Several states now have an ZEV - zero emissions vehicle mandate, first I have heard of it...

westbranch · April 6

this is an e-mail out by an anti Global warming group... using reason and the facts

California costing us all

California has led a small group of states in forcing us all to pay for expensive electric cars. They are calling it the "zero emissions vehicles" or "ZEV" mandate.

David Rothbard and I explained in an op-ed now appearing in newspapers including the Deseret News, Detroit News, Reno Gazette (a USA affiliate), Joliet Herald News, and more.

Automakers not meeting their ZEV quota must purchase credits from electric vehicle manufacturers, like Tesla, or pay a $5,000 fine for each credit they are short. Noting the hefty price tag for electric cars, and the obvious limitations of battery range, it’s likely that automakers will be forced to buy an expensive chunk of credits each year in order to meet their increasing ZEV obligations.

That’s when things get interesting, since auto manufacturers already survive on tight margins. Meeting ZEV requirements will mean automakers passing the cost of these credits on to their customers. And that means conventional autos rising in price to help subsidize more costly electric cars.

Realistically, the ZEV mandate means cash-strapped consumers in heartland America will be paying more to buy a conventional car.

Electric vehicles should compete in a free, fair market, without California's and other heavy government thumbs on the scale.
For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director CFACT
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

https://cfact.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87b74a936c723115dfa298cf3&id=08c1f2b0be&e=40627a9e00

Dave Angelini · April 6

You are lucky we don't make you pay for our hi-speed rail

Maybe we are and you do not know it:(

Photowhit · April 7

westbranch said:

Electric vehicles should compete in a free, fair market, without California's and other heavy government thumbs on the scale.

It's obviously a bias report.

I certainly think this statement is complete and utter crap! Government is there to protect us from our selves. Despite Trumps dismantling of the EPA (and they set back some emission standards this week) With out some control we would all be living in a very polluted world. Major cities are better off since the EPA was created. Some of us are old enough to remember major problems with acid rain.

This is a somewhat less bias report of the situation;
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160627/OEM11/306279987/zev-mandates-get-harder-to-ignore

mike95490 · April 7

You are lucky we don't make you pay for our hi-speed rail

Maybe we are and you do not know it:(

Federal funds for high speed rail to nowhere ? San Francisco to Bakersfield

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Is-California-high-speed-rail-still-a-train-to-12757303.php

Estragon · April 7

Interesting game. CA can get away with this because the incidence of taxation and delivery of monetary benefit is at the manufacturing level. At the consumer level, such a tax would be too visible, and politically difficult to implement and increase over time.

At some level of taxation though, the system will likely become counterproductive. Even though ZEV states are a big part of the US new vehicle market, it's axiomatic that a car maker can't always make up a loss on every vehicle sold by increasing volume. There are limits to economies of scale. When reached, a car maker may find it more profitable to exit the ZEV markets. Barring a US wide ZEV mandate (unlikely near-term), or serious limitation on registration of out-of-state "used" vehicles, the makers vehicles will still be available in ZEV states indirectly, and the maker will have a pricing advantage vs makers producing directly for ZEV states. At $500-1000/unit all-in cost to sell directly in ZEV states, makers will likely treat it as a cost of business and work within the system. At $5000-10000+/unit, exit has to be a real possibility.

At some point, FCA (eg.) might see more money in making an F150 competitor vehicle and dropping the electric Fiat500 which loses $14000/unit, and may never be profitable at any scale. Californians will still buy "used" Jeep F150 clones from Nevada etc. which all else held equal, would be better value and/or more profitable than Ford product sold directly to CA.

Dave Angelini · April 7

If California could do it, they would tax the OP here in this thread. They just haven't figured how to really tax Canadian whiskey that Eric and I like. Now that we have Pot here and always have had inexpensive alcohol taxing, maybe those Canadians can pay more

Mike's link to the rail is pretty funny to me as I got stuck on hwy 99 where the rail is being built. Waited for an hour for them to haul giant blocks across the freeway. The train to nowhere is already causing traffic jams.

There are 2 initiatives on the ballot this year in Californy for a new state with water storage, Pro farming and normal middle politics, and inexpensive fuel.

I just saw the top 10 list of vehicles the first three were trucks and no ZEV's so I would not worry much Eric. The pendulum can swing in California, it just takes one too many bonehead laws and people will vote. I just hope they all have not left yet

westbranch · April 9

Mike, better spent on this project... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cascadia-rail-business-case-analysis-1.4570387

Several states now have an ZEV - zero emissions vehicle mandate, first I have heard of it...

Comments