New law calls for New York to stop selling gas-powered new vehicles by 2035

By Steve Bittenbender | The Center Square

A bill signed into law last week by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul effectively outlaws the sale of new gas-powered vehicles in less than 14 years.

The law, Senate Bill S2758 and Assembly Bill A4302, sets a goal that 100% of all passenger cars, trucks and off-road vehicles will be zero-emission. The goal is 2045 for larger vehicles, such as medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses.

As A4302 sponsor Assemblymember Steve Englebright, D-Setauket, said on the Assembly floor before the 110-40 April 20 vote passing the bill: “Zero emissions means that we will see electric vehicles instead of internal combustion engine-driven vehicles on our roads.”

It also, though, will allow hydrogen-powered vehicles as those produce water vapors instead of a carbon-based emission.

With Hochul’s signature, New York joins California and Massachusetts as states that have set deadlines to move away from having fossil fuel-powered vehicles on their roadways.

Public domain

As A4302 sponsor Assemblymember Steve Englebright, D-Setauket, said on the Assembly floor before the 110-40 April 20 vote passing the bill: “Zero emissions means that we will see electric vehicles instead of internal combustion engine-driven vehicles on our roads.”

While New York’s deadline is still more than a decade away, the new law sets some benchmarks well before then.

For instance, by Jan. 31, 2023 – almost 500 days from now – the State Department of Environmental Conservation will need to establish a statewide market development strategy for zero-emission vehicles in partnership with the Department of Economic Development, the state’s Energy and Research Authority, the Public Service Commission, Department of Transportation, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and other applicable agencies. That plan will then need to be updated every three years.

By July 15, 2023, the Department of Environmental Conservation will also need to find ways to make freight and transit more environmentally friendly. The department will work with the Energy Research and Development Authority, the DMV and the Department of Transportation on that project.

In some ways, those moves are already happening. In April, Englebright, who chairs the Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation, noted the Long Island Rail Road was looking into converting its trains with lithium-ion batteries. That took place a year after the commuter line was looking to buy a dozen diesel-powered trains.

Such conversions to battery power, he said, would allow green-friendly trains to run on non-electric lines.

Some who opposed the bill in the legislature still found the end goal as well-intended. However, as Assemblymember Robert Smullen noted, R-Meco, noted back in the April floor debate, it’s so “extremely aggressive” that it may not be realistic.

“I know the hope of it is that there will be a technical breakthrough to enable this,” he said. “And I’m hopeful as well, but I was also in the Marine Corps where hope is never a course of action… For that reason, I’m not very hopeful that this bill is anything but an aspirational document.”

However, it’s not just Democratic-led legislatures like California, Massachusetts and New York that have such a goal. In January, General Motors announced it also seeks to end tailpipe emissions on its line of light-duty vehicles by 2035.

Hochul’s approval came a week after the remnants of Hurricane Ida slammed New York City and other parts of the downstate region. The flash flooding killed more than a dozen people in the city and occurred just a couple of weeks after Tropical Storm Henri brought record rainfalls.

In a statement posted on Facebook a day after Hochul signed the bill into law, state Sen. Pete Harckham, D-South Salem, said that the damage Ida left in its wake shows that “half-measures” will not allow New York to properly address climate change.

“The best way to ramp up our fight against the climate crisis is to transition to new vehicles that are free of carbon & other toxic emissions… We need to take decisive action right now, and enacting this law shows how NY can lead the way,” said Harckham, who sponsored the Senate bill.

Image courtesy of Public domain
Spread the love

8 thoughts on “New law calls for New York to stop selling gas-powered new vehicles by 2035

  1. Until 2035?
    Gee, that is great!

    I will be 98, and they will have to pry the steering wheel of my gasoline vehicle from my dying hands.

  2. Has any of these brain dead greenweenies shown anyone the evidence of how much
    evil co2 will be displaced from the world output doing this??? And what difference it will accomplish without India and China doing anything who produce the most???

    Pizzing money away for feel goods for lib’s isn’t a reason enough for the cost they want to lay on the citizenry….

  3. Has any of these brain dead greentards shown anyone the evidence of how much
    evil co2 will be displaced from the world output doing this??? And what difference it will accomplish without India and China doing anything who produce the most???

    Pizzing money away for feel goods for lib’s isn’t a reason enough for the cost they want to lay on the citizenry….

  4. Poor legislation in résponse to an ill-defined and imaginary goal.
    Vermont cannot be far behind in enacting copycat legislation…By April 2022?
    The theme for this decade seems to becoming clear.
    Big Government Socialism.

  5. ELECTRIC TRANSIT AND SCHOOL BUS SYSTEMS REDUCE LITTLE CO2, ARE NOT COST-EFFECTIVE
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-likely-not-cost-effective-in-vermont-at

    China has made electric buses and EVs a priority in urban areas to reduce excessive air pollution, due to: 1) coal-fired power plants, and 2) increased vehicle traffic.

    The US has much less of a pollution problem than China, except in its larger urban areas.
    The US uses much less coal, more domestic natural gas, and CO2-free nuclear is still around.

    New England has a pollution problem in its southern urban areas.
    Vermont has a minor pollution problem in Burlington and a few other urban areas.

    RE folks want to “Electrify Everything”; an easily uttered slogan

    It would require:

    – Additional power plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, bio
    – Additional grid augmentation/expansion to connect wind and solar systems, and to carry the loads for EVs and heat pumps
    – Additional battery systems to store midday solar output surges for later use, i.e., DUCK-curve management.
    – Additional centralized, command/control/orchestrating (turning off/on appliances, heat pumps, EVs, etc.) by utilities to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

    1) Charging times of EVs and operating times of heat pumps, and major appliances
    2) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses

    RE Folks Want More EVs and Buses Bought With “Free” Money

    RE folks drive the energy priorities of New England governments. RE folks want to use about $40 million of “free” federal COVID money and Volkswagen Settlement money to buy electric transit and school buses to deal with a minor pollution problem in a few urban areas in Vermont. RE folks urge Vermonters to buy:

    Mass Transit Buses
    Electric: $750,000 – $1,000,000 each, plus infrastructures, such as indoor parking, high-speed charging systems.
    Standard Diesel: $380,000 – $420,000; indoor parking and charging systems not required.

    School Buses
    Electric: $330,000 – $375,000, plus infrastructures

    This article shows the 2 Proterra transit buses in Burlington, VT, would reduce CO2 at very high cost per metric ton, and the minor annual operating cost reduction would be overwhelmed by the cost of amortizing $million buses that last about 12 to 15 years.

    The $40 million of “free” money would be far better used to build zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses for suffering households; such housing would last at least 50 to 75 years.

    NOTE: Spending huge amounts of borrowed capital on various projects that 1) have very poor financials, and 2) yield minor reductions in CO2 at high cost, is a recipe for 1) low economic efficiency, and 2) low economic growth, on a state-wide and nation-wide scale, which would 1) adversely affect Vermont and US competitiveness in markets, and 2) adversely affect living standards and 3) inhibit unsubsidized/efficient/profitable job creation.

    Real Costs of Government RE Programs Likely Will Remain Hidden

    Vermont’s government engaging in electric bus demonstration programs, financed with “free” money, likely will prove to be expensive undertakings, requiring hidden subsidies, white-washing and obfuscation.

    Lifetime spreadsheets, with 1) turnkey capital costs, 2) annual cashflows, 3) annual energy cost savings, 4) annual CO2 reductions, and 5) cost of CO2 reduction/metric ton, with all assumptions clearly stated and explained, likely will never see the light of day.

  6. UNDERSTATING CO2 EMISSIONS PER KILOWATT-HOUR TO HYPE EVs AND HEAT PUMPS
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governments-play-deceptive-games-with-co2-emissions

    CO2 Reduction of an EV, based on real-world values

    According to the Haas study, EVs are driven an average of 7,000 miles/y, compared to 12,000 miles/y for the US and VT LDV mix.
    The difference holds for: 1) all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, 2) single- and multiple-vehicle households, and 3) inside and outside California. See URL

    This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce much less CO2 /y, than envisioned by the dream scenarios of RE folks.

    However, despite the lesser CO2 reduction, EVs are a way to significantly reduce CO2 emissions over the next 10 years.

    In 2020, about 123.73 billion gallons of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States.
    In 2020 EVs and plug-in hybrids reduced gasoline consumption by 0.5 billion gallon.
    It would take decades to achieve a 60 billion reduction due to EVs and plug-in hybrids.

    https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
    https://cleantechnica.com/2021/09/13/how-much-do-electric-vehicles-actually-displace-gasoline-500-million-gallons-displaced-in-2020-in-usa/

    However, increasing the mileage, mpg, of the VT LDV mix from 22.715 to 35 mpg, such as with highly reliable, very-long-range, 54 mpg, non-plug-in Toyota hybrids, could be achieved at far less cost, and would reduce CO2 at least as much as EVs. See URLs.

    http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/Davis%20AEL%202019.pdf
    https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35498794/ev-owners-low-mileage-study/

    EV sales have been trending towards longer ranges. See table 3
    EVs, with longer ranges, such as Teslas, are driven more miles per year, on average.
    Thus, we can expect the 7,000 miles/y to increase over time.
    This article used 9,000 miles/y

  7. POOR ECONOMICS AND MINIMAL CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN NEW ENGLAND
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-electric-vehicles-in-new-england

    This article describes the efficiency of electric vehicles, EVs, and their charging loss, when charging at home and on-the-road, and the economics, when compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.

    In this article,

    Total cost of an EV, c/mile = Operating cost, c/mile + Owning cost, c/mile, i.e., amortizing the difference of the MSRPs of an EV versus an equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicle; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

    CO2 reduction of equivalent vehicles, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis = CO2 emissions of an efficient gasoline vehicle, say 30 to 40 mpg – CO2 emissions of an EV

    SUMMARY

    Real-World Concerns About the Economics of EVs

    It may not be such a good idea to have a proliferation of EVs, because of:

    1) Their high initial capital costs; about 50% greater than equivalent gasoline vehicles.
    2) The widespread high-speed charging facilities required for charging “on the road”.
    3) The loss of valuable time when charging “on the road”.
    4) The high cost of charging/kWh, plus exorbitant penalties, when charging “on-the-road”.

    High-Mileage Hybrids a Much Better Alternative Than EVs

    The Toyota Prius, and Toyota Prius plug-in, which get up to 54 mpg, EPA combined, would:

    1) Have much less annual owning and operating costs than any EV, for at least the next ten years.
    2) Have minimal wait-times, as almost all such plug-ins would be charging at home
    3) Be less damaging to the environment, because their batteries would have very low capacity, kWh
    4) Impose much less of an additional burden on the electric grids.

    Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, save about the same amount of CO₂ as electric cars over their lifetime, plus:

    1) They are cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles, even without subsidies.
    2) They do not require EV chargers, do not induce range anxiety, can be refilled in minutes, instead of hours.
    3) Climate change does not care about where CO₂ comes from. Gasoline cars are only about 7% of global CO2 emissions. Replacing them with electric cars would only help just a little, on an A to Z, lifetime basis.

    “Electrify Everything”; an easily uttered slogan

    It would require:

    – Additional power plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, bio
    – Additional grid augmentation/expansion to connect wind and solar systems, and to carry the loads for EVs and heat pumps
    – Additional battery systems to store midday solar output surges for later use, i.e., DUCK-curve management.
    – Additional command/control-orchestrating (turning off/on appliances, heat pumps, EVs, etc.) by utilities to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

    1) Charging times of EVs and operating times of heat pumps
    2) Operating times of major appliances
    3) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses

Comments are closed.