California Bans Sale of New Gasoline-Powered Passenger Vehicles Starting 2035

[jerhenderson]

I thought the demand curve was that the higher the demand, the higher the price. And the higher the supply, the lower the price.

In that case, the less gas that is used or demanded, the more that will be available, and the lower the price will go.

The modifier to that would be that as the price drops, it will become too expensive to drill or refine so some wells and refineries will be shut off which will lower supply and prop the price back up for a while.

And somewhere along the line things like the strategic reserves will come into play in some way. But that would be a more advanced Econ class beyond my level of experience.

when people use less, there will be less investment in new sources so supply will fall, driving prices up. Prices will also rise as the oil industry tries to recoup $ out of a dying business model.

Sponsored

 

[Hoppi]

Prices will also rise as the oil industry tries to recoup $ out of a dying business model.

I’m sure that the oil industry will try to get as many $$$ as possible. But the more they try raising prices, the faster EVs are going to take over. In fact a big part of the carbon-tax efforts out there is that it raises the price of oil and incentivizes the move away from oil.

when people use less, there will be less investment in new sources so supply will fall, driving prices up.

Exactly the point I made in paragraph 3.

 

[Crissa]

Demand shocks will lead to wild swings in price, as we've seen. Less use will first make the price fall. But then that'll make for less investment which will make the price rise. Then that'll make the use drop hard again. Which makes the price drop.

And eventually, the demand won't just come back, because people have found their replacement.

-Crissa

 

[Eye of Elon]

I think my California Derangement Syndrome got the best of me, upon further reflection, I was clearly wrong about this being "authoritarian", clearly it's a a meaningless political gesture. The idea of a governor in 2020 proclaiming supreme executive power over people living in 2035 is ridiculous.

It's a representational Democracy/Republic, in 2034 the issue be decided by the lobbyists of that era.

 

[Dids]

I think my California Derangement Syndrome got the best of me, upon further reflection, I was clearly wrong about this being "authoritarian", clearly it's a a meaningless political gesture. The idea of a governor in 2020 proclaiming supreme executive power over people living in 2035 is ridiculous.

It's a representational Democracy/Republic, in 2034 the issue be decided by the lobbyists of that era.

It's clearly not meaningless. The ban will spur investment in alternative infrastructure and provides leadership for planning for that alternative.
California has a problem, doing nothing about it would be criminal, In fact it is good leadership.
What would you do to address California's climate problem?

 

[RedCoast]

Agreed, plently of gas cars will available for a long time.

Also I dont see how this could possible hurt the lowest income people, only help. Making sellers only sell evs means companies will have to invest in ev related things... more supply for cars, batteries, charging stations, etc. thus making It potentially cheaper.

Unfortunately this does not take into account the unintended consequences of making something mandatory. You cannot just enforce innovation and efficiency by demanding it. If companies are forced to invest in EV related things that at this point have a higher cost point than non EV that is less time resources that could be dedicated to other products that are more cost efficient.

A car company might have been preparing to build a much safer fuel efficient car for the lower income bracket but because of mandates like this will have to focus on electric cars that cost more to produce and thereby cost more for the consumer.

The move to electric cars would happen much faster and at a higher quality if governments stayed out of it. Fossil fuel cars have already become much more efficient and cheaper then they were before because people did not want to pay so much for gasoline.

Look at cellphones, they were prohibitively expensive when they were first released and only the very wealthy could afford them. Now they are extremely affordable all that happened without a government decree to make cellphones affordable or to phase out land lines. If there had been a decree to such an effect it would have likely delayed the advancement of cell phones.

One of the reasons Tesla is so successful is because they understand that in order for any of this to work it first has to be economically viable. That is why their earlier cars were extremely expensive the technology was too new and costly to be affordable to anyone but the wealthy. If California had mandated back then that everyone had to have an electric car no one would have been able to afford one and everyone would be without a car.

 

[Hoppi]

The move to electric cars would happen much faster and at a higher quality if governments stayed out of it. Fossil fuel cars have already become much more efficient and cheaper then they were before because people did not want to pay so much for gasoline.

While I do agree with a number of your other points, I really have to disagree here. From what I have seen, your 2 examples here exactly disprove your thesis.

The move to electric cars would happen much faster and at a higher quality if governments stayed out of it.​

Electric vehicles have been tinkered with for a very long time. In fact, when cars were first invented, electric cars were just as prevalent as gasoline powered cars. But the batteries were not improved fast enough to keep up with the improvements in gasoline engines. For most of the last century, the government has stayed out of mandating the development of better batteries or pushing for electric vehicles. And what came of it? Basically nothing. People have been asking for electric vehicles for years but other than a few small companies producing prototypes that didn't really get anywhere, nothing moved forward. GM did develop the EV1 but that turned into quite the fiasco and was killed. It really hasn't been until Elon came along and basically forced the issue that anyone else has really gotten serious about electric vehicles.

Fossil fuel cars have already become much more efficient and cheaper then they were before because people did not want to pay so much for gasoline.​

Contrary to the government's non-intervention in electric vehicles, there have been a number of government mandates to improve fuel efficiency in cars. And for every mandate, the car industry at nearly all levels has protested, fought, kicked, and screamed bloody murder about how these mandates would be impossible to meet and will destroy the automobile industry. And yet, as you state, "fossil fuel cars have already become much more efficient and cheaper". I would contend that without the government mandates, we would not have cars anywhere near as efficient as they are now. And we would be reaping much more serious climate side effects because of it.

Yes, there have been some consumers that were savvy enough to ask for electric vehicles but it is really only now after Tesla's have made them sexy that the general populace has even begun to take notice. And yes, gas prices have made some of the people in the lower income brackets buy more efficient fossil fuel cars but not because they were specifically asking for that feature. In fact if you look at the general populace, the last years have been an exercise in buying larger and larger vehicles (bring on the mini-van, then the SUV) to the detriment of overall fuel efficiency. If the government was not mandating better fuel efficiency the general populace would have greatly increased the overall level of fuel consumption in vehicles.

 

[Crissa]

Unfortunately this does not take into account the unintended consequences of making something mandatory. You cannot just enforce innovation and efficiency by demanding it. If companies are forced to invest in EV related things that at this point have a higher cost point than non EV that is less time resources that could be dedicated to other products that are more cost efficient.

That is a pile of poppycock.

How does saying 'zero emissions by x date' make something 'more efficient' ignored? What is more efficient that's being ignored?

If you don't mandate things, they don't get done. There is no 'more efficient' way to get something done, especially when it's not the core cost.

Cars have never gotten 'more efficient' at anything other than speed without government mandates.

-Crissa

 

[Cyber_Dav]

Has anyone read his (Newsom's) actual executive order? Splashy headlines are often wrong.

1. It shall be a goal of the State that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035.

CARB may, or may not, do so. Depends on if they determine an executive order is legally binding on them as well as whether they determine it is feasible.

How do others interpret the actual order?

 

[Crissa]

The whole video is good, but this time point is relevant to the conversation of why just make more efficient doesn't work. Not only is there only weak pressure from consumers for efficiency, there are paradoxical reactions to it as well.

-Crissa

 

[Sirfun]

For most people solar panels provide power in the day time. Many people use their vehicles to drive somewhere in the day time. Now they aren't using energy in their house or charging their vehicle. Some people could sell the excess energy back to the grid and the utilities could build battery storage to store the excess but that approach means if utilities have problems no one has power. Better approach have smaller battery local.
The new batteries have a ~56% cost reduction so powerwall will get more affordable.
Adding V2G to cybertruck will cost something... Raising the price of the vehicle to provide a solution that isn't a good solution instead of engineering a good solution (powerwall) and engineering a lower cost for that perfect solution would be a terrible idea. C'mon Elon lower the price of powerwall.

This article made me think of you. https://electrek.co/2020/10/01/tesla-tsla-increases-powerwall-price-demand/
BTW, I want them to lower the price too.

 

[Dids]

This article made me think of you. https://electrek.co/2020/10/01/tesla-tsla-increases-powerwall-price-demand/
BTW, I want them to lower the price too.

Yes I saw that and was like shucks there goes some of my argument.

 

[rbatten]

 

[jcryer3]

So if you move to California do you have to sell your gas powered car? How can a State make something illegal when is legal everywhere else?

 

[FutureBoy]

So if you move to California do you have to sell your gas powered car? How can a State make something illegal when is legal everywhere else?

Don’t have to sell your car. But there are multiple ways in the US for the government to essentially ban vehicles without implementing an actual ban.

• When moving into state you are required to get a state license for your vehicles. A regulation can be made at that point stating that allowed vehicles must meet certain regulations. If you make “repairs” to your vehicle to meet the regulations then they will give you a license. If not, no license. You don’t have to sell but you cannot drive that vehicle.
• Taxing specific features is another possibility. Currently vehicles are taxed during yearly registration and that tax can vary on a variety of features. Here in Washington, the value of the vehicle has an impact on how much your registration will cost. For a while EVs did not have to pay some registration fees. This is a pretty blunt instrument but it is possible to create a prohibitive registration fee for vehicle types that are undesirable. This would be one possible lever for implementing a carbon tax on vehicles.
• In the case of ICE vehicles, one way to make them impractical is to raise the gas tax. The price of gas in various states varies wildly based on the level of gas tax in the state.
• Another lever is through insurance. Insurance is not strictly government controlled but it is tightly regulated. By making onerous regulations, government could indirectly make the required insurance bill of certain vehicles be much too costly to be practical.

Any of the above are possible levers for government. But non of them are all out bans. One thing to notice though is that basically all f them can be circumvented with $$$. This helps keep the monied types from fighting against the implementation of the change while also allowing for the vast majority of vehicles to be directly affected.

Sponsored