2035 California PHEV Mandate challenges

[Scott5114]

We are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

According to https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-with-the-most-single-family-homes there is only one state where single-family homes are less than half of the housing stock, and that's New York. (Granted not all single-family homes have a garage, but in my experience SFH built after 1960 or so generally do have a garage.)

In California, which is the state being discussed here, 65.2% of housing units are single-family homes.

If a given city has enough apartments that lack of secured parking to provide charging facilities is an issue, that city would probably be better served not faffing about with electric cars at all and should be building a train, since they clearly have the density for it.

(And if there's some bizarre city that somehow has nothing but apartments with unsecured parking but is also too low-density to support public transit, it was designed stupidly, so fix that first.)

[oscar]

We are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

The feasible market for electric vehicles seems rather niche compared to ICE vehicles given this thread...

Wouldn't call it "niche". But EVs work best for people with single-family homes. Only the enviros don't like SFHs , for reasons I consider cogent. But that preference is coming back to bite them, by getting in the way of wider EV adoption.

[jeffandnicole]

We are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

It will probably differ based on location and region, but EV Charging at apartment complexes seem to be a common feature.  https://www.apartments.com/cherry-hill-nj/ev-charging/ 

[pderocco]

Sure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

You're ignoring what it takes to produce the energy to charge the batteries.

These days, an awful lot of EVs are actually running on coal, which is worse than gasoline.

Oops.

https://evadoption.com/are-evs-charged-mostly-by-coal-power-in-the-us/

I didn't say "in the U.S.", I was thinking worldwide. For instance, China.

[Max Rockatansky]

China does have the benefit of an EV market that tends to run far below the market prices we would expect domestically. 

[pderocco]

Many technological advances introduce an inconvenience to some portion of the population - we've seen it on this forum when people bemoan smartphones - like it or not, "Western" society is advancing on the assumption that everyone has a smartphone. You could say the same for the switch to DTV, or email becoming the primary form of communication, texting instead of calling, etc. College students (and lots of high school students as well) do all of their assignments, communicate with teachers, track their grades, etc. through an app or online portal, meaning it's a necessity to have a computer. An increasing number of business no longer take cash.

Even 15 or 20 years ago, people complained about drops in cell phone coverage, even in dense urban areas - you'd pick your service provider based on whether you could get a signal in your home and/or office (and often you couldn't get both). It was a definite inconvenience in adopting a new technology, but it didn't stop people from getting cell phones, or from recognizing that they were the inevitable evolution in personal communication.

Some technologies have become more inconvenient as time has gone on, even if it's for supposedly good reasons - flying is much more of a hassle than it used to be, or the increase in two-factor authentication and other online security (as well as companies wanting to better track you) makes using large portions of the internet more complicated than before.

I'm not saying that EVs (or even hybrids) are the only way to go moving forward - but I think it's a bit disingenuous to simply cry "it's too hard, therefore it will always be too hard, therefore it's bad/a conspiracy/an infringement on my liberties." I don't think that's what you're doing here, but I sure do see/hear it all the time.

That's a different kind of problem, the problem of being part way down the adoption curve for a new technology that more and more people actually want. You can probaby make the same point about television, radio, the original telephone, the horseless carriage.

I can't think of a single example from history of governments going to such extraordinary lengths to impose a new technology on a reluctant people. If EVs look good, from the point of view of the user, then people will naturally switch to them over time, and there would be no need for government efforts to impose them on us. Governments would instead be forced by us to accommodate our new preferences, e.g., the way the emergence of automobiles pressured governments into paving roads.

I watch a lot of car ads, mostly because of my eccentric hobby of trying to identify locations in them, and the rate of advertising EVs is wildly disproportionate to their popularity. It's so obvious that car companies, threatened by fines from the government, are desperate to convince us to buy EVs, not that they're eagerly trying to satisfy our insatiable desires for EVs. Central planning has a long history of failures, and I don't think this will prove to be an exception.

[Scott5114]

Well, yeah. That's because current science on climate change says we're getting pretty damn close to the point of no return, so governments are trying to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions in any way possible. There isn't enough time to wait for the market to take its course naturally, so the options are "impose a new technology on reluctant people" or "watch everyone die, but at least they could buy an 8 MPG piece of shit before they croaked".

[Rothman]

We are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

It will probably differ based on location and region, but EV Charging at apartment complexes seem to be a common feature.  https://www.apartments.com/cherry-hill-nj/ev-charging/ 

Common for the affluent...

[Max Rockatansky]

Well, yeah. That's because current science on climate change says we're getting pretty damn close to the point of no return, so governments are trying to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions in any way possible. There isn't enough time to wait for the market to take its course naturally, so the options are "impose a new technology on reluctant people" or "watch everyone die, but at least they could buy an 8 MPG piece of shit before they croaked".

I think about things like that when I visit Mexico and see so many crumbling thirty year old cars rolling around.  Even the vast majority of new vehicles down south are the entry level ICE variety.  I can't fathom that EVs will ever heavily proliferate unless something changes to make them more affordable compared to ICE vehicles. 

Most of the world probably is way closer to the Mexican market than it is the American one.  It tends me make me question how effective any automotive regulation domestically (or in this case just California emissions states) is actually effective long term on a global scale regarding climate change. 

For the record, I tend to be of the opinion that things are way past the point of no return on climate change.  It is probably more a question of how bad the ultimate end result will over the next century.

[jeffandnicole]

We are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

It will probably differ based on location and region, but EV Charging at apartment complexes seem to be a common feature.  https://www.apartments.com/cherry-hill-nj/ev-charging/ 

Common for the affluent...

The lower end of the pricing on that page is about as cheap as you'll find apartments in NJ.  It's been a common problem around here how expensive even basic apartment complexes have gotten.

[Rothman]

We are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

It will probably differ based on location and region, but EV Charging at apartment complexes seem to be a common feature.  https://www.apartments.com/cherry-hill-nj/ev-charging/ 

Common for the affluent...

The lower end of the pricing on that page is about as cheap as you'll find apartments in NJ.  It's been a common problem around here how expensive even basic apartment complexes have gotten.

So...common for the affluent.

[vdeane]

I can't think of a single example from history of governments going to such extraordinary lengths to impose a new technology on a reluctant people. If EVs look good, from the point of view of the user, then people will naturally switch to them over time, and there would be no need for government efforts to impose them on us. Governments would instead be forced by us to accommodate our new preferences, e.g., the way the emergence of automobiles pressured governments into paving roads.

Perhaps you should be aware that paved roads became a thing for bicycles, not cars.  Or that jaywalking became a crime thanks to the automakers lobbying the government to make things more convenient for driving (prior to then, streets were mixed and the top speed cars could reliably do in cities was about what automatics do when in drive with neither the gas nor the brakes engaged).  Or how the government does a lot today to subsidize cars but any suggestion that they do the same for other modes is considered sacrilegious.

For the record, I tend to be of the opinion that things are way past the point of no return on climate change.  It is probably more a question of how bad the ultimate end result will over the next century.

I read a theory on the internet that a lot of some of the things we've seen are the result of even those among The Powers That Be who publicly deny climate change privately are fully aware that it's real and are trying to preserve what they have by any means necessary even as climate change ruins everything for the rest of us.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't doubt that most of the climate change deniers truly believe the things they say.  I see climate change denial as just another example of something people will convince themselves is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

Then again, how many of us will be alive when the worst effects of climate changes actually hit?  I'm 42 and likely at or past the halfway point of my life.  Most projections I've read indicate the worst is coming almost a century down the road.

[Scott5114]

I think about things like that when I visit Mexico and see so many crumbling thirty year old cars rolling around.  Even the vast majority of new vehicles down south are the entry level ICE variety.  I can't fathom that EVs will ever heavily proliferate unless something changes to make them more affordable compared to ICE vehicles. 

You're right that, unfortunately, there are some places where you can't just swap out the car fleet wholesale because it's just not affordable. Fortunately, though, carbon dioxide isn't an all-or-nothing thing, so the sort of thing California is doing will reduce levels even if they don't eliminate pollution from transportation altogether. Also, California is probably hoping for the same sort of effect that the CARB standards have had; since the California market is so large compared to every other state it will make sense for car manufacturers to sell the same cars California requires nationwide.

That being said, what could be a game changer for markets like Mexico are the ultra-cheap BYD electric cars coming out of China. While those may not get a warm welcome in the US, Mexico probably doesn't have the knee-jerk rejection impulse to Chinese tech that the US does. Mexico doesn't have 145% tariffs on China either.

I don't doubt that most of the climate change deniers truly believe the things they say.  I see climate change denial as just another example of something people will convince themselves is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

Then again, how many of us will be alive when the worst effects of climate changes actually hit?

It really depends on where you live. In Oklahoma, it's easy to sit there and claim climate change is a hoax or if it does happen it will be a long way off. Intermittent droughts and rainy seasons are just kind of how the weather is there, and it's hard to notice the weather patterns changing. But Las Vegas hit its all-time record high of 120° last year, and you can go down to Hoover Dam and see how far from the top of the inlets the lake level is. The change is a lot more tangible here, so if you are denying it you are denying the evidence of your own eyes and your backyard thermometer. That's a lot harder than claiming that some professor you've never met is BSing you.

(I was thinking about buying a backyard thermometer recently, and I found one I like the design of at Ace Hardware...but I passed on it because it only went up to 120°, and I figure we'll need at least a few more degrees past that at some point in my life, perhaps as soon as this summer.)

[Rothman]

I think about things like that when I visit Mexico and see so many crumbling thirty year old cars rolling around.  Even the vast majority of new vehicles down south are the entry level ICE variety.  I can't fathom that EVs will ever heavily proliferate unless something changes to make them more affordable compared to ICE vehicles. 

You're right that, unfortunately, there are some places where you can't just swap out the car fleet wholesale because it's just not affordable. Fortunately, though, carbon dioxide isn't an all-or-nothing thing, so the sort of thing California is doing will reduce levels even if they don't eliminate pollution from transportation altogether. Also, California is probably hoping for the same sort of effect that the CARB standards have had; since the California market is so large compared to every other state it will make sense for car manufacturers to sell the same cars California requires nationwide.

That being said, what could be a game changer for markets like Mexico are the ultra-cheap BYD electric cars coming out of China. While those may not get a warm welcome in the US, Mexico probably doesn't have the knee-jerk rejection impulse to Chinese tech that the US does. Mexico doesn't have 145% tariffs on China either.

I don't doubt that most of the climate change deniers truly believe the things they say.  I see climate change denial as just another example of something people will convince themselves is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

Then again, how many of us will be alive when the worst effects of climate changes actually hit?

It really depends on where you live. In Oklahoma, it's easy to sit there and claim climate change is a hoax or if it does happen it will be a long way off. Intermittent droughts and rainy seasons are just kind of how the weather is there, and it's hard to notice the weather patterns changing. But Las Vegas hit its all-time record high of 120° last year, and you can go down to Hoover Dam and see how far from the top of the inlets the lake level is. The change is a lot more tangible here, so if you are denying it you are denying the evidence of your own eyes and your backyard thermometer. That's a lot harder than claiming that some professor you've never met is BSing you.

(I was thinking about buying a backyard thermometer recently, and I found one I like the design of at Ace Hardware...but I passed on it because it only went up to 120°, and I figure we'll need at least a few more degrees past that at some point in my life, perhaps as soon as this summer.)

I know climatologists keep reminding us that weather is not climate, but I also wonder about my own area, where we haven't even hit our supposed average level of snowfall in years, causing such to drop.  Took a La Nina year like this one to get close, and we still didn't hit it.  Makes me wonder when such trends can truly be considered climate change, but, unlike climate change deniers, I trust the experts on their evaluation of the situation.

[kalvado]

I know climatologists keep reminding us that weather is not climate, but I also wonder about my own area, where we haven't even hit our supposed average level of snowfall in years, causing such to drop.  Took a La Nina year like this one to get close, and we still didn't hit it.  Makes me wonder when such trends can truly be considered climate change, but, unlike climate change deniers, I trust the experts on their evaluation of the situation.

what is "your area"? Syracuse NY had a few pretty average years. Albany is similar

[Rothman]

I know climatologists keep reminding us that weather is not climate, but I also wonder about my own area, where we haven't even hit our supposed average level of snowfall in years, causing such to drop.  Took a La Nina year like this one to get close, and we still didn't hit it.  Makes me wonder when such trends can truly be considered climate change, but, unlike climate change deniers, I trust the experts on their evaluation of the situation.

what is "your area"? Syracuse NY had a few pretty average years. Albany is similar

Pfft.  You didn't go back far enough.  2020 through 2024 were all quite mild and below the historic average of about 121 inches for Syracuse. 

[jeffandnicole]

Another thing that annoys me about TV meteorologists:  They often talk about the effects of global warming in their forecasts.  When challenged, they'll say they're not climatologists. 

[stevashe]

Sure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

You're ignoring what it takes to produce the energy to charge the batteries.

These days, an awful lot of EVs are actually running on coal, which is worse than gasoline.

Oops.

https://evadoption.com/are-evs-charged-mostly-by-coal-power-in-the-us/

I didn't say "in the U.S.", I was thinking worldwide. For instance, China.

China may be still majority coal power today, with 58% share of electricity generation, but that's down from 63% just last year so it probably won't last long as China is currently on a massive building spree of wind and solar power. Clean energy is up at 39% this year from 34% last year.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-sets-new-clean-electricity-milestones-during-q1-2025-maguire-2025-04-22/

(Also as I noted in a previous post, EVs running on coal power are actually still better than an ICE car running on gasoline, even though that's very unintuitive. Electric motors are just way more efficient.)

[vdeane]

I don't doubt that most of the climate change deniers truly believe the things they say.  I see climate change denial as just another example of something people will convince themselves is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I was talking about politicians and business leaders, not voters.  The oil companies knew as far back as the 70s (back when the media was busy convincing people that an ice age was coming).  Mentioning specific policies obviously trends into politics, but let's just say that a lot of things that didn't make sense about certain political policies start to make a lot of sense if you assume that this is indeed the case.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't doubt that most of the climate change deniers truly believe the things they say.  I see climate change denial as just another example of something people will convince themselves is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I was talking about politicians and business leaders, not voters.  The oil companies knew as far back as the 70s (back when the media was busy convincing people that an ice age was coming).  Mentioning specific policies obviously trends into politics, but let's just say that a lot of things that didn't make sense about certain political policies start to make a lot of sense if you assume that this is indeed the case.

I wasn't necessarily eluding to just regular folks exclusively either.  Just look at something like the tobacco industry.  That whole thing is built on a pyramid of twisted subjective political and corporate "truths" which keeps it alive. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Sure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

You're ignoring what it takes to produce the energy to charge the batteries.

These days, an awful lot of EVs are actually running on coal, which is worse than gasoline.

Oops.

https://evadoption.com/are-evs-charged-mostly-by-coal-power-in-the-us/

I didn't say "in the U.S.", I was thinking worldwide. For instance, China.

China may be still majority coal power today, with 58% share of electricity generation, but that's down from 63% just last year so it probably won't last long as China is currently on a massive building spree of wind and solar power. Clean energy is up at 39% this year from 34% last year.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-sets-new-clean-electricity-milestones-during-q1-2025-maguire-2025-04-22/

(Also as I noted in a previous post, EVs running on coal power are actually still better than an ICE car running on gasoline, even though that's very unintuitive. Electric motors are just way more efficient.)

And rumors on the pricing of the Chevy Volt EUV (a Chinese market rebadge for Latin American Market) are saying it will base for well under $20,000 USD:

https://www.carscoops.com/2025/02/chevrolet-spark-returns-as-a-rebadged-chinese-ev-for-south-america/

[SP Cook]

- Basic legal doctrines here.  The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states.  This clause has been VERY broadly interpreted to give the federal government power over many things.  One off-shoot of this is a doctrine called "preemption" meaning the federal government can make EVERY rule about a subject, such that the states have no power to make further rules.  THIS is why California needs a "waiver" in the first place.  The EPA is "waiving" the fact that it has totally made every rule in this area and the states can do no more.  All Congress need do is say the EPA has no such power, and there you go.  Pretty basic stuff.  Any challenge would be laughed out of court.  This is not a "liberal vs. conservative" or "strict constructionist vs. activist" deal.  Its basic legal doctrines.

- The quasi-religious faith that everything one wishes to be invented eventually will be is just not how science works.  The very point of science is to determine what IS true, not to invent that which one desires.  Some things are simply not possible.  It is totally possible that battery technology, and/or the ability to produce electricity by means other than coal-oil-gas-nuclear in 2035, or 2235, may be the same as today.  No one knows, and until scientists discover whether or not these technologies can be improved upon, it is arrogant and foolish to base public policy upon such assumptions.

- The media, back in the 70s was just quoting what the scientists of the day were saying.  The idea that there is this big conspiracy to cover up some unspoken "truth", like all conspiracy theories, is just so much ho-ha.  Global cooling-global warming-climate change-whatever theory is next.  All theories. 

- IF the type of histrionics that SOME climate activists say are actually true, the solution, not given some major scientific breakthroughs (see above for an explanation of how science works), is not in swapping out some cars.  It is most of society living a vastly reduced (think 18th century) lifestyle, and a massive decline in the population.  Which should scare any people who believes in the basic worth of human life, all to death.

[pderocco]

I can't think of a single example from history of governments going to such extraordinary lengths to impose a new technology on a reluctant people. If EVs look good, from the point of view of the user, then people will naturally switch to them over time, and there would be no need for government efforts to impose them on us. Governments would instead be forced by us to accommodate our new preferences, e.g., the way the emergence of automobiles pressured governments into paving roads.

Perhaps you should be aware that paved roads became a thing for bicycles, not cars.  Or that jaywalking became a crime thanks to the automakers lobbying the government to make things more convenient for driving (prior to then, streets were mixed and the top speed cars could reliably do in cities was about what automatics do when in drive with neither the gas nor the brakes engaged).  Or how the government does a lot today to subsidize cars but any suggestion that they do the same for other modes is considered sacrilegious.

Bicyclists started the Better Road movement, but would have got nowhere without the much more economically important need to support motor vehicles.

Jaywalking was banned not because the government was trying to force people to drive instead of walk, but because more and more people wanted to drive.

Government doesn't subsidize cars (except EVs) nearly as much as it subsidizes public transit. Building roads which everyone uses isn't a subsidy.

[Scott5114]

Global cooling-global warming-climate change-whatever theory is next.  All theories. 

How to destroy all credibility in one sentence—use the word "theory" while clearly having no clue what it means.