Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

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. 

 

 

There is the catch.  The car companies can't make enough.  The first half of 2022 saw a record 400k bev sales in the US.  Last year, there were 17 million new light vehicle sales in the US.  I don't think 100% bev sales in 203x will be close 17 million sales per year.  The prices are too high and too much investment is needed in factories and new workers at the OEM and supplier levels to meet this 17 million sales, especially when you factor in growth overseas too.  Welcome to 1900 where cars are only for the rich.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Havelock said:

There is the catch.  The car companies can't make enough.  The first half of 2022 saw a record 400k bev sales in the US.  Last year, there were 17 million new light vehicle sales in the US.  I don't think 100% bev sales in 203x will be close 17 million sales per year.  The prices are too high and too much investment is needed in factories and new workers at the OEM and supplier levels to meet this 17 million sales, especially when you factor in growth overseas too.  Welcome to 1900 where cars are only for the rich.

 

But your also dealing with a major supply chain disruption from COVID and adaptation of new tech at the same time. Its like smartphones vs regular cell phones...smartphones replaced dumbphones in 10 years. 

 

I don't think it as big of an issue as you think it is-yes there will be growing pains in over the next 5-7 years but by 2035, things should be sorted that "affordable" BEVs on the market, keeping in mind that people are paying 10-20K over for a entry level product like the Maverick....

 

Average cost of a new car is $46K-which happens to be the starting price of the 2022 MME...well not next years model.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Very much so.  Even without any legislation, the passenger car market will very likely be all electric long before 2035. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington and Massachusetts to follow California's gas car sales ban

States can opt into California Air Resources Board policies

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/washington-massachusetts-californias-gas-car-sales-ban

 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) that governs motor vehicle emissions for the state adopted new rules that will require 35% of the new cars sold in the state are electric or plug-in hybrids by 2026, with that percentage rising to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035.

 

California has a waiver from the federal government to set its own air quality rules, and other states are allowed to opt into its regulations, which are typically more stringent than the national standards.

 

Washington and Massachusetts have laws on the books that were written to trigger gas car sales bans if CARB passed one.

 

FoxBusiness.com_CARB_2022-08-26.jpg

Edited by ice-capades
Additional Content
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to leave these graphs here. To me the case is pretty open and shut. The CARB mandate reflects market reality from now until 2026 when the target is 35% - this is going to happen whether you like it or not. EV sales in California was 14% in Q1 2022 and 16% in Q2 2022. And it is increasing every quarter as new EV are added to the market and on track to surpass 20% in 2023. So the issue is not demand. We can put to bed that nonsensical notion that somehow Govt is forcing people to buy EV... this mandate is largely reactionary to what is already happening in the market - EV are hugely popular with buyers in general almost across all segments. Lots of available data out there to show majority of new car buyers is considering EV for the next vehicle. The portion that will only consider ICE is declining rapidly and will probably approach single digit soon. 

 

The other key thing to note is CARB's mandate allows up to 20% of sales in all years to be PHEV. CARB's definition of PHEV is 50 miles ZEV range. This means these PHEV will almost never use ICE during daily commute but is functional when needed. e.g. think about towing your boat with your PHEV pickup. 

 

Will there be supply to meet demand? Ok, that's somewhere debatable. All the major car companies are expanding battery production capacities so I think we will see the supply side solve itself soon. For sure in the case of Ford, based on the long waiting list, we know that Ford can probably double or triple the EV sales overnight if it had actual EVs for sale. 

 

 

plugin-car-sales-california-q1-2022-source-cncda.jpg

6a00d8341c4fbe53ef02942fa86dc2200c-800wi.png

new_vehicle_sales_drupal.png

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

1 hour ago, akirby said:

The only caveat I would add is that most folks considering an EV are probably only considering 1 for the household, not all of their vehicles.  And lower price buyers in the $25k range will have to wait quite a bit longer.

 

Absolutely. The average American household has 1.9 vehicles but most people only buy 1 vehicle at a time. But I personally know many 2 EV households as it's not that unusual in Los Angeles. 

 

The $25k buyers will most likely be the last ones to switch to EV. That's not a surprise. It takes down for technology to filter down to lower price points. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 1:24 PM, bzcat said:

Like I said, the proposed rule is actually behind the market. Which is why car companies are not making a fuss over this. 

 

That was probably a calculated move on CARB's part for the reason you mention - automakers and others aren't going to file lawsuits over the Advanced Clean Cars II Rule as it's currently written.

 

This also makes it more likely that federal government agencies associated with vehicle emissions regulations (EPA and NHTSA) will adopt the CARB standard, harmonizing standards for ZEV mandates across all 50 U.S. states.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/24/2022 at 8:17 PM, bzcat said:

The proposed law seems pretty reactive to market reality rather than a lean forward legislation.

 

CARB Chair Liane Randolph explained why the agency went with the "reactive" choice of year 2035 to ban new ICE vehicle sales in California rather than the "lean forward" preference of year 2030 as many Californians wanted. Randolph says 2035 is the "sweet spot". Nonetheless, many if not most automakers will probably have a 100% electric vehicle lineup by 2030 at the rate things are going. California regulator sees 2035 EV mandate as 'sweet spot' | Reuters

 

"We had to be cognizant of where the automakers are, where the supply chains are, where the production facilities are," California Air Resources Board (CARB) chair Liane Randolph told Reuters in an interview during Climate Week, a summit that takes place alongside the U.N. General Assembly.

"I feel like we landed at the sweet spot."

California was not as aggressive as some environmental groups wanted, or Tesla (TSLA.O), which urged ending new gas-powered vehicles by 2030.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

CARB Chair Liane Randolph explained why the agency went with the "reactive" choice of year 2035 to ban new ICE vehicle sales in California rather than the "lean forward" preference of year 2030 as many Californians wanted. Randolph says 2035 is the "sweet spot". Nonetheless, many if not most automakers will probably have a 100% electric vehicle lineup by 2030 at the rate things are going. California regulator sees 2035 EV mandate as 'sweet spot' | Reuters

 

 

 

 

 

I’m highly skeptical all automakers will have a %100 EV lineup by 2030.  I have seen little to no planning for EV infrastructure in my area. That stuff doesn’t happen overnight, and eight years is not really that long of period of time.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tbone said:

I’m highly skeptical all automakers will have a %100 EV lineup by 2030.  I have seen little to no planning for EV infrastructure in my area. That stuff doesn’t happen overnight, and eight years is not really that long of period of time.  


The thing to keep in mind is new car sales (not 100% BEVS only in 2030 on the road) and people’s expectations of how to “fuel up” their BEVs needs to be changed. 

 

70% of the market can support at home charging and even local gas stations/convenience stores in my area are adding Tesla superchargers. 
 

So given the average commute to and from work, you could possibly spend maybe 20-30 minutes having to charge your car (other then home if that isn’t an option) every three to four days. 
 

Not sure where you live, but we have a decent penetration of Tesla’s in my area that we have over a half dozen of them within a 20-30 mile drive. We also have three Electrify America places within that same zone. The info is out there about future build outs in different areas if you want to look into it.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tbone said:

I’m highly skeptical all automakers will have a %100 EV lineup by 2030.  I have seen little to no planning for EV infrastructure in my area. That stuff doesn’t happen overnight, and eight years is not really that long of period of time.  

There is a zero percent chance that new pickups will be all electric by 2030. That alone shoots a huge hole in the “all-electric fleet by 2030” idea. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

There is a zero percent chance that new pickups will be all electric by 2030. That alone shoots a huge hole in the “all-electric fleet by 2030” idea. 

 

CARB's ACF ZEV Phase-In Schedule for Truck Milestone Group 1, which includes Class 1-3 pickup trucks, targets 50% ZEV by 2031 and 100% by 2035. However, for pickup trucks the extremely rapid customer adoption for F-150 Lightning and Rivian R1T nowadays combined with similar predicted uptake for future BEV pickups from Tesla, Ford, GM, Stellantis, and others suggest that "all-electric fleet of new vehicles by 2030" is quite achievable. As bzcat said, the CARB milestones are behind actual market trends. 

 

acf-timeline-__-720x516-s.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

CARB's ACF ZEV Phase-In Schedule for Truck Milestone Group 1, which includes Class 1-3 pickup trucks, targets 50% ZEV by 2031 and 100% by 2035. However, for pickup trucks the extremely rapid customer adoption for F-150 Lightning and Rivian R1T nowadays combined with similar predicted uptake for future BEV pickups from Tesla, Ford, GM, Stellantis, and others suggest that "all-electric fleet of new vehicles by 2030" is quite achievable. As bzcat said, the CARB milestones are behind actual market trends. 

 

acf-timeline-__-720x516-s.jpg

Moving to BEV for Class 1 (Ranger, Canyorado, Tacoma, etc..) and even 2A (F-150, Sierrado 1500, Ram 1500, Tundra) should be doable.  Moving to BEV for commercial delivery vehicles / box trucks and vans should also be doable (lower range requirements, fixed duty cycle).  Moving to BEV for class 2B, Class 3, and higher trucks that do a lot of towing, high load demand work, or run PTO equipment will be more problematic because the energy density is not there for batteries yet and may not be for another 10 years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Flying68 said:

Moving to BEV for Class 1 (Ranger, Canyorado, Tacoma, etc..) and even 2A (F-150, Sierrado 1500, Ram 1500, Tundra) should be doable.  Moving to BEV for commercial delivery vehicles / box trucks and vans should also be doable (lower range requirements, fixed duty cycle).  Moving to BEV for class 2B, Class 3, and higher trucks that do a lot of towing, high load demand work, or run PTO equipment will be more problematic because the energy density is not there for batteries yet and may not be for another 10 years.

 

But not all Class 3 or above trucks do long distances or tow, which is the whole point... The majority of medium duty trucks do not ever go very far. UPS's dispatch target is 80 miles a day for urban and suburban delivery vans. Meaning they should never venture more than 40 miles from their depot on average. Some do of course... but on average, that's what their dispatch center try to hit when they map out the delivery routes.

 

The long distance truck will continue to have ICE (Tesla's semi is going to end up doing mostly short haul - I have no doubt). If you want to see what meduim duty truck market will look like in 10 years, just look at the municipal bus market is like today. Virtually all the new orders are for electric - yes, many orders are subsidized but so was the diesel and CNG buses before. The operating cost of EV on fixed route or short haul is so low compare to diesel or CNG once you get past the initial setup cost, it is kind of a no brainer. And once the OEM starts selling from the groud up EV trucks (instead of conversions), the market is going to swing overnight to electric. 

 

There will always be a subset of medium duty that will require more distance or more capability and PHEV will solve some of the need. CARB's rules allow PHEV since most of them will behave like EV during in-town or urban operation where people live.

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

15 hours ago, tbone said:

I’m highly skeptical all automakers will have a %100 EV lineup by 2030.  I have seen little to no planning for EV infrastructure in my area. That stuff doesn’t happen overnight, and eight years is not really that long of period of time.  

 

I'm pretty sure even in rural Arkansas or backwood of West Virginia, there is electricity. 

 

EV "infrastructure" is not what you think it is. Most EV are plugged in overnight. You have to stop thinking in the ICE mindset, that's not how EV work. Majority of EV owners visits public charger 2 or 3 times a year. It's not that essential.

Edited by bzcat
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Flying68 said:

Moving to BEV for Class 1 (Ranger, Canyorado, Tacoma, etc..) and even 2A (F-150, Sierrado 1500, Ram 1500, Tundra) should be doable.  Moving to BEV for commercial delivery vehicles / box trucks and vans should also be doable (lower range requirements, fixed duty cycle).  Moving to BEV for class 2B, Class 3, and higher trucks that do a lot of towing, high load demand work, or run PTO equipment will be more problematic because the energy density is not there for batteries yet and may not be for another 10 years.

 

19 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

But not all Class 3 or above trucks do long distances or tow, which is the whole point... The majority of medium duty trucks do not ever go very far. UPS's dispatch target is 80 miles a day for urban and suburban delivery vans. Meaning they should never venture more than 40 miles from their depot on average. Some do of course... but on average, that's what their dispatch center try to hit when they map out the delivery routes.

 

The long distance truck will continue to have ICE (Tesla's semi is going to end up doing mostly short haul - I have no doubt). If you want to see what meduim duty truck market will look like in 10 years, just look at the municipal bus market is like today. Virtually all the new orders are for electric - yes, many orders are subsidized but so was the diesel and CNG buses before. The operating cost of EV on fixed route or short haul is so low compare to diesel or CNG once you get past the initial setup cost, it is kind of a no brainer. And once the OEM starts selling from the groud up EV trucks (instead of conversions), the market is going to swing overnight to electric. 

 

There will always be a subset of medium duty that will require more distance or more capability and PHEV will solve some of the need. CARB's rules allow PHEV since most of them will behave like EV during in-town or urban operation where people live.

 

Um, isn't that what I said???  Fixed duty cycle vehicles with known energy demands should be easily doable now (even accounting for a 30 to 40% range loss in cold temperatures).  It will be more problematic for vehicles that don't have fixed duty cycles, or those whose duty cycles exceed what current battery technology can reasonably deliver.  Boom trucks, tree trimmers, power line trucks, where their isn't a fixed route and where there is often towed equipment or constant operation of external equipment are where you will run into issues.

 

Class 2B, and class 3 to 5 vehicles that are intended to tow long distance (rv's, hot shots, farm and ranch) will be much further out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

I'm pretty sure even in rural Arkansas or backwood of West Virginia, there is electricity. 

 

EV "infrastructure" is not what you think it is. Most EV are plugged in overnight. You have to stop thinking in the ICE mindset, that's not how EV work. Majority of EV owners visits public charger 2 or 3 times a year. It's not that essential.

I don’t live in either of those places and yes we do have electricity. We do have many multiunit buildings and street parking where there is no EV charging capability in place. Who will be responsible for putting chargers in those locations, when government policy is what is driving the transition to electric vehicles? Will the government also subsidize installation of charging capabilities in those kind of scenarios? Will developers be required to include chargers in new developments? Is the tax payer paying for chargers on public streets?  
 

Don’t miscontue my skepticism for being anti EV, but I am a realist.  I haven’t seen any action to address these kinds of questions in my area, and I’m not a fan of the tax payer footing the bill for these things either, but someone going to have to pay. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tbone said:

I don’t live in either of those places and yes we do have electricity. We do have many multiunit buildings and street parking where there is no EV charging capability in place. Who will be responsible for putting chargers in those locations, when government policy is what is driving the transition to electric vehicles? Will the government also subsidize installation of charging capabilities in those kind of scenarios? Will developers be required to include chargers in new developments? Is the tax payer paying for chargers on public streets?  
 

Don’t miscontue my skepticism for being anti EV, but I am a realist.  I haven’t seen any action to address these kinds of questions in my area, and I’m not a fan of the tax payer footing the bill for these things either, but someone going to have to pay. 


I see new developments/construction including chargers, but the real question is existing structures and how to upgrade/retrofit those.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tbone said:

I don’t live in either of those places and yes we do have electricity. We do have many multiunit buildings and street parking where there is no EV charging capability in place. Who will be responsible for putting chargers in those locations, when government policy is what is driving the transition to electric vehicles? Will the government also subsidize installation of charging capabilities in those kind of scenarios? Will developers be required to include chargers in new developments? Is the tax payer paying for chargers on public streets?  
 

Don’t miscontue my skepticism for being anti EV, but I am a realist.  I haven’t seen any action to address these kinds of questions in my area, and I’m not a fan of the tax payer footing the bill for these things either, but someone going to have to pay. 

 

Many multi-unit buidlings are being retrofitted with charges where I live so market forces will drive that. Smart landlords know they won't be able to charge market rent soon if they don't provide charger. Just like units with air conditioner or in-unit laundry can charge more rent - so would units with access to chargers. It seems strange to me that you don't want the tax payer to pay for charger yet you have no faith in the free market and the invisbile hand. Pick a side ?

 

Zoning regulation is a local matter. You don't see any action where you live because your local Govt is failing at planning for the future. Here is California, any new builds require 220V outlets in parking areas and rooft top solar; and utilities have to offer net-metering. Yes, it costs money, but so does indoor plummbing and insulation which are code requirements in every state, county, city and town. You have to remove the politicized view on EV to see this is just the function of Govt - to set necessary regulations and minimium standards.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
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...