in the U.S. is in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.  Opened in 2014 and scheduled to close in 2025.  I wonder if the (current) high price of nickel causes a change of plans?

 

http://eaglemine.com/

I’m sure that a lot of the more economically marginal plants will be getting a reprieve / stay of execution with increasing prices. At a minimum, review the decision in the light of securing supplies for all the coming battery plants, that would probably force  a change heart.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jan 19, 2022 - 04:44 pm

SK Innovation aims to advance all-solid-state batteries

https://www.electrive.com/2022/01/19/sk-innovation-aims-to-advance-all-solid-state-batteries/

SK Innovation has revealed that it will be collaborating with a research team led by Professor Lee Seung-woo of Georgia Tech in the United States with the aim of advancing “the era of next-generation all-solid-state batteries.” SK Innovation is not only conducting its own research but putting efforts to develop all-solid-state batteries actively cooperating with various groups. 

 

Professor Lee Seung-woo and his team have developed a solid electrolyte that is said to boost ionic conductivity by 100 times. Just last week Nature published his article on rubber-type high polymer solid electrolyte jointly developed with KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology).

 

According to SK Innovation, the discoveries made represent a ground-breaking achievement. Until now realising a solid electrolyte that simultaneously ensures ionic conductivity and safety while functioning at room temperature has been the biggest hurdle with this technology. If this technology makes the journey to market, SK Innovation says it has the power to extend electric vehicle ranges currently hovering around 500 kilometres up to 800 kilometres on a single charge.

 

Lee Seong-jun, head of the SK Innovation Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, said, “We will move up the era of all-solid-state-batteries, which are also called ‘dream batteries’, by cooperating with Professor Lee Seung-woo’s research team who achieved a remarkable research result to build up our technological competitiveness and contribute to a greater convenience for humanity.”

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Couple recent updates from Ford regarding motor vehicle regulations in California.

 

1. FORD SIDES WITH EPA AND CALIFORNIA IN LAWSUIT TO ALLOW TOUGHER CLEAN AIR STANDARDS. Ford Sides with EPA and California in Lawsuit to Allow Tougher Clean Air Standards | Ford Media Center

DEARBORN – June 7, 2022 -- Today, Ford filed a motion to intervene on the side of the EPA against a challenge to California’s ability to protect public health and combat climate change by setting vehicle emissions standards. Ford has consistently supported stricter greenhouse gas standards even when EPA did not, and this suit continues Ford’s leadership as the only U.S. automaker to stand with California in support of stricter vehicle emissions standards in 2019.

 

2. FORD STATEMENT ON EMA LITIGATION CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD’S OMNIBUS LOW-NOX REGULATIONS. Ford Statement on EMA Litigation Challenging California Air Resources Board’s Omnibus Low-NOx Regulations | Ford Media Center

JUN 13, 2022 | DEARBORN, MICH. While Ford is a member of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), Ford opted out of this litigation months ago and is not involved with EMA’s legal challenge to California’s Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation. We are proud to stand with California in support of clean truck emissions standards that will help accelerate the transition to zero-emissions vehicles and reduce air pollution. Ford is moving now to deliver breakthrough electric vehicles for the many rather than the few. We are introducing all-electric versions of our most popular, iconic vehicles like the F-150 Lightning, the Mustang Mach-E, and the E-Transit van, scaling production to reach a target of producing more than 2 million electric vehicles per year by 2026 and leading a new era of sustainable manufacturing.  We are focused on creating good jobs, building the future of zero-emissions transportation, and growing our business in ways that are good for people and the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

Couple recent updates from Ford regarding motor vehicle regulations in California.

 

1. FORD SIDES WITH EPA AND CALIFORNIA IN LAWSUIT TO ALLOW TOUGHER CLEAN AIR STANDARDS. Ford Sides with EPA and California in Lawsuit to Allow Tougher Clean Air Standards | Ford Media Center

 

 

 

2. FORD STATEMENT ON EMA LITIGATION CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD’S OMNIBUS LOW-NOX REGULATIONS. Ford Statement on EMA Litigation Challenging California Air Resources Board’s Omnibus Low-NOx Regulations | Ford Media Center

 

 

Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot.  Ford (and gm for that matter) is hitching their wagon to a "woke" philosophy that the vast majority of society does not embrace and that more,are getting disgusted with in light of the record inflation and gas prices. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Footballfan said:

Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot.  Ford (and gm for that matter) is hitching their wagon to a "woke" philosophy that the vast majority of society does not embrace and that more,are getting disgusted with in light of the record inflation and gas prices. 

 

I don't think this signifies embracing the so-called 'woke' philosophy.  What it really means is automakers are looking for a unified set of regulations nationwide that they can adhere to without the risk of unexpected or regional changes.  Since the California Air Resources Board has the right to create its own standards (at least as stringent as the E.P.A.'s) building vehicles to C.A.R.B. standards better ensures some regulatory predictability.  Not to mention the fact that any state has the right to adopt C.A.R.B. standards in lieu of E.P.A. standards, and many states choose to do so.  Funny that a large percentage of the inflation we are currently experiencing is caused by high oil prices, wouldn't it be helpful if less oil was used for transportation?     

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 Funny that a large percentage of the inflation we are currently experiencing is caused by high oil prices, wouldn't it be helpful if less oil was used for transportation?     

 

Not too helpful when the transportation using less oil is unaffordable for 80 to 90 percent of the public. 

Edited by ehaase
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford spent and is continuing to spend big money on BEVs so they are lobbying for government regulations and subsidies to mitigate the risk.  
 

Furthermore, the cost of those BEVs is going up.  According to an article I read, the cfo is stating 25k for a Mach e and Ford is losing money on them now.  https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/15/amid-recalls-ford-says-costs-to-build-mustang-mach-e-are-skyrocketing/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGdJHvS6nKUuYf_uDXVgn5LdxBwrk8v0rBATw1ew7kE-Sr5Q4K8xDnX05IU5M5aCD6nY61IGMFxoi70FTAGlD2e96kS0CE51pvT0V3pZAI5qJqWH8UfPzo6N9BklMgh1nCVEY5Zb5Smz2r-rZgkCbn9UtSehIKhZZE2lDyJTUqFx
 

Hard not to include politics of BEVs, and fossil fuels when discussing CA and BEVs.  It is all related. High gas prices were part of the plan to get more people to switch to BEV.  Now you have skyrocketing fuel prices and BEVs due to battery component costs and chip shortages.  Either way, the consumer is paying more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Last week, the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee passed bill A.B. 2350. It is now in Senate Transportation Committee awaiting consideration. If passed into law, the bill provides $2,000 to Californians who convert a gasoline or diesel powered motor vehicle (passenger cars, SUV, trucks, vans) to ZEV. AB 2350 - California Assembly (20212022) - Open States

 

SEMA supports this bill. Here is what they said.

Quote

In recent years, California has implemented various programs, including the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program and the Clean Cars for All Program, to promote the purchase of new zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). However, none of the programs currently offer benefits for vehicles that started their life with an internal-combustion engine and can be converted to a ZEV via an aftermarket motor package. A.B. 2350 helps preserve California’s rich car culture while creating new ways to make ZEV ownership more accessible.

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that Ford signing on with the EPA and CA it means that they will start producing EV 650 & 750's for the near future. As it currently stands, Freightliner is the only real serious contender I believe in the class 5, 6,  & 7 markets with ther EM2 and a range of approximately 200 miles. International and Peterbilt/KW also have trucks similar, but I don't recall them already out and testing. The only problem is with the eM2 being $400,000 per unit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Last week, 17 U.S. states, District of Columbia, and the Canadian province of Quebec released an action plan to advance the deployment of electric medium and heavy-duty trucks, vans, and buses. multi-state-medium-and-heavy-duty-zev-action-plan.pdf (nescaum.org)

 

List of U.S. states participating in the plan.

  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Hawaii
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Nevada
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

California's plan to ban the sale of new ICE powered vehicles by 2035 (light vehicles for certain, not sure about heavy duty trucks and vans) is expected to go into effect tomorrow. California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

The rule, issued by the California Air Resources Board, will require that 100 percent of all new cars sold in the state by 2035 be free of the fossil fuel emissions chiefly responsible for warming the planet, up from 12 percent today. It sets interim targets requiring that 35 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in the state by 2026 produce zero emissions. That would climb to 68 percent by 2030.

The restrictions are important because not only is California the largest auto market in the United States, but more than a dozen other states typically follow California’s lead when setting their own auto emissions standards.

“The climate crisis is solvable if we focus on the big, bold steps necessary to stem the tide of carbon pollution,” Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, said in a statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:
1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

California's plan to ban the sale of new ICE powered vehicles by 2035 (light vehicles for certain, not sure about heavy duty trucks and vans) is expected to go into effect tomorrow. California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

This would take the California & adopter states' market from less than one out of eight today, to over one out of every three new vehicles sold be ZEVs, 28 months from now. I wonder if folks who live in communities where one often has to park a block or more away from their home, apartment & condo dwellers will adopt this? Why stop there? Mandate 35% of new outdoor barbecue and restaurant equipment be zero emissions. The same for building heat.

Nothing in the article about fines or penalties? What if the mix turns out to be 18-20%? The buying public will determine the mix.

 

 

 

Edited by Chrisgb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

California's plan to ban the sale of new ICE powered vehicles by 2035 (light vehicles for certain, not sure about heavy duty trucks and vans) is expected to go into effect tomorrow. California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

Official statement from Ford about California's plan. Ford Statement on Proposed Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations in California | Ford Media Center

 

At Ford, combatting climate change is a strategic priority, and we’re proud of our partnership with California for stronger vehicle emissions standards, forged during a time when climate action was under attack. We’re committed to building a zero-emissions transportation future that includes everyone, backed by our own investments of more than $50 billion by 2026 in EVs and batteries. The CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule is a landmark standard that will define clean transportation and set an example for the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposed law seems pretty reactive to market reality rather than a lean forward legislation. California is on track to reach 20% EV market share sometime in 2023 so 35% by 2026 doesn't seem that challenging, and 100% by 2035 is perhaps only a year or two ahead of current adoption curve. That is if you assume adoption curve stays linear, which it probably won't... most likely it will accelerate.

 

According to the chart below which is based on CARB data, CA was at roughly 16% EV as of Q1 2022, up from around 10% from a year earlier. So if you assume roughly 6% growth in market share per year (which seems very conservative because it assumes linear progression), it will about 14 years to reach 100%

 

Let me break out the calculator for this one... 2022 + 14 = 2036. My gosh, what are these lawmakers thinking pushing the mandate up to 2035! 

 

 

6a00d8341c4fbe53ef02942fa86dc2200c-800wi.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you expect from a communist governor that never worked an honest day in his life and knows nothing about economics.  That being said, he is a politician and politicians can be induced to change the laws.  The proposed rule, the way it is written, only hurts the dealers since ICE cars can be bought in another state and brought to California.  

 

BTW, 13 years is an eternity in the auto world and I am sure this issue will be tossed around in the courts when it is realized that the EV market will not be nearly as robust as some think it will be.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Footballfan said:

BTW, 13 years is an eternity in the auto world and I am sure this issue will be tossed around in the courts when it is realized that the EV market will not be nearly as robust as some think it will be.


Ford will change their plans at least twice by then 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bzcat said:

Let me break out the calculator for this one... 2022 + 14 = 2036. My gosh, what are these lawmakers thinking pushing the mandate up to 2035! 

 

The CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule is deliberately conservative. This provides the opportunity for CARB to revise their mandated dates earlier in the next few years as BEV adoption increases exponentially in California and throughout the world.

 

2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Ford will change their plans at least twice by then 

 

Correct, Ford and other automakers that have their own internal targets for an all-electric vehicle lineup will move those dates earlier. Example. Ford's own target for a 100% zero emissions vehicle lineup in "leading markets" is 2035 (matching the target set by CARB). It's very likely Ford's internal target will be revised to something closer to 2030 at least a couple times within the next few years.

 

Indeed, Ford may shift its targets prior to government agencies like CARB doing the same.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Ford will change their plans at least twice four times by then 


FIFY, Figuring the past reorganization time frame of every 3 years.

Ford already was planning on the vast majority of electric by 2035, they need to for the entire European/Chinese market (even though the supply chain and markets are being quietly split from china internally) and have backed CA plan that allowed California to set its own standards. Ford has known this is coming and is planning accordingly. Oakville and part of BOC will be online in 2026 so meeting the 35% target will be doable. If anything it might allow Ford to gain market share in CA as Honda/Toyota are playing catch-up with Honda basically farming it all out to GM in the short term.

13 years is a long way in one way; Ford might have purchased/been purchased by another OEM at that point. There is more consolidation coming in the industry as we close out the decade.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Footballfan said:

What do you expect from a communist governor that never worked an honest day in his life and knows nothing about economics.  That being said, he is a politician and politicians can be induced to change the laws.  The proposed rule, the way it is written, only hurts the dealers since ICE cars can be bought in another state and brought to California.  

 

BTW, 13 years is an eternity in the auto world and I am sure this issue will be tossed around in the courts when it is realized that the EV market will not be nearly

as robust as some think it will be.

 

You can ignore the data but it says the EV market is more robust than car companies anticipated. CA is already on track to get to 20% EV in 2023. No one can make enough EVs to meet demand. 

 

Like I said, the proposed rule is actually behind the market. Which is why car companies are not making a fuss over this. If passed, it will kick in 2016 with 35% EV requirement. Assuming current adoption curve, EV will account for about 40% of the market in CA by 2026. In another word, the legislation is likely behind the market. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...