mobile-menu-icon
Ford Authority
Sponsored

Senators Want Joe Biden To Ban ICE-Powered Vehicle Sales By 2035

Sponsored

In recent months, a number of countries and two U.S. states – California and Massachusetts – have made commitments to end the sale of ICE-powered vehicles at a certain date – generally 2035. And that’s the precise year that two U.S. Senators, both Democrats from California – Alex Padilla and Dianne Feinstein – are urging President Joe Biden to phase out ICE-powered vehicle sales in the U.S. as well.

Padilla and Feinstein recently sent a letter to Biden asking him “to follow California’s lead and set a date by which all new cars and passenger trucks sold be zero-emission vehicles.” The senators also urged Biden to adopt California’s compromise emissions deal that it reached with a number of automakers, including Ford, an agreement that the automaker has since urged its peers to back as well.

“We believe the national baseline should, at an absolute minimum, be built around the technical lead set by companies that voluntarily advanced their agreements with California,” Padilla said in the letter. “California and other states need a strong federal partner.”

To date, Biden has not discussed a specific date for the U.S. to end ICE-powered vehicle sales but has taken several actions to address climate control since taking office. That includes replacing the entire 650,000 vehicle government fleet with EVs, rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, appointing a new head of the EPA, and starting discussions with automakers about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Meanwhile, a number of automakers have pledged to go all-electric in the coming years, including General Motors. Ford recently announced that its entire passenger vehicle range in Europe would consist of electric vehicles by 2030 and that it would be investing at least $22 billion globally in electrification through 2025, nearly twice the company’s previous EV investment plans.

We’ll have more on the future of electric and ICE-powered vehicles very soon, so be sure and subscribe to Ford Authority for non-stop Ford news coverage.

Sponsored

Brett's lost track of all the Fords he's owned over the years and how much he's spent modifying them, but his current money pits include an S550 Mustang and 13th gen F-150.

Subscribe to Ford Authority

For around-the-clock Ford news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest Ford updates.
It's totally free.

Sponsored

Comments

  1. PontiacBixler

    Dianne Feinstein can’t even remember what day of the week it is right now.
    She should be stepping down.

    I’m a SL/FC and cannot stand when the Dems start trying to control what businesses can and cannot sell with arbitrary deadlines in place.

    Do we need to get off of oil? Yes.
    Is EV the next step? Yes.
    Do people realize that they are trading one fossil fuel (oil) for another (coal/NG) in switching over? No.
    Let the market decide. When oil prices go up, sales of SUVs and Trucks go down, and hybrid/EV sales go up. We don’t need artificial pressure to guide this one.

    Reply
    1. Jose

      I received my Mach E last week and I am not changing one fossil fuel for another. My house is 100% solar power with 3 Tesla powerwall. Year to date I have produced over 1000kwh more that needed. That is over 2400miles of recharge for the machE The only concern is the production of lithium batteries is not a clean operation and the future disposal of the batteries. In 8 to 10 years tons of lithium batteries will need to recycled

      Reply
      1. Jim Jim

        And how would you advise that single mother of five who lives in a home in Detroit valued at $20K to be able to afford the same thing?

        Reply
  2. Jean-Francois Rivard

    This was not a matter of “If”, it was matter of “When”. They will hopefully not follow the UK with a hard ban and as mentioned above, let the market mostly drive the conversion. People will buy EV’s when EV’s are actually practical for all driving situations.

    It’s not just the price of fuel.. Europeans pay $5.00 to upwards of $7.00 per gallon and they still buy as much conventional crossover / SUV as they can afford and very few EV’s. Gas is close to $6.00 per gallon in the UK and 6 out of the 10 best selling vehicles are conventional ICE SUV / crossovers. The #2 best selling vehicle in Germany is the VW Tiguan, even in France small SUV’s make 3 out of the top 5 selling vehicles..

    People buy vehicles for mobility, utility, and freedom. As long as battery range / charging times / cold weather performance issues, high price, and other shortcomings compromise the mobility / freedom / utility equation the buying public at large will not be interested in EV’s

    Reply
  3. Njia

    I’m a huge fan of EVs (and I drive a Mustang Mach E), but not at the expense of the government picking winners and losers in a free market. When EVs are demonstrably better than ICEs for 99.9% of customers, then consumers will be voting with their feet (which may happen by 2035, but that’s not a certainty, either). Right now, EVs have notable drawbacks, particularly the time it takes to recharge (which is a result of physics), which limits their practicality on road trips – and that’s not just theoretical, since I’ve experienced it myself.

    Reply
  4. Richard Klima

    The government needs to quit telling people what they have to buy. The politicians are clueless and cannot see there will be a need for ICE vehicles for many years. Let the market decide. Why should we let California lead the rest of America down to oblivion?

    Reply
    1. Chuck

      But there’s really no need for ICE power trains at all. They already have electric semis and large SUVs with 500 miles of range (the Rivian R1S). You do not need ICE. You want them. Besides, 2035 is more than obtainable and it’s only banning the sale of them not every single ICE vehicle which would cause a gigantic climate crisis. And the reason why we let California basically lead the country is because they have one of the largest populations and the biggest economy (8th in the entire world) so it only makes sense compared to some random like Montana having most of the control. And for the most part California leaders are only sparking ideas which other states take and make it into their own laws which usually turn into national laws within less than 20 years.

      Reply
  5. Tigger

    Commie see commie do. These idiots want the US to be a follower and not a leader. If we were to take all ICE vehicles off the roads overnight, the difference would be negligible. But to them it’s important the nation follow the lead of a corrupt and failed governor that’s on the verge of being recalled.

    Reply
  6. fpvfan

    I get it, we’re on a mission to save the world. Very noble. I have no issues with this green world we want to live in and yes once we figure out how to make this electric mobility dream and practical reality then fine lets go. Here are the issues just from what I see, and this isn’t even from the standpoint of being a performance enthusiast.
    We’re going to need a lot more windfarms (offshore and otherwise) to increase electrical capacity of our power grids. Recharging stations will definitely need to be solar powered with fast charging systems to help charge vehicles while owners are shopping in stores or at work, etc. Also home-charging systems are going to need to be rethought. Not everyone lives in Mayberry RFD, nor does everyone have access to private driveway parking. Unless your planning to have “parking meter” style charging in front of apartments or row homes with retractable chargers and assigned parking everywhere, alot of people are going to have issues with charging their cars.
    I know the issue of range is going to be addressed when companies finally start to put multi-speed DCT transmissions behind them. As of right now with the 300mi range, my current vehicle, a ’17 Santa Fe 2.4L Sport gets (if I remember correctly) about 285mi on a full tank of gas so that’s not terrible for an electric vehicle to get 250-300mi.
    The thing that makes me scratch my head is the fact that the world is going after cars and emissions but fails to go after the rest of the energy users of the world. Businesses, homes, etc., all run off of fossil fuels that we are so worried about. When are we going to convert homes and businesses over to solar electric or wind or hydro-electric power sources? Even then, we as humans consume so much energy even during the course of a 24hr day because business is a constant 24-hr thing with no rest anywhere at all. When are we going to switch over to complete bio-degradable goods and get rid of harsh chemicals that pollute the water and soil? I’m all for renewable energy when it comes to mobility, but there are alot of other things we need to worry about along with this to get our planet back to the way it is supposed to be.

    Reply
  7. fpvfan

    The more I look at all of this electric stuff, the more I hope the Ford does more performance with the Mach E, but the more it makes me look at Ford concepts like the Ford EVOS. To think of a car like the EVOS with the performance credentials of the Mach E GT would be pretty decent actually, or something more in the lines of the Audi E-Tron RS-GT or the Porsche Taycan, especially if the EVOS were to develop some of the character traits of the Mach E such as lights and grille. Update both the MAch E and give the EVOS a 4-speed DCT, RWD based AWD system, performance packages and things like that. Having vehicles like EVOS, the MAch-E, would definitely make the electric future much more enjoyable

    Reply
  8. Ford Owner

    I don’t see any problems with electric cars by 2035. Range isn’t an issue anymore and people pay high prices for gas cars since the beginning of the 20th century, so why complain on those two points? Only the gas stations and engine mechanics will have to get new jobs. But the energy, money, and time savings will compensate for any new issues. And electric cars will last for many years, only needed a charge in the battrry and air in the tires. Michelin UPTIS airless tires will solve that last point.

    Reply
    1. Tigger

      The benefits of Evs have been greatly exaggerated. Batteries will need to be replaced in time and motors burn out or break. Electricity is not free. Someone will have to pay for the expanded electrical capacity and charging stations.

      Reply
  9. Lee Glidewell

    First of all, both of these Communist senators should have been voted out of office couple decades ago. Let’s ban career politicians, not ICE powered vehicles.
    Second, there’s no such thing as ‘fossil fuels’. Petroleum didn’t come from the emaciated remains of dinosaurs. To be sure, Mother Earth is still brewing it ‘professor genius’. Git-a-freakin’-clue people! Y’all’s opinions are like chaff in the wind.

    Reply
  10. Sukhoi31m3

    Hopefully there will come a time when EVs can be replenished and ready to go again as fast as an IC vehicle, ie roughly 10-15 minutes to recharge to 300-400 miles of range. If and when that happens let the market decide: you’re buying a new car and the salesman says “gas or electric, what’ll it be?” , and both vehicles are equally as convenient to use in daily life. At that point if the infrastructure is in place and recharging an EV is as easy as filling a gas tank, I think the market will go for the EV. No government intervention necessary, sales will decide. I know I’m ready.

    Reply
  11. Tigger

    Sorry, I don’t want no part of an EV if it can not get a full tank of gas equivalent of range and can charge in the same amount of time or less as an ICE vehicle.

    Reply
  12. Dave Mathers

    Compare the ICE emissions of today with those of fifty years ago. About a ninety-five percent improvement. And those improvements will continue going forward.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel
Sponsored