Jump to content

The Ford Order Tracking System Is No Longer Available.  THANKS Cyberdman For Making Available All Of These Past Years.  More Here.

silvrsvt

New Jersey to Require 35% Electric Vehicle Sales by 2026

Recommended Posts

https://newjerseymonitor.com/briefs/governor-murphy-announces-rule-requiring-electric-car-sales/
 



Though the rule has not been released, it’s expected to call for 35% of manufacturers’ vehicle sales to be electric vehicles beginning in 2026, increasing by between 6% and 8% each year until 2035.

 

Murphy said the rule would not impose any requirements on consumers or car dealerships, but the rule would necessarily decrease the supply of fuel-consuming cars. The rule would only apply to light-duty vehicles, or vehicles weighing roughly less than 10,000 pounds.


 

So not sure how that is going work-unless they are counting PHEVs as electric vehicles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this idiot governor never heard of the commerce clause.  Another dope mandating things they know nothing about.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the New Jersey Monitor article.

The rule, which Murphy said he expects will be published on Aug. 21, mirrors regulations adopted in California and would require electric vehicles to account for a growing share of car manufacturers’ sales, reaching 100% in 2035.

 

Details for California's requirements, which New Jersey's are based upon, are here. View Document - California Code of Regulations (westlaw.com)

 

(c) Annual ZEV Requirements
(1) Requirements for Intermediate and Large Volume Manufacturers.
(A) Calculating Annual ZEV Requirement. For a given model year's production of passenger cars and light duty trucks, manufacturers, other than small volume manufacturers, must comply with an Annual ZEV Requirement calculated according to this subsection (c). The Annual ZEV Requirement shall be calculated as:
Annual ZEV Requirement = Annual Percentage Requirement x Production Volume
Where:
Annual ZEV Requirement = manufacturer's ZEV production required, expressed in whole vehicles, for the applicable model year
Annual Percentage Requirement = the annual percentage requirement per subsection (c)(1)(B) for the applicable model year
Production Volume = manufacturer's production volume of passenger cars and light-duty trucks calculated in accordance with subsection (c)(1)(C), expressed in whole vehicles, for the applicable model year.
(B) Percentage Requirement. The table below identifies the percentage requirement to be used in the calculation of the Annual ZEV Requirement for the applicable model year.
 
Model Year
Percentage Requirement
 
2026
35%
 
2027
43%
 
2028
51%
 
2029
59%
 
2030
68%
 
2031
76%
 
2032
82%
 
2033
88%
 
2034
94%
 
2035 and subsequent
100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is in the Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum, here is Ford's official statement on the CARB Advanced Clean Cars II standards, which New Jersey's administrative rule is based on. 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." Bob Holycross, Chief Sustainability Officer at Ford

Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

Since this is in the Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum, here is Ford's official statement on the CARB Advanced Clean Cars II standards, which New Jersey's administrative rule is based on. Ford Statement on Proposed Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations in California | Ford Media Center

 

 

 


So far it doesn’t appear that Ford’s customer base is onboard  with Bob yet. 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I was there, NJ did not allow self-service refueling.  If that is still the case, I wonder if they require charging stations to be manned?

 

HRG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Since this is in the Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum, here is Ford's official statement on the CARB Advanced Clean Cars II standards, which New Jersey's administrative rule is based on. Ford Statement on Proposed Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations in California | Ford Media Center


That was from August 24, 2022, well over a year ago.  Much has changed since in both market conditions and Ford’s plans.  I wonder if Ford would release that statement today, or if they would revise considerably?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

Last time I was there, NJ did not allow self-service refueling.  If that is still the case, I wonder if they require charging stations to be manned?

 

Still can't fill your self up. Charging stations don't fall under the same law for whatever reason. 

 

The other thing is that there is no way of forcing dealerships or buyers to meet this requirement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

I wonder if Ford would release that statement today, or if they would revise considerably?

 

Ford hasn't changed its stance on CARB Advanced Clean Cars II yet. If any revisions are in order, it would be for Ford to exceed the minimum % ZEV requirements. For example, CARB only requires 68% by 2030. If Ford is going to be a leader among legacy automakers in the transition to an all electric future, it should set an internal corporate goal of 80% ZEV or higher by 2030.

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Charging stations don't fall under the same law for whatever reason. 

 

The reason can be found in the New Jersey Statutes Annotated and New Jersey Administrative Code. Public Safety and Occupational Safety and Health | Retail Gasoline Dispensing Safety Act and Regulations (nj.gov)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

Last time I was there, NJ did not allow self-service refueling.  If that is still the case, I wonder if they require charging stations to be manned?

 

HRG

Wow...What an opportunity for .."good paying union jobs"

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

Last time I was there, NJ did not allow self-service refueling.  If that is still the case, I wonder if they require charging stations to be manned?

 

HRG

 

Per CNN.com (08/09/2023) New Jersey is the last state left where it's illegal to pump your own gas. https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/business/new-jersey-gas-station-self-service-ban/index.html

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Wow...What an opportunity for .."good paying union jobs"

 

LOL they've never been a union job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Rick73 said:


That was from August 24, 2022, well over a year ago.  Much has changed since in both market conditions and Ford’s plans.  I wonder if Ford would release that statement today, or if they would revise considerably?

 

Seems to me Farley is so far out on the electrification limb he has a problem now with getting off.  The reality is between the grid, world scene on rare earth supply, and a large percentage of the population not on board, his all out commitment was popular two years ago, with the greens, Joe Six Pack has other ideas.

As I've said..in due time, but not at the forced and subsidized pace we are on....while China continues building coal fired generators.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

LOL they've never been a union job.

My point exactly...Joe can jump on this...."Energy Transfer Tech"..toss up between Teamsters and UAW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

 

Seems to me Farley is so far out on the electrification limb he has a problem now with getting off.  The reality is between the grid, world scene on rare earth supply, and a large percentage of the population not on board, his all out commitment was popular two years ago, with the greens, Joe Six Pack has other ideas.

As I've said..in due time, but not at the forced and subsidized pace we are on....while China continues building coal fired generators.

 

Short term (2 years) we are getting an additional EVs from Oakville and BOC won't be fully spun up for another 2-3 years. All with products that are additions to the Ford lineup, with the Edge going away as the only ICE loss.

 

There isn't a wholesale replacement of any ICE products till the Escape/Corsair get replaced in maybe 4 years and if anything, depending on the market, they'll slide to the right if they need to. 

 

Short term, the next 24 months are going to most likely be ugly for all car sales due to inflation, interest rates and people generally souring on how the economy is working out for them. 

 

If anything Ford is slacking on offering P/HEV options on all of its products by 2026 or so...its all low lying fruit outside of getting cells for the battery packs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Seems to me Farley is so far out on the electrification limb he has a problem now with getting off. 


I think he and other CEOs have been handed a ladder by slowing demand.  A year or two ago when they couldn’t build BEVs fast enough, it would have been suicide to shift position if profitability was their only excuse.  Today, however, CEOs can blame buyer resistance, supply chain, or whatever and save face with investors.  Once off the limb the process will reset and continue, but with greater deliberation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me see if I am understanding this correctly.

 

The State Government is implementing a rule that 35% of light-duty auto sales must be BEV by 2026. However, this requirement will NOT impose any requirements on consumers or dealerships. If the rule is enforced then who exactly will be purchasing and selling these vehicles? Only way it can work, if these requirements are enforced, is the manufacturers will need to reduce ICE production and significantly increase building BEV's that many consumers, at present, don't want. Therefore, with reduced availability of the vehicles that are selling, prices and ADM's will increase significantly - supply & demand economics and BEV's, which sit on dealer lots, will become relatively cheaper.

 

Spin doctors may like the voters to believe that there is no direct requirements impacting their options of purchasing a vehicle, but if these requirements are enforced, the indirect requirements will certainly have an impact, especially on those wanting an ICE vehicle.

 

Only a Government could dream up this stuff, as when the complaints start, they will blame the manufacturers and dealers.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:

Let me see if I am understanding this correctly.

 

The State Government is implementing a rule that 35% of light-duty auto sales must be BEV by 2026. However, this requirement will NOT impose any requirements on consumers or dealerships. If the rule is enforced then who exactly will be purchasing and selling these vehicles? Only way it can work, if these requirements are enforced, is the manufacturers will need to reduce ICE production and significantly increase building BEV's that many consumers, at present, don't want. Therefore, with reduced availability of the vehicles that are selling, prices and ADM's will increase significantly - supply & demand economics and BEV's, which sit on dealer lots, will become relatively cheaper.

 

Spin doctors may like the voters to believe that there is no direct requirements impacting their options of purchasing a vehicle, but if these requirements are enforced, the indirect requirements will certainly have an impact, especially on those wanting an ICE vehicle.

 

Only a Government could dream up this stuff, as when the complaints start, they will blame the manufacturers and dealers.

 

 

This is a state that doesn't let citizens pump their own gas - a task that millions of people in neighboring Pennsylvania manage to handle each year without setting themselves on fire or blowing up the filling station. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rangers09 said:

The State Government is implementing a rule that 35% of light-duty auto sales must be BEV by 2026. However, this requirement will NOT impose any requirements on consumers or dealerships.

 

That's correct Rangers09. Those provisions come from CARB Advanced Clean Cars II Rule, which originated in California but has either been adopted or is being considered by these additional U.S. states. States that have Adopted California's Vehicle Regulations | California Air Resources Board

  • Colorado
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • New Jersey (administrative rule issued; first applicable model year not finalized)
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington

Advanced Clean Cars II is deliberately conservative in its targets. That's probably a calculated move on CARB's part - automakers and others are less likely 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 standards in the future, harmonizing standards for ZEV mandates across all 50 U.S. states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rick73 said:


That was from August 24, 2022, well over a year ago.  Much has changed since in both market conditions and Ford’s plans.  I wonder if Ford would release that statement today, or if they would revise considerably?

Sounds like Farley put his foot in his mouth on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

That's correct Rangers09. Those provisions come from CARB Advanced Clean Cars II Rule, which originated in California but has either been adopted or is being considered by these additional U.S. states. States that have Adopted California's Vehicle Regulations | California Air Resources Board

  • Colorado
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • New Jersey (administrative rule issued; first applicable model year not finalized)
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington

Advanced Clean Cars II is deliberately conservative in its targets. That's probably a calculated move on CARB's part - automakers and others are less likely 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 standards in the future, harmonizing standards for ZEV mandates across all 50 U.S. states.

It's most likely this will be dragged out in the courts for decades to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

Spin doctors may like the voters to believe that there is no direct requirements impacting their options of purchasing a vehicle, but if these requirements are enforced, the indirect requirements will certainly have an impact, especially on those wanting an ICE vehicle.


Politicians shift payment responsibility all the time, so that would be nothing new.  Is it really that different than tax payers funding $7,500 incentives?  Statistically, tax payers are driving more ICE than BEV, so pretty much the same thing of “indirect” funding.  Having stated the obvious, I think most taxpayers are wise enough to know that any change that adds cost has to be funded by someone, though they hope it’s not them. Politicians just want everyone to think others are paying the bills in order to limit resistance.  😆 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

https://newjerseymonitor.com/briefs/governor-murphy-announces-rule-requiring-electric-car-sales/
 

 

 


 

So not sure how that is going work-unless they are counting PHEVs as electric vehicles. 

 

"the rule would not impose any requirements on consumers or car dealerships"

 

Sure....I guess........it may not directly impose requirements on them, it just eliminates the options they want from even being options....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Footballfan said:

It's most likely this will be dragged out in the courts for decades to come.

Why do you say that? CARB has been around longer then federal regulations on car emissions. I don't think there is much from a legal standpoint that can be done because it would have been attempted in the past 40-50 years already. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×