7 ms·

New York passes law that will ban all gas-powered car sales by 2035

50 points by yboris 5y ago

steve76 5y ago
Fuel is illegal. Doubling the murders, looting stores, burning down your own city and treason to foreign marxists are all celebrated. Lawless madness. "Per capita pollution" means nothing when you build everything for the rest of the world. If we left it to the foreigners our leadership fawns over, we would all be dead a hundred times over. Ask Cuba to feed you, or South Africa to deflect an approaching asteroid. See how that works out.
qwerty456127 5y ago
What if a person owns a gas-powered car and another person wants it. It is going to be illegal for them to strike a deal?
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  I would be more considered about remaining petroleum infrastructure entering a death spiral as demand drops rapidly. The cost per mile to drive an EV is about half that of a combustion vehicle, so the heaviest consumers will move to EVs rapidly, leaving the stragglers to shoulder petroleum supply costs.
  - OneEyedRobot 5y ago
    But why use the marketplace when you can legislate? Actively managing things is ever so much fun.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - afavour 5y ago
      I get you're being sarcastic here but it's clear that the market hasn't been a total success with EVs. They require much more charging infrastructure before many will consider buying, but the EV infrastructure won't be built until there is demand for it. This is a classic example of where a government can step in to tip the scales and force a desirable outcome.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        So why ban instead of subsidize? (in the general case, we all know that states like NY love to ban things) Rooftop solar got cheap enough to be not quite viable and then took off like a rocket with government subsidy. If people could install chargers at a negligible net cost to them you'd see them everywhere as landlords and house flippers jump to "check that box".
        afavour 5y ago
        Because climate change is an emergency? Because it sends a stronger signal? Because it's what in line with countries across the world (and California) are already planning? https://www.coltura.org/world-gasoline-phaseouts https://www.coltura.org/world-gasoline-phaseouts New York isn't exactly some unique snowflake here.
        OneEyedRobot 5y ago
        While I think that EVs are cool, the subsidies not only distort things but are essentially tax breaks for the well-off. It's funny to me how the whole ICE vs. EV argument just isn't that much of a slam-dunk. Looking at page 5 here: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life... Completely altering the vehicle mix doesn't look like a game changer to me. I guess there's probably no low-hanging fruit. In the future, no doubt not only will houses be unaffordable for the middle class and below, but also cars.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  It's new car sales.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  Engadget left out that crucial detail, but no. It’s for new vehicle sales.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  > The state has passed a new law that bans the sale of gas vehicles starting in 2035, requiring all new cars to be zero emission. It appears that this only applies to sales of new vehicles. More details: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/landmark-new-york-law-passed-banning-new-fossil-fuel-vehicle-sales-from-2035/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/landmark-new-york-law-p...
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Everyone replying to you seems to be missing what I think is the obvious implication that new car sales won't really matter because if used car sales are still allowed dealers will just import those to sell and people will buy them if they are what they want. And if there is not enough charging infrastructure and whatnot gas cars will be what people want.
dgritsko 5y ago
I feel conflicted when I see headlines like this. On the one hand, this is better than not having passed said law. On the other hand, 14 years is quite a while, and the current members of the legislature will likely have long since moved on. So this feels like a way to earn brownie points with their constituents who really care about this, without actually undertaking the hard work of making this a reality. > under the new law, several state agencies are required to work together to conjure a zero-emissions vehicle market development strategy by the end of next year I guess that's nice that the timeframe for coming up with a plan is shorter... but again, don't we need more action now, and not in a decade and a half?
- greenonions 5y ago
  Changes like this affect action today. If you are an automaker, are you going to spend limited development money on cars you won't be able to sell in NY in the future? Investors are already pricing in how well automakers are going to be prepared for bills like this and EU/UK laws. So bills like this actually cause a lot of positive change today.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > If you are an automaker, are you going to spend limited development money on cars you won't be able to sell in NY in the future? If I were an automaker, I don't think I would care much about this. The writing is already on the wall for internal combustion engines (ICE) and ICE is already pretty established so I don't really need to innovate here anyway (as opposed to body style, electronic features, etc) and the time horizon is longer than a decade by which point I'm expecting ratio of EV:ICE sales to shift significantly. This shifts it a bit more. I think what it might do today is inspire other states to pass similar legislation and otherwise normalize the notion that EVs are the future for those who aren't technologists or early adopters.
  - spankalee 5y ago
    Exactly. Electric cars aren't even a great answer - reducing vehicle miles traveled with more public mass transit and denser cities is needed - but there's far more opposition to that than electric cars.
apocalyptic0n3 5y ago
These efforts really need to be accompanied by language or sibling bills that encourage installation of new community charging stations, force existing apartments to install X number of charging stations per resident, and requires all new residential buildings install them. The biggest hurdle I'm seeing among my friends and coworkers is simply that they would have to charge their vehicle 1-2x a week and have no way to charge at their apartment, while waiting 30 minutes at a public station is too inconvenient. Is this possibly something included in the Biden infrastructure bill (which I haven't really read or read into yet)?
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  NYC has a plan to install the largest EV charging network in the US. Federal incentives encourage local communities to adopt EV readiness plans to obtain federal grants (I contribute to and help develop EV readiness plans in my spare time). https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/electrifying-new-york-report.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/electrifying-new...
  - apocalyptic0n3 5y ago
    Thanks for the quick response. I'll add that to my list to read after work. That's great to hear.
rlewkov 5y ago
2035 Headline: Sales of gas-powered cars surge in New Jersey
- acwan93 5y ago
  Also possible in 2035: Ban on gas-powered car sales in New York delayed due to X.
bedhead 5y ago
This is stupid and will never actually happen. More generally, I'm growing tired of how signaling is usurping rational behavior. People are so focused on "being bold" and generating a headline instead of "being smart" and managing things rationally.
- kingbirdy 5y ago
  Could you provide some substantive backing you your claims? Why won't this ever happen? Why do you think this is about "being bold" rather than "managing things rationally"? What's irrational about electric vehicles?
  - twofornone 5y ago
    They are not yet feasible in rural areas. I feel like most of these policies are made and passed by people who are completely out of touch with rural living. And that's a problem because about half the country lives in rural areas with minimal infrastructure. Moreover, people like gas powered vehicles. There is a certain romantic appeal to a fire breathing engine. There are other ways of dealing with climate change and all of the doomsday predictions are rather unlikely worst case scenarios. And in the grand scheme automobile emissions are a small fraction of total anthropogenic carbon output. Really if we want to make a dent in emissions globally we need to get container ships to stop burning bunker fuel.
  - quantumsolace 5y ago
    Some thoughts. Do with them what you will. 0. The original sin of the car is the car itself, not the ICE. The car has externalities other than the ICE, battery cars don't address than and encourage forgetfulness. Arguably the car should be gradually killed off (I say this as a massive car guy) [1] 1. The problem with ICE cars is global warming, which is necessarily a global problem, not a local one (i.e. CO2 emissions barely effect the people who emit them more than those who do not). Therefore to address the CO2 emissions it has to be a global solution. 2. It's not obvious that battery technology can, globally, supply several orders of magnitude more batteries than currently. 3. Electrification of transport has immense promise, if done correctly. Assuming limited battery supplies, it is much more beneficial to use them to electrify big heavy vehicles by employing hybrid drivetrains. I was very skeptical of the Toyota Prius 20 years ago, and I was wrong. It is a brilliant car that has done more good for the environment than any other car. My only criticism today of the Prius is that the Prius should have been a pickup truck, not a subcompact. However, I understand the marketing wisdom behind that decision 20 years ago. 4. With a hybrid drive trains ICE can achieve thermal efficiencies rivaling a thermal power plant (the vast majority of our energy in the US) -> See Mercedes F1 ICE. 5. With a hybrid drivetrain the stop-go energy loss of heavy delivery trucks is significantly reduced. 6. Nor is there any reason why heavy delivery trucks should run on gasoline or diesel and not CH4 like our powerplants. It's an infrastructure problem just like the one faced by electric cars. So given the points above, if I were advising legislators, I would - put massive incentives for blue collar joe to buy a hybrid F-150, or a Ford maverick as his next work vehicle (necessary condition for the incentive, it's used for work). - put incentives to divert batteries to heavy road vehicles (although not necessarily big rigs. They have a more constant load). That said, it's not obvious to me that: 1. NY's goal can be accomplished by 2035. 2. vehicle manufacturers wont just divert electric vehicles to CA, NY and Norway and only sell ICE everywhere else 3. It's economically possible within the time frame [1]I don't zero-index. I use it here in the sense of the zeroth-law of thermo; as a prelude that to some is obvious, but turns out to be quite subtle.
ipnon 5y ago
Do we really want a ban on all gas powered cars? There are no situations where a gas car is preferable or necessary? There are simpler and less constraining ways to accomplish the real goal of this legislation, which is curbing carbon emissions. A simple, emissions-priced carbon tax on gasoline would make EVs preferable to those with no strong feelings on how they get around. My only claim is that a 99% ban is preferable to a 100% ban, because there most exist some circumstance where the internal combustion automobile is better. Expect this law to be walked back slightly in the future for this reason.
- spankalee 5y ago
  A carbon tax was a good idea 30 years ago. Now we need more direct regulation.
- CraigJPerry 5y ago
  Could we not just reuse an existing gas car for these cases? It seems preferable to repair those than build new ones if we’re talking about environmental impact.
  - pwinnski 5y ago
    It's reduce, reuse, recycle, in that order, so inasmuch as this results in reduction of car sales, or extending the life of existing (gas-powered) cars, that's still a win in many ways.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Loopholes create perverse incentives. You can see this in things like regulations on certain vehicle sizes. "But what about trucks" turns into "pickups and SUVs grow to monstrous proportions". If it turns out that in 15 years there is some grievous need for gas cars then, as you say, the legislation can be walked back. But that isn't a reason to not make it bold to start with.
- misiti3780 5y ago
  My hot take: The range of electric cars degrades considerably at low temperatures in my experience (75% of range sometimes). There is no scenario where gas trucks cars will not be utilized in Canada and the northern united states until this type of technological issue is resolved. Not to mention, the number of chargers would have to increase exponentially to support all of the electric cars coming online. There are simply places in North America where electric cars will never probably work.
Bostonian 5y ago
If this law actually takes effect in 2035 it will encourage people to keep older, more polluting, and less safe cars on the road. Banning a gas-powered car sale is equivalent to imposing an extremely high tax, say $1 million, on such a sale. Even if you think global warming is a serious problem, the damage from a gas-powered car is not infinite. If it is say $10K compared to an EV, then that is what the tax ought to be.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The early 2030s will see a heck of a lot of gas sedans sold as the people who put on tons of miles buy them in anticipation of needing something to get them through until EVs meet their needs.
- CraigJPerry 5y ago
  Is the calculation not a lot more complicated than that? E.g. i can imagine they are predicting higher rates of walking and cycling in cases that would otherwise have been a 2-3minute car journey. You’d expect that to have a visible effect on public health at a state level at least. Health, renewable energy storage, pollution, safety, there’s surely more factors than just pollution in that calculation?
- stephen_g 5y ago
  Why? There should be significant cost down as battery tech improves, increasing accessibility. By 2035, why would electric cars be worse in any way than an ICE car anyway? All the exciting and interesting new cars will be electric, and there should be plenty of 2030-2034 ICE cars on the used car market for a few years after as people upgrade.
ajay-b 5y ago
But Tesla is the only EV dealer that can sell in New York. New York does not allow other manufacturers to sell directly to consumers. They must go through a dealer. https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/22/electric-vehicles-direct-sales-dealerships-evs/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/22/electric-vehicles-dire...
- paulgb 5y ago
  The only manufacturer-owned dealership, no? I would be surprised if I couldn't go to a Ford dealer in NYC and buy an EV.
- Cd00d 5y ago
  I don't this is correct. Most major manufacturers have an EV or plug-in line now, which you can buy at their normal dealerships - the Ford Mustang Mach-E, the Chevy Bolt for example. VW group and Nissan have their own lines.
  - ajay-b 5y ago
    New York does not allow a manufacturer like Rivian to sell directly to the customer. They must go through a dealer. Tesla has an exemption but only for them.
yawaworht1978 5y ago
Hm, average lifetime of American cars is 8-12 years. Most models have an update or iteration every 2-5 years. This means car manufacturers need to come up with a solution rather fast and acceptance should be initiated very soon, if someone buys a brand new car in 2031, they might not want to give it up 4 years later. Electric car infrastructure is not ready yet for this scale either and permissions to build might take a while. Rd, testing and production are all very low. Seems unrealistic to me, unless this legislation only covers new cars and selling used cars is still ok?
- paulgb 5y ago
  Good point. Here's the text of the bill, it specifies that it applies to new cars. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a4302 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a4302
- bumby 5y ago
  >average lifetime of American cars is 8-12 years Just a small bit of nuance, but the age at which a consumer trades up their car shouldn't be conflated with the design life. Design life is based on a certain reliability level and the reliability of cars is generally increasing; 25% of vehicles are over 16 years old [1]. The 'lifetime' of cars may be independent from when consumers decide to upgrade. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-at-least-sixteen-years-old----record-high.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-...
endisneigh 5y ago
Why not just increase ur price of gas in nyc via a gas tax that increases yearly up to say $50 a gallon by 2035? The free market will take care of everything else. And you can fund infrastructure for EVs. Missed opportunity IMO.
- kiliantics 5y ago
  > And you can fund infrastructure for EVs Or, better, build more rail and bicycle infrastructure, more green spaces in place of more car lanes, and stop building so many roads which induce demand
ARandomerDude 5y ago
Well, that's one way to make sure people can't leave New York... EVs are cool but until we solve the range issue, I can't bring myself to be interested.
- Cd00d 5y ago
  Yeah, it's too bad nobody will be working on that issue over the next 15 years. My gas car has a range of ~400 miles, then requires a ~10 minute stop. A lot of the experiences in this article linked below don't seem showstoppingly different to me, as my appetite for hours behind the wheel in a day is rarely > 10 hours. Fun read: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877585/ev-1000-11-electric-cars-long-distance-race/ https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877585/ev-1000-11-e...
artificialLimbs 5y ago
Good luck hauling in those >10,000 lb. loads of [commodity] that are necessary for infrastructure with your electric powered truck. New York is going to also mandate the cessation of building skyscrapers and new sewer systems?
tmaly 5y ago
usually they have to put in a grandfather clause to these types of laws. The 5th amendment to my limited understanding, prevents them from doing an outright ban.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  Engadget’s article is kind of awful. It’s a ban on new gas-powered car sales, older cars can still be bought and sold.
throw7 5y ago
The infrastructure is not here for electric cars. Saying we gonna ban gas cars at X date isn't anything more than virtue signaling. They need incentives, infrastructure buildouts (apartment dwellers need plugin ports too), standardization, technological progress on "filling up"... etc.
sk2020 5y ago
Well, I hope that New York will pass a law that will make enough cobalt to satisfy battery demand exist. I suppose they may not need that law if they only want enough cars to chauffeur celebrities in clown costumes to the Met Gala.
qwerty456127 5y ago
By the way it seems funny writing laws for 2035 today. We might as well pass a law which would ban farting on Mars by 2095 and also ban import of counterfeit Romulan ale from Proxima Centauri B after 2345. Most probably neither of the laws is going to make sense in the years as they come because the reality is going to be different from what we imagine.
thunkshift1 5y ago
So what will happen to has cars people own after 2035?

50 points by yboris 5y ago

Fuel is illegal. Doubling the murders, looting stores, burning down your own city and treason to foreign marxists are all celebrated. Lawless madness. "Per capita pollution" means nothing when you build everything for the rest of the world. If we left it to the foreigners our leadership fawns over, we would all be dead a hundred times over. Ask Cuba to feed you, or South Africa to deflect an approaching asteroid. See how that works out.

qwerty456127 5y ago

What if a person owns a gas-powered car and another person wants it. It is going to be illegal for them to strike a deal?

toomuchtodo 5y ago
I would be more considered about remaining petroleum infrastructure entering a death spiral as demand drops rapidly. The cost per mile to drive an EV is about half that of a combustion vehicle, so the heaviest consumers will move to EVs rapidly, leaving the stragglers to shoulder petroleum supply costs.
- OneEyedRobot 5y ago
  But why use the marketplace when you can legislate? Actively managing things is ever so much fun.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - afavour 5y ago
    I get you're being sarcastic here but it's clear that the market hasn't been a total success with EVs. They require much more charging infrastructure before many will consider buying, but the EV infrastructure won't be built until there is demand for it. This is a classic example of where a government can step in to tip the scales and force a desirable outcome.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      So why ban instead of subsidize? (in the general case, we all know that states like NY love to ban things) Rooftop solar got cheap enough to be not quite viable and then took off like a rocket with government subsidy. If people could install chargers at a negligible net cost to them you'd see them everywhere as landlords and house flippers jump to "check that box".
      - afavour 5y ago
        Because climate change is an emergency? Because it sends a stronger signal? Because it's what in line with countries across the world (and California) are already planning? https://www.coltura.org/world-gasoline-phaseouts https://www.coltura.org/world-gasoline-phaseouts New York isn't exactly some unique snowflake here.
      - OneEyedRobot 5y ago
        While I think that EVs are cool, the subsidies not only distort things but are essentially tax breaks for the well-off. It's funny to me how the whole ICE vs. EV argument just isn't that much of a slam-dunk. Looking at page 5 here: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life... Completely altering the vehicle mix doesn't look like a game changer to me. I guess there's probably no low-hanging fruit. In the future, no doubt not only will houses be unaffordable for the middle class and below, but also cars.
thehappypm 5y ago
It's new car sales.
Jtsummers 5y ago
Engadget left out that crucial detail, but no. It’s for new vehicle sales.
InitialLastName 5y ago
> The state has passed a new law that bans the sale of gas vehicles starting in 2035, requiring all new cars to be zero emission. It appears that this only applies to sales of new vehicles. More details: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/landmark-new-york-law-passed-banning-new-fossil-fuel-vehicle-sales-from-2035/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/landmark-new-york-law-p...
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Everyone replying to you seems to be missing what I think is the obvious implication that new car sales won't really matter because if used car sales are still allowed dealers will just import those to sell and people will buy them if they are what they want. And if there is not enough charging infrastructure and whatnot gas cars will be what people want.

dgritsko 5y ago

I feel conflicted when I see headlines like this. On the one hand, this is better than not having passed said law. On the other hand, 14 years is quite a while, and the current members of the legislature will likely have long since moved on. So this feels like a way to earn brownie points with their constituents who really care about this, without actually undertaking the hard work of making this a reality. > under the new law, several state agencies are required to work together to conjure a zero-emissions vehicle market development strategy by the end of next year I guess that's nice that the timeframe for coming up with a plan is shorter... but again, don't we need more action now, and not in a decade and a half?

greenonions 5y ago
Changes like this affect action today. If you are an automaker, are you going to spend limited development money on cars you won't be able to sell in NY in the future? Investors are already pricing in how well automakers are going to be prepared for bills like this and EU/UK laws. So bills like this actually cause a lot of positive change today.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > If you are an automaker, are you going to spend limited development money on cars you won't be able to sell in NY in the future? If I were an automaker, I don't think I would care much about this. The writing is already on the wall for internal combustion engines (ICE) and ICE is already pretty established so I don't really need to innovate here anyway (as opposed to body style, electronic features, etc) and the time horizon is longer than a decade by which point I'm expecting ratio of EV:ICE sales to shift significantly. This shifts it a bit more. I think what it might do today is inspire other states to pass similar legislation and otherwise normalize the notion that EVs are the future for those who aren't technologists or early adopters.
- spankalee 5y ago
  Exactly. Electric cars aren't even a great answer - reducing vehicle miles traveled with more public mass transit and denser cities is needed - but there's far more opposition to that than electric cars.

apocalyptic0n3 5y ago

These efforts really need to be accompanied by language or sibling bills that encourage installation of new community charging stations, force existing apartments to install X number of charging stations per resident, and requires all new residential buildings install them. The biggest hurdle I'm seeing among my friends and coworkers is simply that they would have to charge their vehicle 1-2x a week and have no way to charge at their apartment, while waiting 30 minutes at a public station is too inconvenient. Is this possibly something included in the Biden infrastructure bill (which I haven't really read or read into yet)?

toomuchtodo 5y ago
NYC has a plan to install the largest EV charging network in the US. Federal incentives encourage local communities to adopt EV readiness plans to obtain federal grants (I contribute to and help develop EV readiness plans in my spare time). https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/electrifying-new-york-report.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/electrifying-new...
- apocalyptic0n3 5y ago
  Thanks for the quick response. I'll add that to my list to read after work. That's great to hear.

rlewkov 5y ago

2035 Headline: Sales of gas-powered cars surge in New Jersey

acwan93 5y ago
Also possible in 2035: Ban on gas-powered car sales in New York delayed due to X.

bedhead 5y ago

This is stupid and will never actually happen. More generally, I'm growing tired of how signaling is usurping rational behavior. People are so focused on "being bold" and generating a headline instead of "being smart" and managing things rationally.

kingbirdy 5y ago
Could you provide some substantive backing you your claims? Why won't this ever happen? Why do you think this is about "being bold" rather than "managing things rationally"? What's irrational about electric vehicles?
- twofornone 5y ago
  They are not yet feasible in rural areas. I feel like most of these policies are made and passed by people who are completely out of touch with rural living. And that's a problem because about half the country lives in rural areas with minimal infrastructure. Moreover, people like gas powered vehicles. There is a certain romantic appeal to a fire breathing engine. There are other ways of dealing with climate change and all of the doomsday predictions are rather unlikely worst case scenarios. And in the grand scheme automobile emissions are a small fraction of total anthropogenic carbon output. Really if we want to make a dent in emissions globally we need to get container ships to stop burning bunker fuel.
- quantumsolace 5y ago
  Some thoughts. Do with them what you will. 0. The original sin of the car is the car itself, not the ICE. The car has externalities other than the ICE, battery cars don't address than and encourage forgetfulness. Arguably the car should be gradually killed off (I say this as a massive car guy) [1] 1. The problem with ICE cars is global warming, which is necessarily a global problem, not a local one (i.e. CO2 emissions barely effect the people who emit them more than those who do not). Therefore to address the CO2 emissions it has to be a global solution. 2. It's not obvious that battery technology can, globally, supply several orders of magnitude more batteries than currently. 3. Electrification of transport has immense promise, if done correctly. Assuming limited battery supplies, it is much more beneficial to use them to electrify big heavy vehicles by employing hybrid drivetrains. I was very skeptical of the Toyota Prius 20 years ago, and I was wrong. It is a brilliant car that has done more good for the environment than any other car. My only criticism today of the Prius is that the Prius should have been a pickup truck, not a subcompact. However, I understand the marketing wisdom behind that decision 20 years ago. 4. With a hybrid drive trains ICE can achieve thermal efficiencies rivaling a thermal power plant (the vast majority of our energy in the US) -> See Mercedes F1 ICE. 5. With a hybrid drivetrain the stop-go energy loss of heavy delivery trucks is significantly reduced. 6. Nor is there any reason why heavy delivery trucks should run on gasoline or diesel and not CH4 like our powerplants. It's an infrastructure problem just like the one faced by electric cars. So given the points above, if I were advising legislators, I would - put massive incentives for blue collar joe to buy a hybrid F-150, or a Ford maverick as his next work vehicle (necessary condition for the incentive, it's used for work). - put incentives to divert batteries to heavy road vehicles (although not necessarily big rigs. They have a more constant load). That said, it's not obvious to me that: 1. NY's goal can be accomplished by 2035. 2. vehicle manufacturers wont just divert electric vehicles to CA, NY and Norway and only sell ICE everywhere else 3. It's economically possible within the time frame [1]I don't zero-index. I use it here in the sense of the zeroth-law of thermo; as a prelude that to some is obvious, but turns out to be quite subtle.

ipnon 5y ago

Do we really want a ban on all gas powered cars? There are no situations where a gas car is preferable or necessary? There are simpler and less constraining ways to accomplish the real goal of this legislation, which is curbing carbon emissions. A simple, emissions-priced carbon tax on gasoline would make EVs preferable to those with no strong feelings on how they get around. My only claim is that a 99% ban is preferable to a 100% ban, because there most exist some circumstance where the internal combustion automobile is better. Expect this law to be walked back slightly in the future for this reason.

spankalee 5y ago
A carbon tax was a good idea 30 years ago. Now we need more direct regulation.
CraigJPerry 5y ago
Could we not just reuse an existing gas car for these cases? It seems preferable to repair those than build new ones if we’re talking about environmental impact.
- pwinnski 5y ago
  It's reduce, reuse, recycle, in that order, so inasmuch as this results in reduction of car sales, or extending the life of existing (gas-powered) cars, that's still a win in many ways.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Loopholes create perverse incentives. You can see this in things like regulations on certain vehicle sizes. "But what about trucks" turns into "pickups and SUVs grow to monstrous proportions". If it turns out that in 15 years there is some grievous need for gas cars then, as you say, the legislation can be walked back. But that isn't a reason to not make it bold to start with.
misiti3780 5y ago
My hot take: The range of electric cars degrades considerably at low temperatures in my experience (75% of range sometimes). There is no scenario where gas trucks cars will not be utilized in Canada and the northern united states until this type of technological issue is resolved. Not to mention, the number of chargers would have to increase exponentially to support all of the electric cars coming online. There are simply places in North America where electric cars will never probably work.

Bostonian 5y ago

If this law actually takes effect in 2035 it will encourage people to keep older, more polluting, and less safe cars on the road. Banning a gas-powered car sale is equivalent to imposing an extremely high tax, say $1 million, on such a sale. Even if you think global warming is a serious problem, the damage from a gas-powered car is not infinite. If it is say $10K compared to an EV, then that is what the tax ought to be.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The early 2030s will see a heck of a lot of gas sedans sold as the people who put on tons of miles buy them in anticipation of needing something to get them through until EVs meet their needs.
CraigJPerry 5y ago
Is the calculation not a lot more complicated than that? E.g. i can imagine they are predicting higher rates of walking and cycling in cases that would otherwise have been a 2-3minute car journey. You’d expect that to have a visible effect on public health at a state level at least. Health, renewable energy storage, pollution, safety, there’s surely more factors than just pollution in that calculation?
stephen_g 5y ago
Why? There should be significant cost down as battery tech improves, increasing accessibility. By 2035, why would electric cars be worse in any way than an ICE car anyway? All the exciting and interesting new cars will be electric, and there should be plenty of 2030-2034 ICE cars on the used car market for a few years after as people upgrade.

ajay-b 5y ago

But Tesla is the only EV dealer that can sell in New York. New York does not allow other manufacturers to sell directly to consumers. They must go through a dealer. https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/22/electric-vehicles-direct-sales-dealerships-evs/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/22/electric-vehicles-dire...

paulgb 5y ago
The only manufacturer-owned dealership, no? I would be surprised if I couldn't go to a Ford dealer in NYC and buy an EV.
Cd00d 5y ago
I don't this is correct. Most major manufacturers have an EV or plug-in line now, which you can buy at their normal dealerships - the Ford Mustang Mach-E, the Chevy Bolt for example. VW group and Nissan have their own lines.
- ajay-b 5y ago
  New York does not allow a manufacturer like Rivian to sell directly to the customer. They must go through a dealer. Tesla has an exemption but only for them.

yawaworht1978 5y ago

Hm, average lifetime of American cars is 8-12 years. Most models have an update or iteration every 2-5 years. This means car manufacturers need to come up with a solution rather fast and acceptance should be initiated very soon, if someone buys a brand new car in 2031, they might not want to give it up 4 years later. Electric car infrastructure is not ready yet for this scale either and permissions to build might take a while. Rd, testing and production are all very low. Seems unrealistic to me, unless this legislation only covers new cars and selling used cars is still ok?

paulgb 5y ago
Good point. Here's the text of the bill, it specifies that it applies to new cars. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a4302 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a4302
bumby 5y ago
>average lifetime of American cars is 8-12 years Just a small bit of nuance, but the age at which a consumer trades up their car shouldn't be conflated with the design life. Design life is based on a certain reliability level and the reliability of cars is generally increasing; 25% of vehicles are over 16 years old [1]. The 'lifetime' of cars may be independent from when consumers decide to upgrade. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-at-least-sixteen-years-old----record-high.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-...

endisneigh 5y ago

Why not just increase ur price of gas in nyc via a gas tax that increases yearly up to say $50 a gallon by 2035? The free market will take care of everything else. And you can fund infrastructure for EVs. Missed opportunity IMO.

kiliantics 5y ago
> And you can fund infrastructure for EVs Or, better, build more rail and bicycle infrastructure, more green spaces in place of more car lanes, and stop building so many roads which induce demand

ARandomerDude 5y ago

Well, that's one way to make sure people can't leave New York... EVs are cool but until we solve the range issue, I can't bring myself to be interested.

Cd00d 5y ago
Yeah, it's too bad nobody will be working on that issue over the next 15 years. My gas car has a range of ~400 miles, then requires a ~10 minute stop. A lot of the experiences in this article linked below don't seem showstoppingly different to me, as my appetite for hours behind the wheel in a day is rarely > 10 hours. Fun read: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877585/ev-1000-11-electric-cars-long-distance-race/ https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877585/ev-1000-11-e...

artificialLimbs 5y ago

Good luck hauling in those >10,000 lb. loads of [commodity] that are necessary for infrastructure with your electric powered truck. New York is going to also mandate the cessation of building skyscrapers and new sewer systems?

tmaly 5y ago

usually they have to put in a grandfather clause to these types of laws. The 5th amendment to my limited understanding, prevents them from doing an outright ban.

Jtsummers 5y ago
Engadget’s article is kind of awful. It’s a ban on new gas-powered car sales, older cars can still be bought and sold.

throw7 5y ago

The infrastructure is not here for electric cars. Saying we gonna ban gas cars at X date isn't anything more than virtue signaling. They need incentives, infrastructure buildouts (apartment dwellers need plugin ports too), standardization, technological progress on "filling up"... etc.

sk2020 5y ago

Well, I hope that New York will pass a law that will make enough cobalt to satisfy battery demand exist. I suppose they may not need that law if they only want enough cars to chauffeur celebrities in clown costumes to the Met Gala.

qwerty456127 5y ago

By the way it seems funny writing laws for 2035 today. We might as well pass a law which would ban farting on Mars by 2095 and also ban import of counterfeit Romulan ale from Proxima Centauri B after 2345. Most probably neither of the laws is going to make sense in the years as they come because the reality is going to be different from what we imagine.

thunkshift1 5y ago

So what will happen to has cars people own after 2035?