Jump to content
Create New...
  • 🚗 Your People Are Here. Get In.

    The internet is full of car content. This is the community.

    Cheers & Gears has been bringing enthusiasts together since 2001. Join the conversation, show off your garage, and find your people.

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    California Rules 15% Of New Vehicles Sold In 2025 To Have Zero Emissions

    William Maley

    Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

    January 30, 2012

    Just as we got to the point of everyone agreeing that 54.5 MPG was an attainable goal for 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has decided to change things up.

    CARB has ruled to enforce the 54.5 MPG rule and to will also require at least 15.4% of all cars sold by any major automaker in the state to either be fully electric, plug-in hybrid, or hydrogen fuel cell by 2025.

    Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board said she viewed the 15.4% “a relatively modest goal, but that’s all that we’re mandating. Probably the most heartening aspect of this whole rulemaking was the level of cooperation that we received from the industry… Overall, the degree of support for the package was just extraordinary.”

    Eventhough the automakers are on board, the question is will consumers be on board with this plan.. The California New Car Dealers Association estimates CARB's plan would add about $3,200 to the average price of a new car or truck. Appropriately, Mary Nichols said, “direct incentives to people who buy these cars (like) rebates and credits” are being worked out.

    At least ten more states will follow California’s lead, upping the projected total of advanced green vehicles near three million vehicles by 2025, 1.4 million of which would be in California.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    WOW, You would think with their debt that they would realize that they need to give the public a chance to Find a Job, Pay off debt and allow companies to grow before they continue to make things hard.

    Stupid politicians.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just as dumb as the "Global Warming Solutions Act", which requires that a third of Californian power come from renewable sources and companies trade carbon credits instead of letting the price and viability of each energy source compete on a free market. What happens when you do that is that electricity rates go up 40~70%, manufacturing flee your state and everyone pays more to support the politician's favoured but uttely uncompetitive industries.

    In this case, everyone will have to end up paying more for transportation to subsidize cars and infrastructure that nobody but a small minority of tree huggers want. California is on the road to destroying its own ecconomy and attractiveness as a state to live and work in. That's the sad thing.... not the who gets the final laugh in this environmental witch hunt.

    • Agree 2
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How do people in California sleep at night knowing they have elected officials like Mary Nichols? Her exceptional stupidity may just come back to haunt her down the road.

    Anyway, just add this to the long list of reasons why I wouldn't want to visit California very for very long, let alone live there.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How do people in California sleep at night knowing they have elected officials like Mary Nichols? Her exceptional stupidity may just come back to haunt her down the road.

    Anyway, just add this to the long list of reasons why I wouldn't want to visit California very for very long, let alone live there.

    Which politician has been haunted for all the "fantastic" decisions he/she has made?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Sad thing this insanity and mindless drivel is spreading to other States in our Union. The Auto makers and this whole Country will have to foot the bill for their nanny state.I guess we'll see $100KChevy P/U's with a bed full of batteries and a payload of maybe 1000lbs & 50mi range.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I wish someone in Cali would sponsor a bill that renames Zero Emissions Vehicle as a Mostly Relocated Emissions Vehicle (It still outgases when newer and leaves rubber behind... and obviously the power it uses creates emissions at the electric plant).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Manufacturers are in on this because they want to see returns on the billions they've invested on new technology.

    For consumers, the greater initial cost will be offset by substantial savings down the road, as well as the millions in public health benefits.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Automakers are in for the first time ever. The government is willing to subsidize for a change. The five worst air basins in the United States will benefit. California is forcing a lead in technology again. Remember as California's economy goes so does the rest of the nation.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Mary Nichols was appointed by the Governator and reappointed by Jerry Brown. Back in 1990, CARB enacted a 10% zero emission requirement that was to take effect by 2003. This led to intense research by the automakers that resulted in vehicles such as the EV1. CARB eventually caved in to industry pressure and dropped the ZEV requirement and instead allowed hybrids and other technology for low emission vehicles. The technology has clearly progressed, under government prodding, and these mandates no longer seem unachievable. In California, the majority of electricity, 57%, is generated from natural gas. The rest is from 15% nuclear, 12% hydro, 2% coal, and 14% renewable.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Which politician has been haunted for all the "fantastic" decisions he/she has made?

    Nixon was the first name that came to mind, although the decision he made that would haunt him didn't involve allowing some sort of mandate to pass.

    Give me a bit and I can think of more.

    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
    Add a comment...

    ×   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.




  • Support Independent Automotive Journalism

    25 years of honest automotive coverage — because someone has to do it.

    Cheers & Gears has never been filtered by manufacturer relationships or driven by algorithm. Just real people, real opinions, and a genuine love of cars. Subscribers keep the lights on and get an ad-light experience starting at $2.25/month.*

    View subscription options

    *A small number of ads feature member-exclusive coupon deals and will still appear.

  • Posts

    • I love the clean '04 GT (that looks like the anniversary badge for an '04). I'm a sucker for that gen, even though they're kind of a black sheep of Mustangs. 
    • Obviously, but I'd think you could cut 200 miles worth of range on the battery pack and save hundreds of pounds making it just a more overall efficient vehicle and still yielding 700 miles of range.  As I said to David, I'd remove as much battery pack as the engine weighs so it would be a net 0 gain in weight and you'd still have a sh!t ton of range yet it would be more efficient at achieving those miles. I'd assume it would be similar to my guesstimated numbers above.
    • Without knowing specifics of their design, I'd think reducing the battery pack by the weight of the engine would yield sufficient results. You'd still have a ton of electric-only range and then you'd have your "backup genergator" for when you run out of juice.  Speaking of which, I ran into a guy with a 2nd gen Volt a few weeks back while taking my kids on a walk. I asked him how he liked it and what kind of efficiency/range he was getting. He loved it, HOWEVER.. he said he almost never plugs it in. He just runs it as a hybrid. I'm pretty certain they aren't all that efficient when operated as just a hybrid. I thought that was kind of a waste of a Volt, to be using it that way. I didn't tell him this because I didn't want to sh!t on his situation or anything, but I thought it was odd to buy a plug-in hybrid then just never even utilize the full capacity of the battery. Then again, this falls right in line with a multiple studies I've read about that say most plug-in hybrid owners never utilize the plug-in capability of their vehicles. 
    • Maybe, but if it sells units, they will build it. 
    • The Americans have given up on cars, and I have given up on the Americans. Also, water is wet, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Hume talked about the problem of induction, but this continuing seems like a pretty safe bet.    A low functioning theocracy is a bad thing, and what we are slipping into in the USA. 
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search