2035

[sgtsandman]

If you read the article it states California's mandate will have an impact nationwide. That's not the same thing a Biden authorizing California the ability to mandate require EVs nationwide. Biden reauthorized California's ability to regulate emissions in California, which California has had the ability to do for decades, and the manufacturers will decide on where they will and will not sell EVs.

I may be confused here but what say does the federal government have on a states environmental agency and policy? If it's about the court ruling against the EPA, that should mean a hill of beans to California's environmental agency, or my home state for that matter. Why would the President have to, need to, or even have the authority to authorize California to do anything? What am I missing?

 

[sgtsandman]

The other option is government can build transmission lines to accomodate the extra load. Barring that, the lights go out.

I'm not really an advocate for government control, but I'm realistic enough to know that if private enterprise doesn't invest in it then the government gets involved. Either through regulation or building infrastructure to accomodate the extra demand. The good news is when California proposed to do just that PG&E jumped into the game. I don't know what came of it, but the last I heard is there's going to be about $2 billion worth of upgrades. At this point I think the curtailment of power generation from hydroelectric plants is going to be a bigger concern.

And, I'm quite the capitalist. I just think capitalism can be done ethically and "free market" shouldn't be a codeword for getting out of accountability or limited to certain players in an industry.

The power grid across the nation is antiquated and needs upgrading and/or replacement. All for similar reasons in California. Sooner or later the customer base is going to say they have had enough and do something to the power companies for not meeting the demand. Especially if they only have until 2035 to get the grid ready for when all those EVs are going to be on the grid.

It might be time for people to start figuring out how they are going to get power to their house independent of the grid. Whatever is likely to be more viable, wind, solar, hydroelectric. Which ever system or systems make more sense for where they live.

 

[Bill]

I may be confused here but what say does the federal government have on a states environmental agency and policy? If it's about the court ruling against the EPA, that should mean a hill of beans to California's environmental agency, or my home state for that matter. Why would the President have to, need to, or even have the authority to authorize California to do anything? What am I missing?

California is still allowed to set their own emissions standards. Every state is required to meed Federal emissions standards, or better. I thin 13 states have adopted California emissions standards. They're likely to go onboard with this. It appears Virginia's legislature approved adoption of CARB rules last year and by doing do, they have to adopt the electric vehicle mandate per Virginias laws that were approved last year. Given that California is the largest auto market in the country, plus 12 other states, and foreign mandates, the auto industry will manufacture EVs. That means fewer ICE vehicles will be manufactured and sold. In that respect, the article is correct.

I don't know what is going to happen with the EPA, but if something happens the majority of the states will fill in that gap and they have that right to maintain public safety for their citizens. What I had an inssue with is the title imples that California is going to force or tell other states what they can do. That's misleading and simply false. No state has the power to do that. Two states can settle disputes legally, but I think those kind of legal tangles are over the type of things neighbors fight about. And the President or Federal government doesn't have that authority unless it goes through Congress. What can be done is an authorization to do something can be given to a state or local government. In California's case, the state was given the authority to regulate emissions within California, and it wasn't done because someone had a brain fart and started making up the need to regulate things. The climate and topography here prevented pollution from dispersing and it got so bad that things several miles down the road disappeared in a smoggy haze and the hot temperatures and sunlight made ozone a serious problem. As the population in other states got larger they started having problems with smog and adopted CARB rules to combat the problem.

 

[Fast Eddie]

I may be confused here but what say does the federal government have on a states environmental agency and policy? If it's about the court ruling against the EPA, that should mean a hill of beans to California's environmental agency, or my home state for that matter. Why would the President have to, need to, or even have the authority to authorize California to do anything? What am I missing?

Right, wrong or indifferent, the Trump administration argued, and won, that California does not have the right to set automobile standards for the rest of the country "The EPA cannot selectively waive the Act’s preemption for California alone because that favoritism violates the states’ equal sovereignty" (re: Biden Admin Handed California The Power To Mandate EVs Nationwide | The Daily Caller ). Whether you like the Daily Caller or not isn't the question. It's the content.

The key word being 'equal'. As I interpret that, California has sovereignty over its own decisions as long as it doesn't affect other states. Setting emissions standards for automobile companies affects all other states, in some form or fashion (e.g. California emissions standards). Once they affect an entire industry, they influence the entire country. In that ruling it was deemed unfair practice.

Enter the Biden administration: "President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) restored California’s Clean Air Act waiver in March, which gave the state legal authority to set its strict vehicle emissions standards, according to a press release". This essentially gave California back the right revoked by the Trump administration.
"Critics also worried that, because there are countless federal laws that can be said to treat the states disparately, the Court’s brand-new equal sovereignty principle is, as Justice Ginsburg put it in her strident dissent, “capable of much mischief.” (re: In Defense of the Equal Sovereignty Principle | Duke Law Journal).

Your question was "..what say does the federal government have on a states environmental agency and policy". It seems to be a matter of opinion and who's pulling the levers of justice.

 

[Bill]

Right, wrong or indifferent, the Trump administration argued, and won, that California does not have the right to set automobile standards for the rest of the country "The EPA cannot selectively waive the Act’s preemption for California alone because that favoritism violates the states’ equal sovereignty" (re: Biden Admin Handed California The Power To Mandate EVs Nationwide | The Daily Caller ). Whether you like the Daily Caller or not isn't the question. It's the content.

The key word being 'equal'. As I interpret that, California has sovereignty over its own decisions as long as it doesn't affect other states. Setting emissions standards for automobile companies affects all other states, in some form or fashion (e.g. California emissions standards). Once they affect an entire industry, they influence the entire country. In that ruling it was deemed unfair practice.

Enter the Biden administration: "President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) restored California’s Clean Air Act waiver in March, which gave the state legal authority to set its strict vehicle emissions standards, according to a press release". This essentially gave California back the right revoked by the Trump administration.

Your question was "..what say does the federal government have on a states environmental agency and policy". It seems to be a matter of opinion and who's pulling the levers of justice.

California's emissions laws have nothing to do with favoritism and everything to do with air quality. You are effectively stating that a region shouldn't be allowed to reduce the impacts of air pollution.

Each state must meet the minimum Federal regulations. This applies to auto emissions, labor regulations, and most other things except those where a Federal agency has been given sole jurisdiction. The individual states can make tougher requirements, and are sometimes pushed by the Federal governement into that position. California was in that position because the Federal goverment was insisting California wasn't meeting air quality standards. The only way for California was able to meet those standards was through improving emissions components. This was done through the addition of smog pumps, catalytic converters, and other devices. The burden on car manufacturers in the 70s was the cost of adding these device. Consumers paid a little more for cars then, but it wasn't enough to bother most people. As a result of this engines were redesigned and have more power, greater fuel efficiency, and most models can last 200,000 miles or better if they are maintained. Why anyone would complain about the end result that we have today is beyond comprehension.

And as far as car manufacturers go, they are on board with this and they stated they were going to continue manufacturing cars that met emissions requirments.

Five automakers tell the Feds they want California emissions rules

The automakers are defending California’s right to regulate its own air.

arstechnica.com

 

[sgtsandman]

California is still allowed to set their own emissions standards. Every state is required to meed Federal emissions standards, or better. I thin 13 states have adopted California emissions standards. They're likely to go onboard with this. It appears Virginia's legislature approved adoption of CARB rules last year and by doing do, they have to adopt the electric vehicle mandate per Virginias laws that were approved last year. Given that California is the largest auto market in the country, plus 12 other states, and foreign mandates, the auto industry will manufacture EVs. That means fewer ICE vehicles will be manufactured and sold. In that respect, the article is correct.

I don't know what is going to happen with the EPA, but if something happens the majority of the states will fill in that gap and they have that right to maintain public safety for their citizens. What I had an inssue with is the title imples that California is going to force or tell other states what they can do. That's misleading and simply false. No state has the power to do that. Two states can settle disputes legally, but I think those kind of legal tangles are over the type of things neighbors fight about. And the President or Federal government doesn't have that authority unless it goes through Congress. What can be done is an authorization to do something can be given to a state or local government. In California's case, the state was given the authority to regulate emissions within California, and it wasn't done because someone had a brain fart and started making up the need to regulate things. The climate and topography here prevented pollution from dispersing and it got so bad that things several miles down the road disappeared in a smoggy haze and the hot temperatures and sunlight made ozone a serious problem. As the population in other states got larger they started having problems with smog and adopted CARB rules to combat the problem.

Ok, that clears up some things for me.

 

[Fast Eddie]

California's emissions laws have nothing to do with favoritism and everything to do with air quality. You are effectively stating that a region shouldn't be allowed to reduce the impacts of air pollution.

Each state must meet the minimum Federal regulations. This applies to auto emissions, labor regulations, and most other things except those where a Federal agency has been given sole jurisdiction. The individual states can make tougher requirements, and are sometimes pushed by the Federal governement into that position. California was in that position because the Federal goverment was insisting California wasn't meeting air quality standards. The only way for California was able to meet those standards was through improving emissions components. This was done through the addition of smog pumps, catalytic converters, and other devices. The burden on car manufacturers in the 70s was the cost of adding these device. Consumers paid a little more for cars then, but it wasn't enough to bother most people. As a result of this engines were redesigned and have more power, greater fuel efficiency, and most models can last 200,000 miles or better if they are maintained. Why anyone would complain about the end result that we have today is beyond comprehension.

And as far as car manufacturers go, they are on board with this and they stated they were going to continue manufacturing cars that met emissions requirments.

Five automakers tell the Feds they want California emissions rules

The automakers are defending California’s right to regulate its own air.

arstechnica.com

Ok, but you omitted the other side of the argument that opposed it. The main goal was less government overreach from the Executive Branch.

"Former President Donald Trump was determined to prevent CARB from regulating California's air. In September 2019, Trump revoked California's waiver under the clean air act, with the intention of bringing it under an Environmental Protection Agency that had been weakened by executive branch edict. Trump's attack on California's air was backed by automakers like Toyota and GM, who have sought to water down fuel efficiency standards".

Maybe...MAYBE we'll get to a place where one can make a convincing argument by citing both side of an argument but now you're asking me to go back to my research paper days and boning up on APA citation formats, footnotes, etc. That's going to take a while.

Right now, I'm teeing up Tucker Carlson, so I'll pick this up tomorrow

 

[sgtsandman]

California's emissions laws have nothing to do with favoritism and everything to do with air quality. You are effectively stating that a region shouldn't be allowed to reduce the impacts of air pollution.

Each state must meet the minimum Federal regulations. This applies to auto emissions, labor regulations, and most other things except those where a Federal agency has been given sole jurisdiction. The individual states can make tougher requirements, and are sometimes pushed by the Federal governement into that position. California was in that position because the Federal goverment was insisting California wasn't meeting air quality standards. The only way for California was able to meet those standards was through improving emissions components. This was done through the addition of smog pumps, catalytic converters, and other devices. The burden on car manufacturers in the 70s was the cost of adding these device. Consumers paid a little more for cars then, but it wasn't enough to bother most people. As a result of this engines were redesigned and have more power, greater fuel efficiency, and most models can last 200,000 miles or better if they are maintained. Why anyone would complain about the end result that we have today is beyond comprehension.

And as far as car manufacturers go, they are on board with this and they stated they were going to continue manufacturing cars that met emissions requirments.

Five automakers tell the Feds they want California emissions rules

The automakers are defending California’s right to regulate its own air.

arstechnica.com

Aside from the fact that car manufacturers want to make their product supply chains and vehicles is least complex as possible, and potentially make more money, they seem to be pretty much on the environmentalist band wagon. So, having all the vehicles meet one standard makes sense in some ways and it meets a step toward their agenda at the same time.

I really don't have much heartache on having one standard I guess. I guess I have more of a problem on how it is implemented. That may be more of a state by state thing. A big chunk of Southwestern PA gets dinged for air quality and emissions standards. Some of which we have no control over. The prevailing winds are from the West, coming from Ohio, which has very lax standards as far as I'm aware of. I believe they have gotten better, at least by judging the visual state of repair of their vehicles but we are getting beat over the head for bad air and they don't have to do anything about it. Now, Pittsburgh and Allegheny Country are a large population center, so that may be part of the problem. The area has a lot of people and vehicle traffic as a result. Not by Southern California standards, but still a lot. I live North West of that, right on the Ohio, West Virginia boarder and we still get dinged. I can't help but think a big part of the policy we get hit with is something we can't do anything about. Different states and all.

 

[G8orFord]

I have intentionally stayed out of this thread and the "conversation".

Now,.............. I will continue to do that.

 

[Bill]

Aside from the fact that car manufacturers want to make their product supply chains and vehicles is least complex as possible, and potentially make more money, they seem to be pretty much on the environmentalist band wagon. So, having all the vehicles meet one standard makes sense in some ways and it meets a step toward their agenda at the same time.

I really don't have much heartache on having one standard I guess. I guess I have more of a problem on how it is implemented. That may be more of a state by state thing. A big chunk of Southwestern PA gets dinged for air quality and emissions standards. Some of which we have no control over. The prevailing winds are from the West, coming from Ohio, which has very lax standards as far as I'm aware of. I believe they have gotten better, at least by judging the visual state of repair of their vehicles but we are getting beat over the head for bad air and they don't have to do anything about it. Now, Pittsburgh and Allegheny Country are a large population center, so that may be part of the problem. The area has a lot of people and vehicle traffic as a result. Not by Southern California standards, but still a lot. I live North West of that, right on the Ohio, West Virginia boarder and we still get dinged. I can't help but think a big part of the policy we get hit with is something we can't do anything about. Different states and all.

I think they're pretty much down to differences in computer flashing and more expensive catalytic converters in CARB states.

Ok, but you omitted the other side of the argument that opposed it. The main goal was less government overreach from the Executive Branch.

"Former President Donald Trump was determined to prevent CARB from regulating California's air. In September 2019, Trump revoked California's waiver under the clean air act, with the intention of bringing it under an Environmental Protection Agency that had been weakened by executive branch edict. Trump's attack on California's air was backed by automakers like Toyota and GM, who have sought to water down fuel efficiency standards".

Maybe...MAYBE we'll get to a place where one can make a convincing argument by citing both side of an argument but now you're asking me to go back to my research paper days and boning up on APA citation formats, footnotes, etc. That's going to take a while.

Right now, I'm teeing up Tucker Carlson, so I'll pick this up tomorrow

The people who were opposed to it were the people with the petty anti-California thing. It was strictly a political theatre. Nobody had an issue with it until Trump made it an issue. That's not an argument. That's Trump thinking he's making a point because California didn't carry his vote. Now that is executive overreach. I firmly believe that a Federal representative should make a good faith effort to support and represent the citizens in this country regardleess of their party affiliation or other background, and take the time to understand that what works in Ohio may not work in Texas, Maine, or California. We have lost that.

The problem remains that the geography here compounds air quality problems. The Federal government demanded that California mitigate the problem. There was Federal highway funds that were withheld because California couldn't meet Federal standards. The only solution to this problem was higher standards for California. There was no other way out of it. So, either California does it or the Federal government steps in and imposes penalties, restrictions, or something else over the failure to meet air quality standards.

So, if California can't set their own emissions standards, how does California resolve the air quality problem?

 

[rubydist]

Right now, I can go order the larger extended range Mach-E pack for $23,648. Not the dealer cost, but as a retail customer.

LJ9Z10B759A - Ford Drive Motor Battery Pack Assembly | Lakeland Ford Online Parts, Lakeland FL

Genuine Ford Part # LJ9Z10B759A (LJ9Z-10B759-A) - Drive Motor Battery Pack Assembly. Fits Mustang Mach-E. Ships from Lakeland Ford Online Parts, Lakeland FL

parts.lakelandford.com

So no, nowhere near 40 thousand dollars.

And the idea that complete battery packs will be replaced as entirely new units is going away. Battery packs can be overhauled - remove the BMS, locate problematic cells, and replace them with working units. The sky is not falling here. Assuming you buy a new Mach E now and your battery pack fails down the road somewhere outside of the warranty period, the likely solution will not be to order a new unit but to either have your own unit overhauled or to order one that has already been through that process.

You have hit on one of the very annoying things about Ford parts pricing. Parts pricing west of the Mississippi is far higher than it is in the East. There are many times that I can buy parts from an East coast dealer at retail including shipping for less than what our dealer cost is here in Denver. This battery pack is just one of those examples. The dealer cost here in Denver is more than retail out East. I can give you 5 other examples on parts that I have personally needed in the past couple of years.

 

[stmitch]

You have hit on one of the very annoying things about Ford parts pricing. Parts pricing west of the Mississippi is far higher than it is in the East. There are many times that I can buy parts from an East coast dealer at retail including shipping for less than what our dealer cost is here in Denver. This battery pack is just one of those examples. The dealer cost here in Denver is more than retail out East. I can give you 5 other examples on parts that I have personally needed in the past couple of years.

These guys in West Covina, CA are selling the same part number for the exact same price though?

2021-2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E Battery Assembly LJ9Z-10B759-A | OEM Parts Online

2021-2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E Battery Assembly LJ9Z-10B759-A

www.fordautopartsdirect.com

I found a dealer in FL selling it for over $27k, and one in MI just over $26k, but pretty much every other result on the first two pages of the google search were selling that part number for that price regardless of location.

 

[don4331]

You have hit on one of the very annoying things about Ford parts pricing. Parts pricing west of the Mississippi is far higher than it is in the East. There are many times that I can buy parts from an East coast dealer at retail including shipping for less than what our dealer cost is here in Denver. This battery pack is just one of those examples. The dealer cost here in Denver is more than retail out East. I can give you 5 other examples on parts that I have personally needed in the past couple of years.

To a certain extent, it is volume. Lakeland Ford is making its name as a volume internet parts store. When you get that kind of volume, your dealer price goes down.

 

[pjtoledo]

 

[Bill]

You have hit on one of the very annoying things about Ford parts pricing. Parts pricing west of the Mississippi is far higher than it is in the East. There are many times that I can buy parts from an East coast dealer at retail including shipping for less than what our dealer cost is here in Denver. This battery pack is just one of those examples. The dealer cost here in Denver is more than retail out East. I can give you 5 other examples on parts that I have personally needed in the past couple of years.

I just looked up the pricing for that battery at a local dealer in Sacramento and it's cheaper than Lakeland Ford. They're asking MSRP for the battery. Harrold Ford has it priced at $21,284.05.

Also keep in mind that there are dealerships that have online parts websites separate from the dealership business. They drop ship from the various Ford parts distribution centers across the country. I ordered a part from one and it came from the distribution center in Manteca, CA. If you were to lookup the parts at parts.ford.com and select the dealerships with the online discount parts the pricing it going to be much higher on the dealership website vs their parts website.

Parts shopping tip: If you haven't already figured it out, you can look up the part number on those websites and plug them into Rockauto. A fair amount of time the part will show up by part number, but not by searching for it by model.