CA 150,000 mile battery warranty.

...since 2012, almost ALL cars sold in AZ have been CARB-compliant because AZ bent-over and 'accepted' CARB regulations so that cars could be "shared" (from/to) between AZ and CA. A customer can special ORDER a 49-state FEDERAL car but it cannot then be taken into CA for later sale.

 

^^^
If you have a reputable source/page stating that AZ is a CARB emissions states w/the same mandate of 10 year/150K mile warranty on the HV battery AZ-statewide, please post it. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

In the past, I recall that WA state was a partial CARB state. It only covered certain counties.

I'd imagine that automakers can also choose to have different certifications for the exact same vehicle w/no changes. Try going to Compare Side-by-Side, then selecting Energy and Environment and choosing various states (e.g. AZ, CA, AL) and looking at the various EPA smog ratings.

Also see Find-a-Car Help.

 

Phoenix and Tucson (where I'm at) are EPA "smog" cities, which MIGHT be the determining factor.

 

But the EPA is Federal. CARB = California Air Resources Board

 

Arizona drops out of climate initiative It is near the end

 

No sir, that's the list of 15 PiP roll-out states which are not all CARB states.
For example, Virginia, my fair state, is a non-CARB PiP roll-out state.

...interesting question though, if someone buys a used 2012 PiP in AZ, is it covered via CARB?

 

Should be. It was CARB when they bought it. I do not think they can invalidate that just because AZ politicians are idiots.

 

States individually elect to 'join' CARB; the EPA has nothing to do with it. In general the more polluted the air in a state, the less likely it is going to be a CARB state. After all, they voluntarily reached that sad position.

 

States individually elect to 'join' CARB; the EPA has nothing to do with it. In general the more polluted the air in a state, the less likely it is going to be a CARB state. After all, they voluntarily reached that sad position.

 

Not really so...EPA "twisted" AZ's arm as criteria for evaluating "smog" levels in Phoenix and Tucson, which are (like LA) situated in "basins" and thus are subject to WEATHER-caused inversion layers. And, UNLIKE Los Angeles, many (but certainly not all) of our EPA-declared air problems are WEATHER induced (ie: dust storms) and have nothing to do with vehicle emissions.

 

I find your post confusing, but

• 1. Tuscon may have to clean up its air to be in compliance with federal air quality standards;
• 2. The EPA (as stewards of the clean air act) could care less how AZ cleans up its air, and most certainly could not care less about CARB.

CARB is not a 'get out of jail free' card for the state if it has problems with the EPA. Now, AZ might decide to use the CARB regulatory structure to clean up its air -- or not. And in fact if most of the air pollution problems are not car related then CARB compliance may not be the solution AZ needs.

As for your political comment that it is not Tuscon's fault their air is shitty, it is the weather -- all I can do is laugh.

 

Hm-m-m-m, how to tactfully respond? Let me count some ways:

(1) Did you miss this part of my statement "...many (but certainly not all)..." by chance?
(2) I presume New Mexico has its share of municipalities geographically located in "basins, " yes?
(3) I also presume that New Mexico has its share of weather-induced EPA-exceeding "particulate" dust storms, yes?
(4) Since when is correcting an EPA-blanket statement a "political" event?

 

The EPA new reduced Sulfur regs reducing gasoline to 10 ppm Sulfur from 30 ppm today should help areas still with smog in the next 5 years. Doesn't sound like much but the catalytic converter performance should be noticeably enhanced. Presuambly CA has already made this sulfur move years ago, not sure though.