• đź‘‹ Welcome! If you were registered on Cybertruckownersclub.com as of October 14, 2024 or earlier, you can simply login here with the same username and password as on Cybertruckownersclub.

    If you wish, you can remove your account here.

Washington State Plans to Ban Sales of Gasoline Cars after 2030

TruckElectric

Well-known member
First Name
Bryan
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Threads
609
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
1,493
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Dodge Ram diesel
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Washington State Plans to Ban Sales of Gasoline Cars after 2030

With the most aggressive anti-internal-combustion law in the U.S. heading to its governor's desk, Washington moves ahead of even California, and it could be the first of a wave of such actions.
Cybercab Robotaxi Washington State Plans to Ban Sales of Gasoline Cars after 2030 4d9afe9d-d2e5-4a30-8559-31de55b5441f_1564432922

BY SEBASTIAN BLANCO
APR 17, 2021


Cybercab Robotaxi Washington State Plans to Ban Sales of Gasoline Cars after 2030 his-car-at-an-news-photo-1618682303.?crop=1.00xw:1

JUSTIN SULLIVANGETTY IMAGES
  • The state of Washington passed "Clean Cars 2030" through the legislature this week, and if the governor signs it, the bill would give automakers the earliest deadline in the country for ending sales of gasoline-powered cars.
  • That deadline could come in 2030, but the actual date will be set by the percentage of vehicles in the state that pay for road use through vehicle miles traveled instead of by taxes on gasoline.
  • Last year, Washington became the 12th state to adopt a zero-emission vehicle program and incentives to make the switch to an EV already exist at the state level, for new and used models.
Clean Cars 2030 is the short, simple name for a new piece of legislation that has passed the Washington State legislature this week and could set up a complicated, first-in-the-nation ban on the sale of gasoline vehicles. As the Seattle Times put it: "It's a 'fringe, crazy' bill no longer."

While other states—California, Massachusetts—have also set up such targets, none would kick in as soon as this new one in the Evergreen State. As with so many of these kinds of upcoming bans, the details remain a bit fluid a decade or so before they’re supposed to go into effect.

Despite the straightforward name, the 2030 date is not a specific mandate in the law. Instead, Clean Cars 2030, an amendment to E2SHB 1287, a state bill that would require local electric utilities to get ready for more electric vehicles, looks for a time when at least 75 percent of the vehicles registered in Washington pay to use the roads through a vehicle miles-traveled tax. A VMT can be used by governments to collect money to pay for roads as an alternative to a gas tax, which EV drivers obviously don’t pay.

One key detail is that the Clean Cars 2030 amendment doesn’t provide for a way to start collecting a VMT in Washington, but there are separate efforts being made to start one in the state. The sales ban would apply to model year 2030 or later passenger and light-duty vehicles.

"Passage of this legislation takes the guesswork and uncertainty out of the electric-vehicle transition by creating a clear timeline with the data, tools, and guidelines we need to help businesses, developers, governments, and consumers plan with confidence," said State Sen. Marko Liias, who pushed for the bill, in a statement. "Clean Cars 2030 is a critical step to meet urgent carbon reduction goals here in Washington and can serve as a model and impetus for other states to accelerate the switch to EVs."

It's not a complete surprise that Washington is at the forefront of the movement to legislatively push for a shift to EVs. In March 2020, the state became the 12th in the nation to adopt a zero-emission vehicle program, and the state offers a tax exemption on some of the purchase price of new plug-in vehicles valued up to $45,000 ($30,000 for used EVs).

The Washington bill has the support of groups such as Coltura, which works for a gasoline-free America. Coltura said this bill sets "the most aggressive state goal in the U.S. for moving to an all-electric future," in part because the potential deadline of 2030 is five years ahead of the target California has set, which is 2035.

Whenever it actually happens that you can't buy a gasoline-powered vehicle in Washington State, a number of automakers are looking at 2030 or 2035 as an important turning point for the vehicles they will sell. Aside from EV-only companies, notably Tesla and Rivian, General Motors has made the most dramatic announcement, saying it "aspires" to sell only zero-emission vehicle by 2035. Volvo plans to have 50 percent of its sales fully electric by 2025, and it will only sell EVs by 2030. And there are many, many more.


SOURCE: CAR AND DRIVER
 

DarinCT

Well-known member
First Name
Darin
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Threads
6
Messages
260
Reaction score
102
Location
California
Vehicles
M3, CT triM
Country flag
ZETA is an EV industry trade group pushing for 2030 as well. Unsurprisingly, all the EV names are members including Tesla who usually like to do their own thing.

https://www.zeta2030.org/

I'm curious how Washington plans to deal with the rural communities as well as MUD (multi-user dwellings e.g. apartments) as those two issues seen to have no paths forward.
 

Sirfun

Well-known member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Dec 28, 2019
Threads
37
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
616
Location
Oxnard, California
Vehicles
Toyota Avalon, Chrysler Pacifica PHEV, Ford E-250
Occupation
Retired Sheet Metal Worker
Country flag
ZETA is an EV industry trade group pushing for 2030 as well. Unsurprisingly, all the EV names are members including Tesla who usually like to do their own thing.

https://www.zeta2030.org/

I'm curious how Washington plans to deal with the rural communities as well as MUD (multi-user dwellings e.g. apartments) as those two issues seen to have no paths forward.
ZETA huh, 30 years ago I named our cat Zeta. I got the name from the windsurfing sail made by Dave Ezzy.
BTW, even though I'm wanting the world to transition to EV's. I don't agree with the strategy of banning ICE through legislation. I think, if people want there noisy, smelly ICE machine, they should be allowed. BUT like smoking cigarettes, make them pay a reasonable fee, that helps to make the world a better place.
 
Last edited:

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
82
Messages
11,802
Reaction score
3,841
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Why do these headlines always skip the 'new' and 'some'.

These bans don't stop used or special purpose vehicles from being sold.

I'm curious how Washington plans to deal with the rural communities as well as MUD (multi-user dwellings e.g. apartments) as those two issues seen to have no paths forward.
By installing charging?

Like, it's not impossible to use EVs, and we're talking a decade from now.

-Crissa
 

Sirfun

Well-known member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Dec 28, 2019
Threads
37
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
616
Location
Oxnard, California
Vehicles
Toyota Avalon, Chrysler Pacifica PHEV, Ford E-250
Occupation
Retired Sheet Metal Worker
Country flag
Why do these headlines always skip the 'new' and 'some'.

These bans don't stop used or special purpose vehicles from being sold.

-Crissa
YES, It is very misleading to leave out the word "NEW".
 

FutureBoy

Well-known member
First Name
Reginald
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Threads
162
Messages
2,764
Reaction score
734
Location
Kirkland WA USA
Vehicles
Toyota Sienna
Occupation
Financial Advisor
Country flag
Why do these headlines always skip the 'new' and 'some'.

These bans don't stop used or special purpose vehicles from being sold.


By installing charging?

Like, it's not impossible to use EVs, and we're talking a decade from now.

-Crissa
(y)

So many new developments are happening right now that I doubt the US automobile market will even be recognizable by 2030. Sure there will be some used vehicles around. I'll probably still have my grandfather's 1950 Ford pickup in my backyard. But by then there is a serious possibility that robotaxi's will be a thing. Possibly there will be (or at least starting to be) a bunch of tunnels for traffic underground that will require vehicles to be fully electric. Possibly things like hyperloop will be starting to be in use. And almost certainly there will be people on the moon. Possibly even visiting Mars. Along with our current pandemic moves to have people working online, the number of required vehicles will most likely be dropping.

I get that there are many people who cannot see far enough ahead to even imagine the idea that EVs could be a sizeable part of the market. But even if all the states in the US were to adopt a similar measure for new vehicles being EVs, there are a ton of other ICE vehicles that would not be covered by these statutes. If we have any hope of getting climate change under control, banning NEW ICE vehicles is only just a tiny start.
 

DarinCT

Well-known member
First Name
Darin
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Threads
6
Messages
260
Reaction score
102
Location
California
Vehicles
M3, CT triM
Country flag
By installing charging?

Like, it's not impossible to use EVs, and we're talking a decade from now.

-Crissa
Seeing as how we're doing the half-baked question as an answer thing...

Who pays?
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
82
Messages
11,802
Reaction score
3,841
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Who pays?
Pays for what?

Charging is a net positive for businesses. Garages already have electricity. It's not a big deal to require access to that electricity through permits and building codes.

And yes, we could build more directly funded through the government. That's how 'we' as a people do things.

Pay for it? Why do you think this is expensive? It's not. I added a Level 1 outlet at my parking spec for about $100 in parts, and it's about 80' from my house.

And even if it were expensive, government spending isn't like budgeting your house. It's a ridiculous question.

-Crissa
 

DarinCT

Well-known member
First Name
Darin
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Threads
6
Messages
260
Reaction score
102
Location
California
Vehicles
M3, CT triM
Country flag
Pays for what?

Charging is a net positive for businesses. Garages already have electricity. It's not a big deal to require access to that electricity through permits and building codes.

And yes, we could build more directly funded through the government. That's how 'we' as a people do things.

Pay for it? Why do you think this is expensive? It's not. I added a Level 1 outlet at my parking spec for about $100 in parts, and it's about 80' from my house.

And even if it were expensive, government spending isn't like budgeting your house. It's a ridiculous question.

-Crissa
Are you suggesting that someone like Electrify America would want to do an build out in an apartment complex parking garage?

The owner does want an easement or lost parking or people calling about the charger. Businesses don't get a net positive if they are doing work in someone's parking structure as it's non-standard, uneven income, and not something they can increase user base. The government doesn't want to force the apartment owners to do it as they'll pass the costs onto the renters, the majority of whom don't need it. The power company is a non-starter. Some HOA maybe. The tenants have no authority.

You did a diy on your own property with no service provider (like Electrify America). Of course it appears simple. Last time I checked 70% of Americans live in some form of MUD. Maybe it's not your problem, but it's going to be a problem for Washington State.
 

FutureBoy

Well-known member
First Name
Reginald
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Threads
162
Messages
2,764
Reaction score
734
Location
Kirkland WA USA
Vehicles
Toyota Sienna
Occupation
Financial Advisor
Country flag
I would much rather see the market naturally shift towards EVs due to them being a better product, less environmental impacts, etc.
On the consumer side, people will naturally move to EVs because they are better products and overall less expensive. I doubt individual people will look at the state's decisions when they are actively buying their next vehicle.

At the same time though, most of the big auto companies need changes in the law like this in order to have a solid reason to make changes. Moving them to build EVs is going to be a huge cost and without the states making definitive requirements there is little to no incentive for them to start making those investments. But with the legal changes, big auto can justify the necessary investments and at least start trying to make the moves necessary.

Unfortunately, if the auto companies don't offer up viable EVs for consumers to evaluate, your desire to have the market naturally shift will never happen. This is what has been happening for the last 30 years. There have been consumers looking to buy EVs (as an example go back and see how the GM EV1 was received) and now that EVs perform so well (thank you Tesla) there are many more people wanting to buy EVs. But really till Tesla came along, there have been scant few viable EV options.

Big auto has fought tooth and nail to keep from having to make the investments necessary for true viable EV development. The states making legal requirements is just a way to counteract the natural tendencies of big auto.
 

firsttruck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Threads
124
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
633
Location
mx
Vehicles
none
Country flag
....
Unfortunately, if the auto companies don't offer up viable EVs for consumers to evaluate, your desire to have the market naturally shift will never happen. This is what has been happening for the last 30 years. There have been consumers looking to buy EVs (as an example go back and see how the GM EV1 was received) and now that EVs perform so well (thank you Tesla) there are many more people wanting to buy EVs. But really till Tesla came along, there have been scant few viable EV options.

Big auto has fought tooth and nail to keep from having to make the investments necessary for true viable EV development. The states making legal requirements is just a way to counteract the natural tendencies of big auto.
Exactly

In 1999/2000 battery tech with NiMH batteries was good enough for many practical EV cars.
The drivers/leasees that had EV1 loved them and were willing to buy them at end of lease.
GM killed production and destroyed all the cars after they bought enough politicians to kill the mandate.

GM did not want the general public to see that EVs were viable for many drivers/owners in 1999/2000.

15 years of the transition lost. Thousands maybe millions of additional deaths & health losses because of air pollution.
 

JJ_Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Threads
3
Messages
93
Reaction score
99
Location
Prosper, TX
Vehicles
Just Purchased: 2021 F150 Hybrid Platinum
Country flag
Big auto has fought tooth and nail to keep from having to make the investments necessary for true viable EV development. The states making legal requirements is just a way to counteract the natural tendencies of big auto.
I guess I just do not see that as the role of government. Tesla is a market disruptor, and yes, I know it does not always meet the classic definition of a market disruptor. But lets not ignore that they have taken EVs from something of an oddity to a really cool and viable option to replace your traditional daily driver. As a result they have seen growth and market share increases. Now big auto is dumping tons of money into R&D to try and keep up, especially now that Tesla is going after the truck market.

That is what is driving the investments, not some state legislature. And if certain auto makers do not adapt, they will go the way of the book stores, flip phones, Radio Shack, basic cable, etc. Maybe if we are lucky they will make a documentary in 15 years called "The last Chevy dealer".
 

FutureBoy

Well-known member
First Name
Reginald
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Threads
162
Messages
2,764
Reaction score
734
Location
Kirkland WA USA
Vehicles
Toyota Sienna
Occupation
Financial Advisor
Country flag
I guess I just do not see that as the role of government. Tesla is a market disruptor, and yes, I know it does not always meet the classic definition of a market disruptor. But lets not ignore that they have taken EVs from something of an oddity to a really cool and viable option to replace your traditional daily driver. As a result they have seen growth and market share increases. Now big auto is dumping tons of money into R&D to try and keep up, especially now that Tesla is going after the truck market.

That is what is driving the investments, not some state legislature. And if certain auto makers do not adapt, they will go the way of the book stores, flip phones, Radio Shack, basic cable, etc. Maybe if we are lucky they will make a documentary in 15 years called "The last Chevy dealer".
To be honest, I see these laws not as a government action but as the will of the people forcing the issue. Big oil and auto has always had their hand in government. The politicians cater to them night and day. And the side effects include the huge subsidies, legal fencing, tax breaks, and preferential lobbying that get provided. These ICE sunset laws would not be happening at all under normal government operations. But there is something even more important to politicians than campaign cash. It’s raw votes. This doesn’t happen very often but in the current climate, the will of the people is such that they are voting for politicians that are willing to stand up to big oil and auto. The will of the people is not being swayed by the efforts of big oil and auto. The will of the people has politicians pushing bills that are in direct conflict with the desires of big oil and auto. The only reason these politicians have a backbone to stand up to big oil and auto is the raw numbers of voters who are voting on climate change and related issues. It’s not like government is making these laws out of concern for the health of the planet. Instead, a large enough majority of people have stood up with conviction on the issue and forced politicians to act. This isn’t a government mandate.
 
Last edited:
 
Top