US Senate to vote this week on bill to bar California 2035 EV plan

[Sherminator98]

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-senate-vote-this-week-bill-bar-california-2035-ev-plan-2025-05-20/

 

might be behind a paywall though. 

[akirby]

If it wasn’t such a huge blow to the mfrs bottom line I’d love to see Ford, GM and Toyota just pull out of California and similar states.

[Biker16]

This won't change anything.

With its climate progress under assault, California takes up a multipronged defense - Los Angeles Times

[Sherminator98]

10 hours ago, Biker16 said:

This won't change anything.

With its climate progress under assault, California takes up a multipronged defense - Los Angeles Times

 

I'm curious as to how this will all shake out-given how the constitution is written, I don't think the founding fathers would want a state to have so much power over the other that it dictates policy to others. But that legal battle that would be needed to be sorted by the Supreme Court. 

[Biker16]

5 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I'm curious as to how this will all shake out-given how the constitution is written, I don't think the founding fathers would want a state to have so much power over the other that it dictates policy to others. But that legal battle that would be needed to be sorted by the Supreme Court. 

 I don't think the founders could have imagined a world with large self-propelled wheeled boxes or a State with 40 million people. You can't have it both ways; you can't expound the virtue of States' rights while advocating a Federal takeover of the vehicle certifications of 19 states. #RegulatoryCapture

As the article mentions, there are many ways to meet the GHG targets and phase out ICE vehicles outside of CARB.

California can achieve a similar outcome without the waivers, Rechtschaffen said, such as raising registration fees or imposing taxes on heavily polluting vehicles — a tactic deployed in Norway that resulted in nearly all new cars purchased there last year being electric vehicles.

What's next? Will the federal government determine the amount of the vehicle registration fee and sales taxes for every state? Some states are already taxing EVs higher than ICE vehicles and restricting the development of Green Energy projects, including Solar and wind.  

In closing, if Automakers can't meet the needs of California, I am sure someone else will.

Stellantis accuses California of 'underground regulatory scheme'

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

 I don't think the founders could have imagined a world with large self-propelled wheeled boxes or a State with 40 million people. You can't have it both ways; you can't expound the virtue of States' rights while advocating a Federal takeover of the vehicle certifications of 19 states. #RegulatoryCapture

 

That is the issue-CARB predates the EPA, so they get a pass in the eyes of the law, but at the same time, a single state shouldn't be able to dictate what the other 31 states want or don't want to do when it comes to cars. 

 

I'm not sure what the regulatory requirements where for the other states to adapt CARB are either-and there are states are are backing off EV mandates. 

 

California can "screw over" their own population with more expensive vehicles too, just to meet their requirements, which might not be popular with their residents too. 

[akirby]

I look at it this way - you have the right to swing your arms but not if they hit my face in the process.  If California wants more stringent restrictions that’s perfectly fine - until it impacts other states and entire industries and mfrs.

 

OTOH I say screw them and let them reap what they sow.

[Biker16]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

That is the issue-CARB predates the EPA, so they get a pass in the eyes of the law, but at the same time, a single state shouldn't be able to dictate what the other 31 states want or don't want to do when it comes to cars. 

 

I'm not sure what the regulatory requirements where for the other states to adapt CARB are either-and there are states are are backing off EV mandates. 

 

California can "screw over" their own population with more expensive vehicles too, just to meet their requirements, which might not be popular with their residents too. 

I fail to see how what is allowed to be sold in California impacts me in Ohio.  I mean California emission has been a thing for 40 years. 

It just feels like government overreach. 
 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Biker16 said:

I fail to see how what is allowed to be sold in California impacts me in Ohio.  I mean California emission has been a thing for 40 years. 

It just feels like government overreach. 
 

Because companies can’t afford to do one thing for California and something completely different everywhere else.  In this case banning ICE sales impacts overall volume making it more expensive in Ohio and in some cases forcing cancellation of certain models.

 

It wasn’t an issue in the past because it was relatively easy to just make everything 50 state compliant.  Thats not possible here.

[sullynd]

I love when states rights folks are against states rights.

[Biker16]

39 minutes ago, akirby said:

Because companies can’t afford to do one thing for California and something completely different everywhere else.  In this case banning ICE sales impacts overall volume making it more expensive in Ohio and in some cases forcing cancellation of certain models.

 

It wasn’t an issue in the past because it was relatively easy to just make everything 50 state compliant.  Thats not possible here.

 
Why do we care so much about companies complying with legal rules and regulations while caring so little about legal precedents that have stood for over 40 years?

The idea of a 50-state compliant car hasn't been a thing for a long time. 

caranddriver.com/news/a15145872/2007-ford-focus-pzev-car-news/

-SIgning off-

[Sherminator98]

41 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

 
Why do we care so much about companies complying with legal rules and regulations while caring so little about legal precedents that have stood for over 40 years?

The idea of a 50-state compliant car hasn't been a thing for a long time. 

caranddriver.com/news/a15145872/2007-ford-focus-pzev-car-news/

-SIgning off-

 

Missing the point completely again-

 

California emissions standards required different or additional equipment to cars that raised prices maybe 5-10%

 

Requiring what is basically a completely different car in tech and how it is built (for it be the most efficient) vs ICE product, while costing maybe 20-30% more is completely different ball game. 

[akirby]

Until now it was relatively easy and inexpensive to either build everything 50 state legal or make modifications for California emissions.

 

California has never banned the sale of ICE vehicles so there is no legal precedent.  If it only affected California then I wouldn’t care but this would have a huge ripple effect on the entire country.

[Biker16]

19 hours ago, akirby said:

Until now it was relatively easy and inexpensive to either build everything 50 state legal or make modifications for California emissions.

 

California has never banned the sale of ICE vehicles so there is no legal precedent.  If it only affected California then I wouldn’t care but this would have a huge ripple effect on the entire country.

 

Automakers DGAF about keeping cars affordable.

 

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/19/cars-prices-inflation-suvs

 

EVs were trending towards price parity as early as next year. Inevitably actions like this will delay but not stop EV price parity from happening within the next 3-5 years.

 

In the end this hurts the US automakers, making them less competitive, and profitable in the future. As their competition embraces low cost electric vehicles, and they cling on to increasingly expensive ICE platforms.

[Sherminator98]

4 hours ago, Biker16 said:

 

Automakers DGAF about keeping cars affordable.

 

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/19/cars-prices-inflation-suvs

 

EVs were trending towards price parity as early as next year. Inevitably actions like this will delay but not stop EV price parity from happening within the next 3-5 years.

 

In the end this hurts the US automakers, making them less competitive, and profitable in the future. As their competition embraces low cost electric vehicles, and they cling on to increasingly expensive ICE platforms.

 

There is already push back on pricing of vehicles-just take a look at the Charger RT EV-its going away because there is no demand for it. Its getting replaced by ICE products in a few months.

Its going to take another 5-10 years before EVs can hit price parity and offer similar range in most conditions as an ICE/HEV product can. Keep in mind that older people don't like change and I'd say most people 50+ aren't really interested in EVs because they don't want to deal with charging and other things that come along with EV ownership.

Also US automakers are international, so that is just an excuse from you. CN EVs might be impressive but I have my own concerns about long term ownership with them-they might be cheap just to force into buying a new car every 5 years or so. 

[Biker16]

2 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

There is already push back on pricing of vehicles-just take a look at the Charger RT EV-its going away because there is no demand for it. Its getting replaced by ICE products in a few months.

Its going to take another 5-10 years before EVs can hit price parity and offer similar range in most conditions as an ICE/HEV product can. Keep in mind that older people don't like change and I'd say most people 50+ aren't really interested in EVs because they don't want to deal with charging and other things that come along with EV ownership.

Also US automakers are international, so that is just an excuse from you. CN EVs might be impressive but I have my own concerns about long term ownership with them-they might be cheap just to force into buying a new car every 5 years or so. 

 Maybe.

My prediction is that the Courts will ultimately side with California for many Reasons and that California's right to control its own Air quality will last longer than this administration. After all this move is 100% political, and politics change.

Senate revokes California emissions rules in blow to EVs : NPR
 

Quote

But there are significant questions about whether this use of the CRA is legal; the Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian, who serve as referees within the federal government, both determined that it is not.

 

[akirby]

It’s not political, it’s pro consumer.

[twintornados]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

It’s not political, it’s pro consumer.

 

But, it is being made political

[akirby]

1 hour ago, twintornados said:

 

But, it is being made political

Anything can be made political these days.  Doesn’t mean it originated that way.

[blazerdude20]

On 5/21/2025 at 5:03 PM, akirby said:

Because companies can’t afford to do one thing for California and something completely different everywhere else.  In this case banning ICE sales impacts overall volume making it more expensive in Ohio and in some cases forcing cancellation of certain models.

 

It wasn’t an issue in the past because it was relatively easy to just make everything 50 state compliant.  Thats not possible here.

By the same token… manufacturers can’t afford to design vehicles only for the US while Europe, China, and other Asian countries push forward with EV’s. Eventually the US will either get stagnant design/features or less options overall. 

[rmc523]

On 5/26/2025 at 12:07 AM, blazerdude20 said:

By the same token… manufacturers can’t afford to design vehicles only for the US while Europe, China, and other Asian countries push forward with EV’s. Eventually the US will either get stagnant design/features or less options overall. 

 

Meanwhile....

 

Toyota and Lexus Shift to Shared EV-Hybrid Platforms

 

Seems like more manufacturers are going to follow the different powertrains in the same wrapper setup, which would avoid this.

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

Meanwhile....

 

Toyota and Lexus Shift to Shared EV-Hybrid Platforms

 

Seems like more manufacturers are going to follow the different powertrains in the same wrapper setup, which would avoid this.

 

There is a whole bunch of caveats to going this route.  

Using a platform for both EV and hybrid is going to impact how good that EV is going to actually be because you'll run into packaging limitations or other things that will impact range of an EV on a ICE platform. 

 

Personally I think that best course of action is keeping C and smaller platform cars as EVs and larger C sized products or above Hybrids or EREVs. The smaller products have advantages of being lighter and not needing a large battery to go longer distances. But that also introduces other issues with profitability since you can't charge as much, but hopefully these newer battery tech they are coming out with helps with price and power density. 

 

Not to mention I'm slightly tired of EVs being overly "thick" looking (high beltlines) due to battery pack location. I wonder if a taller/wider"transmission" tunnel would be able to help with cars in the looks dept when it comes to that. 

[rmc523]

14 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

There is a whole bunch of caveats to going this route.  

Using a platform for both EV and hybrid is going to impact how good that EV is going to actually be because you'll run into packaging limitations or other things that will impact range of an EV on a ICE platform. 

 

Personally I think that best course of action is keeping C and smaller platform cars as EVs and larger C sized products or above Hybrids or EREVs. The smaller products have advantages of being lighter and not needing a large battery to go longer distances. But that also introduces other issues with profitability since you can't charge as much, but hopefully these newer battery tech they are coming out with helps with price and power density. 

 

Not to mention I'm slightly tired of EVs being overly "thick" looking (high beltlines) due to battery pack location. I wonder if a taller/wider"transmission" tunnel would be able to help with cars in the looks dept when it comes to that. 

 

Sure, just pointing out that there IS a way to keep a 'global' design that could also appeal to any market-specific propulsion.

[Rick73]

20 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Sure, just pointing out that there IS a way to keep a 'global' design that could also appeal to any market-specific propulsion.

Agree, and it’s important to consider that these new flexible designs are not the same as when manufacturers took a standard ICE car and converted to BEV as they did decades ago.  That previous approach had far more compromises.

 

GM experimented with electrified Corvair, Chevette, Spark, etc., as did Ford, and others like Smart over half a century.  However, none of those vehicles were designed from the onset to carry large and heavy batteries.  IIRC the first real success (and even that’s questionable) was the Tesla Roadster which used a Lotus Elise mid-engine 2-seater sports car and essentially replaced engine with lithium battery pack.  A huge difference with Tesla Roadster was the use of much smaller and lighter lithium batteries.

 

As batteries become lighter and more energy dense, IMO it makes greater sense than before to replace ICE components with BEV counterparts.  Sharing platforms was first viable with hybrids and then plug-ins, so taking to next steps of EREVs and BEVs isn’t unexpected.  Granted there will be compromises compared to purpose-built BEVs, but disadvantages will be less than previously.

 

For what it’s worth, still think BEV adoption would benefit most from ultra-affordable and ultra-efficient 4-seater with about 40 kWh battery and 250 miles of city range.  It’s very possible with small size, light weight, and efficient aerodynamics and drivetrain.  Technology already exists, just need to apply with affordability in mind.

[Sherminator98]

31 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

For what it’s worth, still think BEV adoption would benefit most from ultra-affordable and ultra-efficient 4-seater with about 40 kWh battery and 250 miles of city range.  It’s very possible with small size, light weight, and efficient aerodynamics and drivetrain.  Technology already exists, just need to apply with affordability in mind.

At least in the NA market, that would be dead on arrival because of the perceived image it would have. 
 

I still think that something roughly the size and shape of the Escape/Bronco Sport would be the sweet spot for the North American market that would cost about $30-35k starting price would really open the market for EVs here