@Change
Sure hope so; but, don't forget most cars last 12 years or longer on the roads before they are scrap. That means the ICEVs sold today will be around a long time and the smog and GHGs that come with them. We can't scrap 'em soon enough for me.

They are not being honest with the facts. First as I understand the concern it is GW emissions. Note that this is a global phenomenon. Not limited to Californian wealthy consumers. Second the ZEV is an oxymoron. All energy transfer has life cycle emissions. We need to measure the full impact and quit with false imagery of pollution free transportation. Even carbon black from tires is proving to be a problem. Power generation is a huge problem upon energy reliance. At least within the proposed large scale given the constant balancing requirement, lack of low cost storage, distribution and maintenance costs, and fragility.

The recent CAFE regs are for the sole purpose of pushing battery car sales as the auto manufactures have no easy solution to comply other than force sales of battery car since the vehicle has been set up with a wholly bogus mpg rating of an electric motor efficiency. Meanwhile, the most potent reduction within GW emissions per global results point to minimizing power use. To push high blend ethanol fuel to replace both diesel fuel and gasoline. To build lower cost vehicles for the public such as the mild hybrid. This path has amazing benefits of, first, lowing power consumption and idling more coal power. Second providing cleanup activities for waste that would otherwise will still remain the largest source of carbon emissions. Refer to the Canadian bark beetle and resulting dying trees and fire threat. Third, it is easier and quicker to utilize solar and wind and to increase efficiency of farming and ethanol processing as compared to improving the entire grid power system. We already have a investment within fuel supply services. Auto makers already making vehicles that lower emissions as compared to power generation supply power. This is the direction to have large global impact on GW emissions. Besides those corn farmers already supply most of the wind power. Maybe ethanol should receive an carbon reduction for that feat?

Making farm land less polluting and more efficient will have an incredible impact on civilization food supply, rural wealth generation, and lower pollution. Yes, farming practices was once rated on the top of list of environmental problems, but if you read up on latest agronomic developments it is appearing the activity is quickly moving to green. They are developing plant life and farming practices that provide more GW reduction than common forests. Developments that increase soil fertility and eliminate fertilizer runoff. Farmers are expected to eliminate fossil fuel inputs as well. Drones will have a major impact. Same for GMO technology, positioning technology, and the rest of technology. Plantings will be engineered to increase soil carbon sinks and provide probably the largest deposits over time. One must realize the breath and latitude of solutions within this economic sector. I do think most don't "get it" as they have limited understanding or only apply out of date info. The GW people seem to have a blind spot to this. They don't understand and like easy regulations they can measure and empower the force of government enforce. This results in silliness sometimes. International economics are always larger force than a few rich states passing onerous laws to impose their elite's judgement.

You caught the crux of the problem. The latest bump in CAFE regulations have little to do with the solution and everything to do with forcing battery car sales. Meaning the only practical solution left to automotive is to force the sale of battery cars at a huge expense to themselves. IOWs if they want to stay in business and sell cars that people desire, they will have to give away battery cars to comply with the regs. The latest rounds of regs are to much to quick and automotive technology doesn't work that way. Over some time they could most likely conform, but not this quick. Also, the regs would have a expensive price tag and force the majority of the motoring public to hold on to more polluting vehicles. Thus the new regs will do more harm than good for GW emissions. Most suspect the regs were passed as a political ploy. The current CIC could not let them stand per health of U.S. automakers. This is a ploy as the partisan politics of the day can label and put a record in place to hurt popularity and claim a bad environmental record. Mostly this is just crap politics and very unattractive to play with regulations this way.

If CAFE is removed, progressive carbon/fuel taxes would have to be high enough to pay for batteries used in electrified vehicles. A ceiling of 60 to 100 kWh (or $20K) per e-vehicle could be used.

Without the cost of batteries, BEVs could (better) compete with ICEVs and drive them out of the market place in about 10 years. .

Is it really up to EPA regs to force the market based on subjective desires? Meaning regulations should not be biased. It should be based only on measurable quantifiable data and not guesstimates such as the infamous ILUC penalty that makes up more than 1/2 of ethanol's emission rating. Also, tail pipe emissions in reality is not a good measure of overall environmental impact. For example, what is the impact of expensive new cars to vast majority of consumers who then chose to run old cars longer to save money. How about the efficiency of utilization wherein a low mileage vehicle does more work. How about the impact of increasing power demand to coal power generation. What is the better solution a cheap car running very high Mpg, but a car that pollutes slightly higher percentage within the tailpipe? Or an expensive little car that meets all the tail pipe emissions, but goes unsold.

I do think autonomous technology will push demand of battery car. Metro areas will benefit. They may have competition from fuel cell, but I think vehicles will be very light and small so much so that expensive battery power will not be a factor. Especially with high utilization. Notice, non of this is based on tail pipe emissions. In fact the overall emissions will probably go up. Economics of market demand vs supply impact should be calculated within GW emissions. Especially, for international global emissions. One might learn the inexpensive battery bicycle is a very cost effective and powerful device. Maybe low cost CHP device for heat and power the most lucrative. Ethanol and battery power the most desirable change in emissions given the extreme pollution of the small engine.

"followed by the elimination of smokestack emissions"
You are assuming that will happen, it may not.

SJC, I'm not assuming smokestack emissions will be eliminated, I am suggesting rhat it should be a priority.

Many people can now buy community solar and other sources of clean power. It's a growing trend. You don't have to wait for your vertically integrated utility to make the first move anymore.

Rooftop solar, community solar, green power generators are all steadily displacing emitters, with increasingly favorable economics. Unless you think wind, solar, better transmission, smart grids and stationary storage are not going to continue to improve and get cheaper, it's a fait accompli.

Coal extraction is destructive, coal ash is problematic, coal emits mercury and PM2.5 among other health-hazardous pollutants and it is CO2 intensive.

H2 for stationary storage may have an economic case, it has not yet been deployed much, so the jury is out.

Solar and wind are booming, that's a fact in the economic record. Yes, nat gas is displacing more coal, but there's no indication that renewables are going to slow down other than for temporary regulatory turbulence.

Whenever anyone says "clean" and "coal" in the same sentence, I wonder what distant future they might be imagining.

There is no such thing as clean coal. Not in any competitive economic terms, or scaled deployment terms, or any kind of real world terms. It's just fake news.