New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

Guys, banning ICE vehicles does not mean going to BEV. Hybrids are not considered ICE.

They are also not considered zero emissions. The ban isn't on ICE, it's for sale of any non-zero emissions car.

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

They are also not considered zero emissions. The ban isn't on ICE, it's for sale of any non-zero emissions car.

For California? Or the others?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

For California? Or the others?

The ban in the original post was a reference to California. No other state, to my knowledge, has that executive order in place by 2035. Several have an order in place to reach that by 2050.

Technically speaking, a hydrogen powered fuel cell car is not zero emissions, it emits water. I don't think that's a real concern though.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

No other state, to my knowledge, has that executive order in place by 2035. Several have an order in place to reach that by 2050.

@Rampage posted last week that Massachusetts also will be banning the sale of gasoline powered cars by 2035, mirroring California's mandate -

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/m...-powered-cars/

[Tomm]

I foresee some constitutional challenges with these regulations but time will tell.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I foresee some constitutional challenges with these regulations but time will tell.

Not sure I follow, the automobile industry is heavily regulated, this really isn't any different.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not sure I follow, the automobile industry is heavily regulated, this really isn't any different.

I'm speaking on the power of government, specifically the federal side. Is it actually within the power of the federal (not state) government to regulate commerce to this extent? Its a mostly subjective question which is why I say, time will tell but I believe the issues would arise with the commerce clause and police powers if it were to be rolled out on the federal level.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I'm speaking on the power of government, specifically the federal side. Is it actually within the power of the federal (not state) government to regulate commerce to this extent?

I think it will boil down to whether or not the manufacturers want to fight it. They are pretty much throwing in the towel already because of what they'll need to do to meet global mandates.

All the current mandates are at the state level so until the Feds step in, I guess we won't know

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think it will boil down to whether or not the manufacturers want to fight it. They are already pretty much throwing in the towel already because of what they'll need to do to meet global mandates.

All the current mandates are at the state level so until the Feds step in, I guess we won't know

Agreed.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I'm speaking on the power of government, specifically the federal side. Is it actually within the power of the federal (not state) government to regulate commerce to this extent? Its a mostly subjective question which is why I say, time will tell but I believe the issues would arise with the commerce clause and police powers if it were to be rolled out on the federal level.

I'll agree with Dadhawk's statements and add a few things. Tax laws and product regulations are not my forte, but it seems like states have imposed their own taxes and bans of chemicals, products, etc for a long time. Obviously Trump revoked California's waiver to set its own emission standards, and that issue is being challenged in court, but California could probably resort to other methods to get rid of ICEs. One method could be taxing them so high that no one would buy them. That strategy worked with cigarettes (and California isn't even the worse state for tobacco taxes), and it could work with ICEs, as an extension of the Federal Gas-Guzzler tax. Automakers seem to be interested in moving forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/c...pollution.html

Defying Trump, 5 Automakers Lock In a Deal on Greenhouse Gas Pollution

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/28/us-c...e-causes-.html

California taxes proving hazardous to cigarette sales

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think it will boil down to whether or not the manufacturers want to fight it. They are pretty much throwing in the towel already because of what they'll need to do to meet global mandates.

All the current mandates are at the state level so until the Feds step in, I guess we won't know

1. Thanks for bringing the table and correcting my info.
2. Going electric is good for the business. It creates a differentiation when comparing to current vehicles and also brings newcomers from the big cities which were dropping vehicle ownership.
3. If the petrochemical companies are smart, they can relocate their products and still be profitable (if not more profitable). This will be a huge challenge for them.

[WolfpackS2k]

Some of the regulations brought down in this country by the EPA has been operating outside of the bounds of the constitution for decades. I'm not saying the effects have been for better or worse, I'm just stating the reality. Unelected bureaucrats aren't supposed to be able to wield such power.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Some of the regulations brought down in this country by the EPA has been operating outside of the bounds of the constitution for decades. I'm not saying the effects have been for better or worse, I'm just stating the reality. Unelected bureaucrats aren't supposed to be able to wield such power.

Which part of the constitution?

[soundman98]

this is ironic.
https://jalopnik.com/theres-a-caveat...les-1845938567

yes, it's less recurring damage to the environment, but it's still damaging the environment.