Discussion on:

California to consider a more stringent electric vehicle mandate

I have a 120-mile round trip daily commute but would still consider an electric car for its lower cost per mile and less pollution. Today's batteries would require twice-daily charging. Better Place hasn't installed quick-swap stations in California and we need fast chargers at workplaces.

This is from the state that thinks a $100 billion high-speed train to nowhere is a good idea worthy of taxpayer support.

people need freedom.

The emission trading system used to control SO2 emissions is based on offset credit trading. Power plants with emissions per kWh below target are awarded credits (depending on how far below). Power plants with above target emissions have to buy these credits off the low emission generators to offset their higher emissions. The result is that average emissions stay on target and it is up power companies to decide to reduce emissions or buy credits.
A similar system could be used to control the average emissions per mile of new cars. See http://pragmatusj.blogspot.com/2011/08/using-offset-credit-trading-to-drive.html for more details

I'd love to go with an all electric - but they're plain expensive. If our economy was rolling in extra money I'd understand why creating these laws makes sense but with more families and people having a harder time making ends meet this simply doesn't make sense. Of course we want cleaner air all all the other good stuff electric cars brings but first we've got to clean up our national budget so we can afford it. Once electric cars sell for a price an average person can afford I'm sure we'll flock to this common sense transportation.

Will California have a lottery to pick the people forced into an EV when they do not sell enough to make the mandate?

Will taxpayers then foot the bill?