Climate Change

California's Zero-Emission Car Mandate Is Empty Virtue Signalling

Gov. Gavin Newsom's executive order banning non-electric cars from being sold after 2035 merely shifts the emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant.


Recent news reports contained some eye-opening news, at least for those of us who are car aficionados: "In a stunning announcement, GM says it will stop making all diesel and gas-powered cars," according to Motor Biscuit. The planned implementation date is 2035, which isn't particularly far into the future.

I'm still grumpy about the disappearing manual transmission, and will give up my 332-horsepower 370Z when they peel the shifter from my cold, dead fingers. Whatever one's views of electric vehicles, private industry is perfectly capable of transitioning away from internal-combustion engines without the heavy hand of California's bumbling state government.

Flash back to September, when Gavin Newsom signed an executive order that, amid much fanfare, promised "bold action" on the "climate crisis." It would require every new car sold in the state by 2035 to be emission free, which means a mandate for electric vehicles. "Cars shouldn't give our kids asthma. Make wildfires worse. Melt glaciers. Or raise sea levels," the governor tweeted.

The state should only implement such far-reaching regulations through proper legislative channels, not via gubernatorial fiat. Furthermore, Newsom's virtue signaling ignores some crucial points—e.g., the state's poor land-management practices have more to do with the then-raging wildfires than the sale of modern vehicles. Most significantly, Newsom's grandiose order is largely meaningless.

Even though the 2035 phase-out date is the same, General Motors did not make its recent announcement because of Newsom's edict. The governor and lawmakers who propose similar things in the United States and abroad understand the great advances that the private sector already is making. This is a typical progressive strategy: Pass a "bold" measure that conforms to what industry already is doing and then take credit for being visionary.

Journalists will often take the bait. A recent editorial from The Los Angeles Times used the GM decision as evidence that Newsom's order wasn't "fantastical." Then it called for the state to "spend big now" on an electric-vehicle future—something the administration is gladly obliging.

The Legislative Analyst's Office recently released a report on Newsom's 2021-2022 budget as it relates to fees and funding streams to support zero-emission vehicle infrastructure. The governor plans to securitize revenue from Assembly Bill 8, which funds alternative energy and renewable fuel programs, to spend as much as $1 billion on zero-emission vehicle-fueling infrastructure.

In California's $202-billion budget, a billion bucks may be a rounding error. But it's still an unnecessary use of tax dollars given that, once again, private industry is busy investing heavily in an electric-vehicle network. If manufacturers want to sell these newfangled cars, they need to provide ways for drivers to charge them. Many people might buy an EV if carmakers could ease their "range anxiety"—the fear of getting stranded without a charge.

Tesla provides a better infrastructure model than the California state government, the latter of which is spending more than $79-billion building a "High Speed Rail" line through the Central Valley that no one (other than bureaucrats and contractors) seems to want.

"The reason why consumers still choose Teslas … is perhaps surprisingly simple. They can drive their Teslas for long distances in full confidence that they will find convenient locations at which to recharge their vehicle," as the Harvard Business Review explained. Unlike old-line car manufacturers, Tesla invested heavily in a charging network. Others will surely follow.

One of the oddest elements of the governor's EV plan is, as the LAO explains, its mandate that 50-percent of Clean Transportation Program funds go to low-income and disadvantaged communities. You might have noticed that electric vehicles are popular mainly in high-income areas—and not for any nefarious reason. The median price of a new vehicle in the United States is above $36,000, but it tops $55,000 for an electric vehicle.

Poor people can't afford new cars and certainly aren't buying new EVs. EV prices are dropping significantly (13 percent in one year) as competition heats up, but leave it to the government to spend our money to build infrastructure where it isn't yet needed—rather than to meet the current demands of consumers. And don't get me started on EV subsidies.

"The vast majority of money in the Baker administration's electric vehicle subsidy programs is being paid out to households living in the state's wealthiest ZIP codes," according to a Massachusetts study by Streetsblog. "(T)he program has barely made a dent in the overall composition of the state's vehicle fleet" with EVs representing "about one-half of one percent" of the Bay State's passenger fleet.

It's not even a slam dunk that EVs will combat climate change, given that they shift pollutants from the tailpipe to the power plant. "Your battery-powered vehicle is only as green as your electricity supplier," as Scientific American explained. Maybe we should leave it up to carmakers rather than pretend that California lawmakers have the wherewithal to save the planet?

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

NEXT: Global Freedom Is Losing Ground

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Journalists Propagandists will often take the bait.”

    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take ajhvdf chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do.=========> USA ONLINE JOBS

      1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and BGT its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..READ MORE

      1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible dso economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE……  READ MORE

  2. This isn’t very surprising. GM can lose money, making crappy cars unprofitably just as easily with electric cars as with their current line of gas cars. And in the process of losing revenue between government bailouts, they can also pocket a lot sweet, sweet electric car subsidies.

    1. Notice that GM said it will stop making ICE CARS and light trucks by 2035. I read this that they will continue making larger trucks and buses that are gas/diesel powered and may simply sell brands like Chevy and Buick to another company who will keep making gas powered cars. Or maybe I’m just cynical.

      1. Earning more dollars from home easily just by working 0nline j0b from home. Makes every month extra $20k or more from this easy h0me j0b. Last month i have made $22759 from this just in my spare time. Every person can now get this and start earning 0nline from the instructions given to this web page…

        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= JOBS APP

  3. Poor people can’t afford new cars and certainly aren’t buying new EVs.

    When poor people no longer have to spend their money on treatments for ICE-caused asthma they’ll be able to afford EVs.

    1. Of course, emissions standards have never been stronger while, at the same time, asthma is more prevalent than it ever was, what I don’t understand is why can’t we just choose the libertarian option and force them to wear masks?

      1. They used to say that asthma is caused by second hand smoke, but that has largely disappeared and yet asthma keeps going up. Personally, I think it’s dust and the more time you spend inside, the worse asthma will get, so not something that mandating EVs will fix.

        1. A bunch of social maladapts, staying indoors and not getting exercise, being the cause of an asthma rate increase would certainly make sense.

          1. I’m not entirely convinced that anxious parents, anxiously conceiving kids, and heaping anxiety on them hasn’t raised basal stress levels.

        2. Let’s not forget, all the new houses that are wrapped up in Tyvek tighter than a tick.

    2. Your eponymous name is as big a joke as your comment.

    3. from what planet did YOU drop in? I’ve had bad asthma since I was nine, that’s quite a few decades ago. I also have worked as a mechanic on every type of vehicle, boat, equipment, everything but aeroplanes, for more than five decades. I can assure yuo beyond any question that today’s tailpipe emissions do NOT cause or aggravate or stimulate asthma. You should educate yourself on the actual chemical composition of today’s exhaust pipe products. After you do, coe back and tell us which one is the culprit for aggravating asthma in humans. You’d better bring a wheelbarrow to carry all the informationi you’ll have to support your claim….. NOTTTTTT!!!!

    4. poor people don’t spend any money on medical care. WE do. Ever heard of Medicare? That’s medical coverage for the poor people about whom you you are rattling falsely,

      Busted in your lie.

      1. Adjust sarc meter, Tionico.

  4. Pass a “bold” measure that conforms to what industry already is doing and then take credit for being visionary.

    100 million doses in 100 days!

  5. I am curious – if the oil refineries close down because gasoline and diesel are illegal, where does the jet fuel come from?
    I mean, there was a Lockheed Electra, but it didn’t actually run on electricity.

    1. Saudi Arabia.

    2. A more cogent point would be that despite LA’s increased stringencies required for private motor vehicles, the majority of emissions have *always* come from the port; where petroleum products refined only slightly past the grade of crude oil get burned in volumes that thousands of gas-guzzling ICEs can’t approach. Regulate ICEs into the ground and the air doesn’t get any cleaner because lower grade fuel (and international shipping) gets cheaper.

      Again, the idea that free trade is limited to just the taxes levied at the federal level on both sides of the shipping lane is just as, if not more retarded as any negative railroad.

    3. Those planes, and their mlilitary counterpart, used turboprop engines, which burn Jet A fuel, a lighter grade of very clean diesel.

      the name “electra” was fromsome ancient mythology, maybe greek, for a goddes who could run very fast…. sort of like mercury, the goddess.

      Electricity was also named after “her” because electricity moves very quickly over the wires.

      1. There were two Lockheed Electra series. The first were piston-powered airplanes of the 1930’s, for instance Amelia Earhart’s airplane.

  6. They won’t be shifting the emissions from the tail-pipe to the power plant, California’s phasing power plants out, too. Notice Newsom is not mandating electric cars, he’s just outlawing ICE cars. If you think “an electric car or nothing” means “an electric car”, you’re not paying attention.

    1. The Progressives, longing to take humanity back 3 centuries or so.

    2. your observation is very astute. Thanks for clarifying and exposing the lie. Of course, whaddya speck from the Gabbling Nuisance? Intelligence? Moral rectitude? Rational thought? Well considered reason? Sorry,.ain’t gonna happen.

  7. Hope a fire or ice storm doesn’t shutdown the power grid in CA, making it impossible to flee for survival if you forgot to recharge the night before.

    1. Consider the power requirements. If, as advertised, electric cars can go a week between charges, 20% of homes will be trying to recharge their cars every evening. That is a drain on the power system that is about 150% of present. There will need to be new power lines and transformers in every neighborhood, long term planning that California has demonstrated it can not perform.

      1. I read in Science recently that the US would basically have to at least triple the number of high voltage transmission lines and generation capacity by 2035 in order for full electrification of cars and buildings that the progtards are demanding. They are not gonna like that. But of course, their actual motive is not for everyone to have their own house or car that is electric. They want everyone living in high density cities and getting around by bike or walking.

        1. “But of course, their actual motive is not for everyone to have their own house or car that is electric. They want everyone living in high density cities and getting around by bike or walking.”

          As I said, “peasants.” Serfs is probably more accurate. Just sit stoned in your favela and “Consuuuuuume!”, as Red Rocks likes to say here.

          1. “Don’t ask questions; just Consume Product, then get excited for Next Products.”

      2. Keep California Golden! Don’t use electricity between 4 and 9 PM!

        That’s an actual public service ad in California right now.

        1. I didn’t know there was such a thing as mass mental retardation, but I guess California proves it exists

          1. Or such widespread election fraud that the government they have is not the one the majority would choose…

          2. Want further proof? Next time you adventure beyond the wallls of your pod, observe the percentage of others who have temporarily escaped their own walls, and have some ridiculous patch of some sort of material plastered over their mugs. Then go find some REAL science as to the efficacy of said mug nappies against particles of .28 microns in size. then run a quick maths on how many particles of that size can parade through openings of 30 micron size.

            Now return to your pod and ingest some sort of sedative to ease the mental anguish of such folly having so thoroughly infested our land.

      3. That is a drain on the power system that is about 150% of present.

        Is this a no-loss or honest numbers direct shift or an actual-use measurement or projection, i.e. is that each car/house would demand 150% more power or does that take into account the fact that an entire neighborhood or subsystem demanding more power would mean that something closer to 200% would have to be generated at the plant to support capacity?

    2. Peasants have died in natural disasters before. They will again. We’ll just make (or import) more.

      It’s still less important than making them peasants to begin with.

    3. you also won’t have gas heat or hot water or a gas stove for cooking, since new homes in California have to be all electric.

  8. Unless gasoline powered cars are banned, we can look forward to California 2075 looking like Cuba today with lovingly maintained sixty five year old “classic” cars still rolling along.

    1. Bad analogy. They would be much further along if their econmy wasn’t sabotaged and interfered with U.S. sponsored terrorism , the plan B put in place when they stopped cooperating as a colonial piggy-bank for the Jewish mafia’s gambling operations.

    2. Bad analogy. They would be much further along if their economy wasn’t sabotaged and interfered with U.S. sponsored terrorism , the plan B put in place when they stopped cooperating as a colonial piggy-bank for the Jewish mafia’s gambling operations.

  9. The new e-Mustang is disappointing. Seriously? You’re calling that a mustang?

    1. From those wonderful folks who brought you the Mustang II.
      History does repeat itself.

      1. Disagree. I think the Mustang II was a mistake while the e-Mustang is very much intentional.

        1. Ironically the Mustang II was build in the first “sky is falling down” USA to Socialist policy era. Carbon canisters and 200hp drops on all engines that would then suck up 5-Times the gasoline to do the same work.

          Nothing says stupid like government.

      2. Lol I had an orange Capri. An even worse knockoff.

  10. You know Carbon emissions shrank amid the pandemic — they are again and worse than 2019, read more here.

  11. “they shift pollutants from the tailpipe to the power plant”

    Sorry but moving the pollutant from tailpipe to power plant IS the value proposition of EV.

    In terms of pollution, each and every ICE engine is a point of failure. A million ICE cars on the road is a million points of failure. With EV, however, the pollution is consolidated to a SINGLE point of failure. Here the pollution can be remediated (clean fossil/carbon-capture) or avoided all together (nuclear, solar, geotherm, hydro, whatever).

    1. Sorry but no it isn’t the advertised value proposition. The advertised value proposition is no emissions, period. You haven’t been paying attention to the concomitant value proposition of no fossil fuel power plants.

      1. Agreed. If he were here making the claim he made along with the idea that they remove the ‘ULEV’ and ‘ZEV’ classes/badges from vehicles I could agree with him. But to say that it’s the value proposition is a lie as much as the ‘ZEV’ badge is a lie.

    2. Cali buys a shit ton of power from outside the state and those plants aren’t going anywhere. They just learned to shove their problems up someone else’s ass.

      1. lol it’s like CA policymakers don’t understand CO2 mixes

        “how can we reduce CA’s CO2 emissions?”

        “I know! buy our power from UT!”

        “won’t the plants in UT still emit CO2?”

        “yes, but in UT!”

        1. “won’t the ‘green’ plants in UT still consume and need CO2?” 🙂
          Why yes; plant life still needs CO2!

      2. When it comes to a crunch, those other states are going to keep the power they need and let California go dark. And with charging stations shut down, they won’t even have to guard the border to keep out a rush of Californicator refugees.

    3. sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, with a single point of failure. See Texas, February.

    4. the value proposition of electric vehicles is to make progressive yuppies feel good. and maybe get to zoom past the peasants in the HOV lane.

  12. You’ll apparently still be allowed to bring in a gas vehicle from out of state. So, in 15 years if you want to buy a gas car, Reno will have them.

    1. But once the initial tank of fuel is consumed, where in CA will you find gasoline?

      1. Just carry jugs of gas in your backseat or trunk.
        It’s probably as safe as packing 27 people into an SUV…

      2. There’s a guy in my neighborhood who takes his Model T Ford out on nice days. There will gas cars on the roads for a long time much as the Dems might want to ban them entirely, but that might actually get them voted out of office. It’s probably a good bet that Newsom’s 2035 ban won’t survive.

      3. They’re gonna outlaw gasoline? Hello black market.

        1. Mad Max here we come!

  13. What about fuel cells? At least with them you can refuel and go like a gas vehicle instead of waiting for a charge.

    1. Your point would be better received if you managed to weave it into an all-caps riddled salad of incoherent words. What do you think, SQRSLY?

      How many times are you going to out yourself?

  14. The vast majority of people who own electric cars are wealthy Democrats who also own/drive gas guzzlers, but who like to virtue signal about saving the planet by telling their friends they own an electric vehicle.

    I strongly suspect that most electric car owners also have significantly larger carbon footprints than the average American who drives a car with a combustion engine.

    1. Well, EV owners are probably much more likely to live in bigger homes, that are exempt for now from any electrification, and also take more long-haul flights to eco resorts and climate change conferences

    2. Between the added components needed to make an electric car, the battery life that is much shorter than the average life of a gasoline car, and the emissions from the power plants that charge it, the e-car itself has a higher carbon footprint than the equivalent gasoline car – unless it’s in CA, where in a few years e-cars will sit unused because there’s no power for the charging stations…

  15. remember, the facts are that warming trend since 1979 is about .2 degrees per decade, sea level rise has been consistent over the last century, and CO2 has so far been a large net benefit due to greening and warmer temps

    virtually all climate harms are based on speculative models of future harms that have consistently predicted too much warming since 1988

    but we’re already living Niven’s Fallen Angels, no matter what the problem (cold snap in TX, wildfire in CA, hurricane in FL) fossil fuels will be blamed and the investment in “alternative” boondoggles will only increase

    people in TX are beginning to wonder why Nancy Pelosi’s superstitions should ruin their lives

    1. “…but we’re already living Niven’s Fallen Angels,”

      Preachy as hell, but an increasingly necessary read these days. Can you imagine what it would look like if The Ice did actually start coming back?

      1. more a question of “when” than “if”

        unless we dam the Drake Passage to break up the circumpolar current, or something on that scale

        unfortunately we don’t really know enough to rule out a sudden return to glaciating conditions above the Ohio River Valley

      2. funny, the Earth is already so cold that if we’d observed it as an exoplanet during ~90% of the last 50 million years, it would be in a cold, dusty Ice Age unsuitable for agriculture — a very marginal bet for future slower-than-light human colonization, as the odds of an expedition arriving during an interglacial is quite small

        1. “The ramrobots were programmed to find a habitable point…”

          How overdue are we to be leaving the Interglacial anyway? I doubt AGHG will delay it on any meaningful scale, considering prior CO2 levels in geologic history.

          1. looks like we’ll have some advance intel from microprobes

            they are now saying 20 years to Proxima Centauri B, a planet in a habitable zone

            of course it’s probably tidally locked to a flare star, but hey it’s close
            Breakthrough Starshot is a research and engineering project by the Breakthrough Initiatives to develop a proof-of-concept fleet of light sail interstellar probes named Starchip,[1] to be capable of making the journey to the Alpha Centauri star system 4.37 light-years away. It was founded in 2016 by Yuri Milner, Stephen Hawking, and Mark Zuckerberg.[2][3]

            A flyby mission has been proposed to Proxima Centauri b, an Earth-sized exoplanet in the habitable zone of its host star, Proxima Centauri, in the Alpha Centauri system.[4] At a speed between 15% and 20% of the speed of light,[5][6][7][8] it would take between twenty and thirty years to complete the journey, and approximately four years for a return message from the starship to Earth.

        2. Not to mention the relatively subsistent levels of CO2. Well below those that would be required for explosive/terraformative vegetative growth.

          Assuming ~1 atm of pressure, it would be better/more feasible to colonize/terraform a 2000-5000 ppm planet and scrub the CO2 out of the tiny fraction that humans would need rather than colonize/terraform a 200 ppm planet and risk an errant algae bloom or invasive species collapsing the whole system. Find a natural greenhouse and set up meathouses on it rather than finding a meathouse (or a meatlocker) and setting up greenhouses on it.

          The Goldilocks amount of CO2, where plant growth is maximized without making constant unsupported human habitation intolerable is closer to 1000-1500 ppm.

          1. unfortunately it is beginning to look as though Earth might be in a very unique, unstable equilibrium in which enough liquid water is present to act as a global thermostat, but not in sufficient quantity to cover nearly all landmasses

            apparently we are expecting to find more Venusian exoplanets, in which all the hydrogen gets stripped out leaving the CO2 to accumulate to densities at which adiabatic heating raises temps far past habitable ranges

            or Mars-like planets, where the atmosphere dissipates

            or covered completely in water

            1. Yeah, I wasn’t speaking exactly to the probabilistic expectations as much as the notion that our planet/climate as ideal from either a ‘raw dough’ or a ‘finished product’ perspective.

              I’m still kinda incredulous at the optimism that either ignores or is oblivious to the fact that only a handful of people have been born on antarctica and to date no one has spent even scant 3 months living in relatively shallow depths in the ocean, well within hours or days of resupply or rescue, and is somehow pretty sure that our first stab at colonizing another planet is going to go well.

              1. yeah makes sense

                increasingly pessimistic we’ll even find another planet that was stable long enough for an life-driven oxygen catastrophe to occur, reducing greenhouse effects just as the star was brightening, seems like weak anthropic principle beats out the Copernican principle on that one

                unfortunately we can’t do much terraforming on Venusians, nowhere to get enough water unless you rain comets from the Oort for many millennia

                haha yeah my sister wintered at McMurdo as an EMT, if there was a birth she would been pressed into midwife service… said there was much cheering when the weather finally broke and the resupply

                but on Mars a dome might be enough

                Musk should probably try to colonize Antarctica in domes before Mars

  16. Just mandate transporters so we don’t need cars at all. Hey Scotty, beam me to the mall.

    1. “Sorry” says Scotty. “You’re beaming permit from the social media monitors has been suspended because you probably had a bad thought last week”.

      1. Scotty, I believe if you search my personal effects you’ll find my social media exception permit right beneath my bottle of Saurian brandy. Please make sure my permit doesn’t get lost in transport.

  17. California’s Zero-Emission Car Mandate Is Empty Virtue Signalling

    All virtue signalling is empty.

  18. One thing that seems to be forgotten in the whole “just transfers emissions to the power plant” argument is the increase in efficiently you get with an electric vehicle. My electric car gets an equivalent MPG of about 125 miles per gallon. Considering that most power is now generated by natural gas, which is much more CO2 efficient than oil or gasoline, the amount of CO2 produced, and adding in the fact that electric vehicles use less energetic per mile (they don’t waste so much on waste heat like ICE cars), transferring emissions to power plants does, in fact, serve to reduce CO2 emissions.

    1. Considering that the current federal government administration is going to ban natural gas as well, what then?

      What is the environmental impact of the battery manufacture and transportation to get to your vehicle? What are your plans for disposal of the heavy metals when the first battery goes the way of all batteries?

      1. It’s a bald-faced lie that buys into the ’emissions at the tailpipe’ shell game above.

        Electric engines do waste energy heating the system, they just don’t do it primarily at the motor, they do it at the charging station. Tesla likes to claim 92% efficiency out of the battery but, empirically, that appears to be (once again) another switch in the shell game. Empirically, users report that at 220V you get about 80% efficiency from the wall to the battery which, with the 92% Tesla claims becomes 73% at the wheel and at 110V you get about 50% efficiency from the wall to the battery and 46% efficiency at the wheel. This gets into the ‘equivalent MPG’ bullshit that Ruperttheskeptic appears to be grossly ignorant of, whereby all the additional heat generated pushing 110 kWh of electricity down the lines and into the battery to put 85 kWh of power on the road doesn’t get counted as inefficiency for the electric motor vehicle despite the fact that the vehicle necessitates them.

        And, as usual, this ignores the fact that in many places the heat from the system is required or reused by the operator(s) and a significant portion of inefficiencies spent cruising down the road have little-to-nothing to do with the locomotion of the vehicle, rendering the expenditure a bit moot.

        1. yep

          “assume a costless, superconducting national grid”

          suspect Niven was right on that one too, a biofuel economy is the better alternative when fossils are not present

          need fractional distillation to support industry

    2. My electric car gets an equivalent MPG of about 125 miles per gallon.

      Is that an “equivalent” MPG or an equivalent estimated MPG? Would you mind walking through the calculation for us? I know I’m a lowly college graduate who only took 2 years of physics after competing for only 3 years in HS on a 2-stroke fuel efficiency challenge team (where the minimum to qualify was 150 mpg), so I’m still confused as to how a more effecient engine generally has a shorter range than a less efficient engine.

      1. What is MPGe? This abbreviation stands for “miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent.” It measures the fuel efficiency of vehicles that run on non-liquid fuels, such as hybrid and electric models. These fuels, such as compressed natural gas and electricity, are rated in MPGe as opposed to the standard miles-per-gallon. Let’s get to know more about this innovative rating system.

        Who Developed the MPGe Rating System?
        The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established MPGe as an energy efficiency metric. Introduced in 2010, its mission is to relate the amount of energy expended by alternative fuel vehicles to that of traditional gas-powered variants.

        MPGe doesn’t necessarily equate to a solid comparison between operating costs with these two types of engine types due to the wide variation in costs between alternative fuel vehicles and internal combustion engines. Therefore the EPA assumes prices that represent national averages.

        What Is the Monroney Sticker?
        The U.S. requires the Monroney sticker or window sticker on all new cars. This label must be clearly visible to shoppers and affixed to the car’s window. It includes a listing of the car’s official information. The window sticker got its name from Oklahoma Senator Almer Monroney.

        The Illustrious History of MPGe
        With the introduction of alternative fuel vehicles, the U.S. enacted the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) to help manage this advanced technology. New information, such as MPGe ratings, should be incorporated in the Monroney label of new cars and light-duty trucks sold in America. These additions included information about greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants that environmentally conscious consumers want to know.

        The EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administered several studies to come up with the best way to redesign the label while providing consumers with simple comparisons across the industry. With the 2012 model year, the changes went into effect.

        In order to help shoppers choose more efficient, eco-friendly vehicles, including plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles, the EPA conducted a variety of focus groups that yielded research showing that participants didn’t understand kilowatt-hour as a measure of energy use. They instead preferred a miles-per-gallon equivalent, hence the use of MPGe today. Based on focus group results, the EPA adopted the same format to report ratings for city and highway and combined, regardless of whether the label indicated MPGe or mpg.

        How Is MPGe Determined?
        To determine MPGe ratings, the EPA uses the precise amount of electric energy that’s equal to the energy in one gallon of gasoline, according to Green Car Reports. By determining the vehicle’s consumption per distance, the organization could calculate its MPGe. The agency uses advanced computer modeling or an actual driving cycle to convert native units into a gasoline energy equivalent.

        By considering liquid fuel’s tank-to-wheel and an electric vehicle’s wall-to-wheel consumption, it can measure the amount of energy that the owner will most likely pay to use. For a battery-powered car, the distance it travels per that measure of energy determines its MPGe rating. This is the number that goes on the window sticker in place of the traditional mpg figures.

        Head over to the EPA’s website to review fuel efficiency and range estimates for every vehicle sold in America. Use the handy tool to compare multiple cars, so you can get an accurate picture of just how much you can save by switching to alternative fuels.

        Is there a Better Way to Determine Electric Car Costs?
        While a car’s MPGe rating is an excellent way to compare its energy consumption to that of a gas-powered car, this number isn’t very helpful in determining how much you’re going to pay for your vehicle’s fuel cost, since that energy usually comes from your home’s electric meter. When comparison shopping electric vehicles, it’s essential to consider both MPGe and range. A more efficient car costs less to recharge. However, does it have sufficient range to get you where you’re headed?

        According to U.S. News, if an electric vehicle earns an estimated 136 MPGe compared to a gas car’s 32 mpg, it’s obvious that the electric vehicle is significantly more efficient. However, you don’t have the luxury of that big sign at the gas station like you do when you fill-up the tank for a traditional combustion engine model, so how does that translate into electric costs?

        Thankfully, the EPA provides another metric to find the answer: the range. The Monroney label also indicates a vehicle’s kilowatt-hours-per-100-miles rating. The figure represents the amount of energy needed to travel 100 miles in kWh, giving you a reliable estimate of how efficiently a vehicle turns electricity into distance. Keep in mind that the numbers are flipped, so unlike mpg, where a higher number is better, the lower number of kilowatt-hours is better.

        Cost Saving for Electric Cars
        Electric vehicles, such as the 2020 Hyundai Ioniq, offer significant cost savings over their conventional gasoline rivals, simply because electricity is cheaper to buy than gas. Therefore, it’s cheaper to recharge than to refill your car.

        Another interesting fact about an electric vehicle is how efficiently it uses energy or how much energy gets directed to the wheels versus what’s lost to the air as heat. This efficiency is a major reason why electric vehicles are so inexpensive to drive. Many electric motors send 90 percent of the available energy to move the car forward, while the majority of combustion engines operate at less than 40 percent, according to CleanTechnica.

        The truth is that less than 40 percent of the energy available from every gallon of gasoline actually moves the car, leaving more than 60 percent of that precious, valuable fuel to waste away in the form of heat loss from the engine and other components. Meanwhile, almost all of that low-cost electricity is going right to the wheels, with very little heat loss.

        Traditional mpg measures how many miles your vehicle travels on one gallon of gas. Since alternative fuel vehicles don’t always need gas to run, the term MPGe is a more accurate way to compare energy consumption.

        1. So, when I ask for a walkthrough of the calculation, do you not know what a calculation is or do you just not care?

        2. Moreover, your rambling exposes your lie:

          How Is MPGe Determined?
          To determine MPGe ratings, the EPA uses the precise amount of electric energy that’s equal to the energy in one gallon of gasoline, according to Green Car Reports. By determining the vehicle’s consumption per distance, the organization could calculate its MPGe. The agency uses advanced computer modeling or an actual driving cycle to convert native units into a gasoline energy equivalent.

          The amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline is pretty empirical, the distance driven by a car is pretty empirical, so why, exactly is the “advanced computer modelling” necessary? It’s almost like they need it because the numbers aren’t emprical.

          And, to my point, all the inefficiencies of EVs have been offloaded onto the grid and the numbers *still* have to be fudged to generate equivalence.

          1. Sorry, generate “equivalence”.

          2. “advanced computer modeling”

            uh oh

            been programming for nearly 40 years now

            dad was a programmer

            wife is a programmer

            when I see those words I just mentally substitute the words “wild guess”

  19. I mean, doesn’t seem like virtue signaling. You can disagree with it but it does promise to do something.

    Now if you were talking basically anything a Republican does…sure- virtue signaling.

    1. Brilliant take.

      Thank you.

      1. I agree. Very nice article with well-researched writing. I look forward to reading more of your great work on this website!

    2. “but it does promise to do something”

      I promise to cure your cancer.

  20. You wrote an article about electric vehicles in California, and did not mention that they turn off the electricity grid when the wind blows over 20 miles an hour.
    Because the environmentalists won’t let the electric company clear-cut under the transmission lines.
    And you can count on the Santa Anna winds blowing much higher than that during the winter season.
    If you have to flee a wildfire during a Santa Anna wind storm, you are out of luck with your electric vehicle.

  21. The LA Times is pro “spend big now” on every issue.

    Hydrogen power is the way to go. The most abundant element in the universe, no pollution.

    1. That was the consensus early in the 20th century, when putting hydro generators on Bureau of Reclamation dams was the big thing. But even those get targeted by the greenies because of their impact on local ecosystems.

      The thing is, it’s arguable that there are some very tangible tradeoffs to hydro. The Colorado River is essentially fucked because of all the dams that have been put up to capture its relatively limited streamflow (there’s a delta of about 3-4 million acre feet between its average flow and its required allocation in the Colorado River Compact), while the Aswan Dam in Egypt degraded the entire Nile delta system below the dam, due to the prevention of nutrient-rich silt flow that was part of the annual flood for millennia.

      Maybe the coast could do something like massive offshore energy collection through tidal capture, but I’m sure the greenies would find something to complain about there, too.

      1. I’ve been wondering too about wind power, how do you take that much energy out of the atmosphere without altering its movements and patterns?

      2. I agree that the dams make hydropower possibly the worst power source ecologically, but “Hydrogen power” is not “hydropower” and has nothing to do with dams. It’s breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen – which requires more energy in than you’ll get out by using the hydrogen. It’s not a power source but a power storage technology competing with batteries and flywheels.

    2. You know it’s gonna take energy to isolate all the hydrogen right?

  22. 2035 is fantasy. We are at least three decades away from this progressive wish becoming rooted.

    1. How the hell a state with a rotting power grid and no plans for nuclear power plants is going to achieve this in fourteen years is a mystery.

      Wind and solar are just silly fashion accessories, and are never going to advance far enough in fourteen years to meet today’s needs, let alone tomorrows.

      They must be banking on discovering alien tech.

    2. ha when I was a kid few believed there would still be oil in 2021

      let alone cheap oil

      from record US production

  23. Changing from ICE to electric vehicles is a fast way to cut emissions of green house gases that are causing climate change. This makes sense because it is low hanging fruit.

    1. Powering cars on unicorn farts cuts emissions too, but alas, it’s as unpossible as no ICE vehicles by 2035.

      Keep dreaming though. I’m sure somewhere between cold fusion & unobtainium you’ll find the answer.

    2. Tell me again how using less efficient means of moving the energy or around results in a reduction in energy consumption.

      1. It doesn’t reduce energy consumption. However, it doesn’t need to because it won’t be getting energy from power plants burning oil. Burning natural gas from a pipeline is much more efficient on a CO2 per energy basis than burning gasoline. Fracking has made natural gas practically free, so economics dictates that our grid of the future is going to be almost entirely a combination of natural gas and whatever the government mandates.

  24. Whatever happened to John?

  25. This article is purely a private opinion.

    I own a hybrid plug-in sedan, that I recharge from our household solar-power and battery system. It works great.

    People are capable of generating their own solar power to use to recharge their vehicles.

    1. Solar should be standard on homes.

      1. Why do you want to price the lower middle class out of home ownership?

  26. When Hollywood re-makes Bullitt with a Mustang Mach E the theatres will be so quiet during the car chase scene that napping will ensue.

  27. The reason why consumers still choose Teslas … is perhaps surprisingly simple. They can drive their Teslas for long distances in full confidence that they will find convenient locations at which to recharge their vehicle”

    But I have no confidence that these chargers will have power when I need to get out of the city, and I don’t live in California where the government wants to cut 24-hour-a-day power generation.

  28. Good article until the last paragraph. But I guess that was why I read it, as the headline echoed the last paragraph.

  29. CA budget $202B. Working Citizens (18-65) 13,000.
    Government cost per working citizens —
    Current min wage $7.25 + $8.10 = $15.35/hr.
    W/O Government average wage would already be $15/hr.

    1. correction: Working citizens 13,000,000.

  30. By 2035, following the established 70 year pattern of exponentially declining battery prices, batteries will cost about 20% of today’s prices. We will start seeing EVs with 500 “real world mile” ranges, and NEVs for occasional trips to the store for about the price of a golf cart.

    Empty virtue signalling, indeed. These politicians are like roosters claiming that by crowing they can make the sun rise. Their words are worth less than a fart.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.