Critics Say California's Advanced Clean Cars Program Will Be a Disaster

Critics Say California's Advanced Clean Cars Program Will Be a Disaster
Policy leaders in California are celebrating the recent passage of the Advanced Clean Cars Program, a set of emissions standards that call for 1.4 million zero-emission and plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles on roads here by 2025, but some industry players are not impressed.

Peter Welch, president of the California New Car Dealers Assn. (CNCDA), warns the new regulations may be setting up the state’s auto industry for another fall. “Three or four years ago, when it really was a Golden State, we could afford such lofty goals,” he tells WardsAuto.

But if the regulatory package is implemented as written, with the mandate that ZEVs and PHEVs account for one of every seven new cars sold in the state in 2025

Read Article

vdivvdiv - 2/22/2012 1:00:30 AM
+1 Boost
We've seen this movie before. Are these critics paid by the oil industry?

http://www.digifixpix.com/volt/volt_calc.asp



vdivvdiv - 2/22/2012 1:28:54 AM
+1 Boost
Here's another one:

http://projectgetready.com/js/tco.html


Joe_LimonJoe_Limon - 2/22/2012 12:38:17 PM
+1 Boost
critics think everything will be a disaster. That said, I'm a critic, and I think this program will be a disaster!


vdivvdiv - 2/22/2012 2:00:41 PM
+1 Boost
Disaster for who? Intentional or out of ignorance?


Joe_LimonJoe_Limon - 2/22/2012 5:44:48 PM
+1 Boost
How can this program be a success if people simply don't buy the vehicles? It really depends on how the program is structured, if it provides incentives to help push these vehicles, it will be a disaster for the tax payer. If it's a hard limit on the ratios of vehicles sold, it'll suck for the buyer because conventional vehicle prices will be increased relative to "clean" vehicles.


vdivvdiv - 2/22/2012 10:41:57 PM
0 Boost
People are buying the vehicles, and more people would do so once they begin to better understand what are the options. The mandates are there for the auto manufacturers to offer people a choice who would hopefully make the right one.

The taxpayer argument is flawed considering the subsidies and tax breaks oil and auto companies have received for so many years. If you believe in a smaller and responsible government then you surely agree that the taxpayer should be able to decide to a larger extent on how their tax money should be spent. If the gov't allows them to and they decide to spend a portion of their taxes on an EV that benefits everyone then they should be able to do that.


SteveSteve - 2/22/2012 9:14:34 PM
+2 Boost
No production automobile is a zero-emissions vehicle. The emissions occur at a garbage/coal/gas-burning generating station, which is out of sight and out of mind, and ignored in the emissing calculation of the vehicle.

Factor in the total cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of EVs, and they start looking pretty stupid.


vdivvdiv - 2/22/2012 10:30:14 PM
0 Boost
Pretty stupid because with the current mix of electricity sources on average they pollute less than half as much?

Or because it's easier to control the emissions of hundreds of millions of vehicles rather than a few thousand power plants?

Or because the pollution from vehicles is generated where people habituate yet power plants are generally located where they don't?

Just because you do not understand or accept it does not make it the same and does not make it stupid.


quizzquizz - 2/22/2012 11:32:04 PM
+2 Boost
Laws can be changed, extended, expired, etc. If the state feels that the law is not workable, they'll just take it off the books - or suffer the consequences. After decades of 3-strike policy in CA, the prisons are now overcrowded and they're releasing violent criminals into the streets by the thousands. Yeah, 3-strikes worked out real well - it put so many minor drug/petty theft criminals in prison that we've now bankrupt the state and have to release 30,000 inmates over 2 years.


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC