As promised, President Donald Trump on Day One of his second term issued an executive order. Unleashing American Energy, that declared as U.S. policy an intention “to eliminate the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’ and promote true consumer choice.”
But shortly after the Trump EPA sent its waiver cancellation request to Congress for review, the Government Accountability Office announced that Congress has not authority to review the Biden waiver or to revoke it. The GAO has thus created a difficult dilemma for the Trump Administration and for the millions of Americans who find the mandate unconscionable.
While the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, which created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards, expressly preempts states from establishing their own fuel economy standards, Congress had given California the authority to set its own vehicle emissions standards in a 1967 clean air law, with one caveat: California standards require a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Under the Clean Air Act, though, the EPA can legally reject a California waiver only if it is “arbitrary or capricious” and thus unnecessary or technologically infeasible. Historically, not a single California waiver has ever been revoked, and CARB claims there is no process within the Clean Air Act to reject a waiver. Moreover, when President Trump in 2019 sought to end its authority to set its own emissions and mileage rules, California and 22 other states sued.
In one of his last official acts, President Joe Biden last December granted California a new waiver that authorizes its mandate to require 35% of new 2026 model cars and light trucks sold in California to be zero-emission vehicles. Those numbers jump to 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. When Biden in 2022 approved a waiver for earlier California emissions rules, auto manufacturers and 14 states went to court.
The battle over zero-emission vehicle mandates is not restricted to California, because other states can follow California regulations once the state receives a waiver from the EPA. To date, 18 states have followed at least parts of the new California mandate, and the Golden State has put pressure on auto manufacturers to both follow and defend its unpopular regulations.
There are just two problems with the increasingly unpopular EV mandate. First, it appears that the only way for California to meet its 2026 milestone is to revise it downward. The California New Car Dealers Association reports that zero emission vehicles’ market share fell to 21.3% in the fourth quarter of 2024, down from 23.7% in the prior quarter for an annual average of 22% (barely above the 21.7% in 2023).
Second, nationwide polls show that 75% of Americans oppose any kind of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle ban. Public support in California for its mandate peaked at 55% in 2022 (with 39% opposed) but has been slipping in the wake of a 20% increase in electricity rates that have resulted in much higher costs for recharging EV batteries. EV sales in California fell from 447,000 in 2023 to just 387,000 in 2024.
But as long as the mandate stands, it will punish both auto manufacturers and auto buyers for not bowing to Governor Newsom’s whims. Automakers face penalties of $20,000 per noncompliant vehicle sold, with the only alternatives buying emission credits for EV-only manufacturers or limiting their inventories of gasoline and diesel vehicles.
This will force Californians to either buy an EV or just hold onto older vehicles longer – limiting their choices significantly. Similar penalties and limitations on consumer choice are looming in many other cities and states. One can only imagine the anger and frustration. (Meanwhile, formerly popular Teslas are now being blown to bits by radical supporters of EV mandates.)
The Institute for Energy Research’s Kenny Stein says that the sheer size of the California market (and that of the states that conform to California standards) means that automakers must either make their entire fleet California-compliant or sell different car lines in different states – a near economic impossibility. This forces citizens of other states to purchase more expensive vehicles and thereby subsidize California’s regulatory choices against their will.
But, adds Stein, ending the mandate requires revising or rejecting three major regulatory actions: EPA’s tailpipe emissions standards, the CAFÉ standards, and California’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulations for which the Biden EPA granted a waiver (that the GAO says Congress cannot overturn). Unlike President Obama, it appears, President Trump cannot eliminate this unpopular mandate “with a pen and a phone.”
Europeans, who started the ZEV crusade, have also been unable to meet their own mandate milestones. The EU, like California, has banned non-EV sales as of 2035 (with possible exceptions for hydrogen-powered vehicles). One result is that European automakers are terrified that cheap Chinese EVs will drive them into bankruptcy.
As with California, 23 of the 27 EU nations, including Germany, Italy, and France, missed their national climate targets under the Effort Sharing Regulation. This means they may face heavy financial penalties if they are unwilling or unable to purchase increasingly expensive carbon credits. But like Governor Newsom, the Europeans have not let the facts – or the cost – interfere with their zeal to be first to reach zero.
On top of the public outcry against mandates, California and the nation face the very real threat that Zombie-like adherence to the EV mandate will collapse the electric grid – rendering the EV totally undriveable. Add to that longer repair times, the high cost of replacement batteries, the growing fear of EV fires, and a host of other concerns.
Only time will tell whether pro-EV lawfare will prevent California – and much of the nation – from continuing its lemming-like march toward the cliff. The 25% are hell bent on forcing the 75% to jump with them, while the 75% only want to be free to make their own choices.
Meanwhile, the Gavinator’s own presumed desire to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2029 has hit a bump in the road, as he is learning any step toward the center will unleash the vehement anger of the Democratic base.
Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
I am cynical enough to believe that only election reform, from outside, can reform California.
It is a mess that will sort itself out when California collides with reality.
Does not need to be high on 47s to do list.
I haven’t observed that reality is a force in CA.
There may be something that can be done within the context of the energy emergency declaration.
Same as it ever was:
” “California likes to be fooled,” Cedarquist, in The Octopus,* the owner of a failed San Francisco iron works, advises Presley when they …” — The Golden Land by Joan Didion
*The Octopus: A story of California by Frank Norris (1901)
Reality exists. Wishing otherwise will do Dems no good.
“Reality exists.” Not in California, the land of Hollywood. People watch movies, advertisements, and believe they represent the real world. Witches, ESP, the supernatural are accepted on the west coast of California. People there really believe in those things. People with college degrees will attest that they can feel the difference in the temperature as it was in the ’50s and the ’60s versus now. I have many acquaintances there that will so attest. As an ex-Boeing engineer, friends with multiple Masters and PhD degrees in STEM believe in CAGW and can NOT understand how anyone could believe otherwise. Many are registered Republicans. I kid you not.
But many of them also believe that the right shampoo will give their hair a special luster (as seen on TV).
Lala Land is real, and Gavin is their governor; Kamala will be their next governor.
and perhaps here,
“Under the Clean Air Act, though, the EPA can legally reject a California waiver only if it is “arbitrary or capricious” and thus unnecessary or technologically infeasible.”
By removing the “toxic” label to CO2, then it can be argued that Calif path is indeed,
“arbitrary or capricious” and thus unnecessary or technologically infeasible.”
It is completely infeasible now. Calif has neither the energy or infrastructure for the electrical required to meet their own choosen path.
It is also unecessary, as the Calif policy will barely, if at all reduce Calif emissions, and certainly have zero affect on Global GAT. And what incredibly minor affect CO2 may have, is most certainly net beneficial
California itself will never acknowledge reality. What will happen is that many, but not all, of the other states which are currently allied with California on its zero emission mandates will break with California and will abandon that state to the net zero wolves.
What I’m seeing here in Washington State, a state which will remain allied with California to the bitter end, is that new car dealerships are now beginning to shift their focus towards selling and repairing good-condition used ICE cars and trucks in anticipation of being forced to sell only EV’s as their new vehicles.
I think this trend will continue and expand here and in Oregon when the EV mandates get ever-more strict as the decade progresses.
A radical solution: close down all dealerships in “Califognia”, if no ICU vehicle is officially sold in this state let’s see who is still standing, or better said moving, once the fog in their minds is lifted.
Since car manufacturers a forced to pay for a deluded policy better cut your losses in a drastic way. So those greentards get what they desire and you deprive them of the cash they really want.
Let chinese battery pow(d)er(d) crap flood California, I doubt those EV’s will run for long and hey: who needs free roaming arsonists if you have millions of lithium batteries on wheels?
Blaim climate change of wildfires due to exploding EV’s, wouldn’t that be a refreshing headline in the news?
be advised: sarcasm is my middle name
If the endangerment finding is revoked maybe the EPA could revoke the California waiver as it would be “arbitrary or capricious”.
It is not feasible so it can be revoked
It could also force Californians to purchase properties in other states, purchase their cars in that state and register them in that state. Nothing stops a Nevada resident from driving their non-compliant Nevada registered and licensed vehicle in California
You can do it for a while, but Kali will catch up. I’ve several friends have tried it over the years with NV and AZ registrations. The local LEO keeps tabs and eventually the long arm reaches out. I think only military not on permanent is officially exempt for more than the nominal I think 6 months, and that has it a time limit too.
Just 10 miles north me is the Inyo county border. I have a friend that is just inside, the border is his property line, he doesn’t have to get smog checks.
What I remember was that military can maintain registration in their “home” state pretty much indefinitely until separation. I don’t remember any time limits. (not saying there weren’t or aren’t, just don’t recall any)
It is possible that you could have insurance problems if you have claim and the company figures out that you are not actually living in the state that you claimed. It could be viewed as a non-disclosure or fraud. Nevada rates are not based on living in LA. It is that way in Canada.
“automakers must either make their entire fleet California-compliant or sell different car lines in different states…”
Baloney. Or, bologna if you prefer that spelling. My father worked for one of the US auto manufacturers, retiring in 1974. After the initial California emission standards were put in place in the 1960s, the cars destined for California dealerships had engines with additional emission controls. Cars made for sale in other states did not. Somehow “different car lines” were sold in different states back then.
Way back then, true enough. I had a “49 state” 1978 Chevy truck. But that dual system is loooonnnng gone. I think motorcycles went up to maybe 15 years ago then pretty much all went Kali.
There’s a big difference between selling a standard engine with a lot of extra cr@p hung off it, and selling EV vs ICEV.
Maybe the Andreas fault line will solve all of this and California will fall into the Pacific ala 2012.
I have hoped that the US could give California to the UK provided they take Harry and Meghan with it.
Thanks for nothing, mate!
How is it that Congress can authorize EPA to issue waivers to its rules but cannot withdraw such authorization?
Welcome to the ‘Roach Motel’ of environmental regulation.
Because so far only the wrong courts have ruled on it.
90% of US oil reseeves are stored in Gavins hair.
I have the view that if you lined up UK, Australia and California in the lemmings stakes, California would be the odds on favourite.
I see the fire ravaged land is now at risk of mud slides as the rain comes.
Not at risk. Is happening. A few days ago a police SUV was swept by a Palisades mudslide off PCH and into the ocean where it was images half submerged.
It would be a close race, but I think you’re correct with the UK coming in close behind Cali
But, but, but, Donald loves EVs now. He said so as he acted like a cheap two bit car sales man on the front lawn of the White House. No shame.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to own an EV automobile, in fact it should be encouraged. That’s the mantra of all environmentalists.
The problem is mandating that you must own one and nothing else. That’s the mantra of Marxists.
“There is nothing wrong with wanting to own an EV automobile, in fact it should be encouraged.”
You might need a bit more than encouraging to convert the folks here.
Encouraging is not converting. Free choice is still the only acceptable solution.
People who want to make decisions for others are tyrants.
Good ideas succeed because they are their own reward. Bad ideas always fail on their own.
Did you similarly complain for all the many Biden car commercials?
Biden never did a commercial like that, where the major donor to his campaign peddled cars on the White House lawn. Now if i am wrong please feel free to tell me so, and who this donor was?
You can always go out of state to purchase what vehicle you want. I recommend South Dakota for ease in registering. They love new residents. California cannot ban commerce in other states. Then just bring it back and use it while visiting.
Doesn’t work, at least not in the long term. I’ve never tried but a few of my friends have.
At one point, I looked into that. California said any new car coming into the state had to have at least 7000 miles on the odo.
Seems like an organized crime opportunity to me.
7k on the odometer can be “arranged”. Once in the state it gets sold to someone who sold it to someone else. There are no doubt barriers to these kinds of tactics but if there becomes a big enough differential between Cali cars and regular cars, someone will figure out how to profit from it.
Better would be that people went out of state to buy a car and just never came back.
Really only applies to vehicles that are pretty old – 50 state cars/trucks has been around since 1995 I think. Motorcycles a different story
Smog was all but eliminated with electronic fuel ignition where sensors could match fuel needs with oxygen content in the intake. You no longer had to run “pig rich” heavy on the fuel like you did with carburetors. Gone was the unburnt fuel emissions from the tailpipe. Basing policy off of smog is fraudulent. That problem was taken care of by innovation in the industry.
Don’t forget the mandated catalytic converter, as the miracle ‘afterburner’ of incomplete combustion products. The transition to lead-free gasoline was not that easy; remember the substitute ‘anti-knock’ agents had their own problems?
Right, cadmium instead of lead, lovely. I used to run old BMW boxer “Airhead” motorcycles. There was a transition period of about 20 years where owners slowly got tired of lead substitutes and got their heads rebuilt with modern valve seats and valves. And also bump them to 900CC, of course.
I think there will eventually be a revolt and a new legislature will be swept to power to undo the mandates, but if not, California will become like Cuba, with people going to extreme lengths to keep old cars on the road.
And unlike Cuba, people moving away.
According to edmunds.com’s figures, May 2024 showed only 6.8% of American new car sales were EVs. This is after years of mandates and consumer incentives, so isn’t it obvious that people don’t want these vehicles in the first place, particularly since they’ve proved to be overpriced, unreliable and have low resale value, among other shortcomings. Yet we still have these foolish politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists trying to ram them down our throats while telling us they’re going to help save the planet. Is anyone foolish enough to believe them?
Here in the UK the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) have just said the government’s mandate for EVs are
“beginning to play out in terms of flattening of sales, production down, plants closed or consolidated, jobs lost”
“With out incentives private consumer demand for EVs is weak”
They also said that the industry incurred costs of £4.5bn last year in discounting electric vehicles to customers to meet the sales targets
From the above article:
“This will force Californians to either buy an EV or just hold onto older vehicles longer . . .”
Well, the law of unintended consequences will win out in the end.
Under the mandates described in the above article, in 2026 the California budgeting folks will suddenly realize the extensive loss of state income as residents don’t buy anywhere near the number of new ICE cars (due to the MASSIVE coming cost increases due to Federal trade tariffs imposed on foreign car makers) and also refuse to buy new EVs, opting instead to just buy used cars or keep their existing vehicles for more years. California will be going the way of Cuba!
Here’s a breakdown of the common fees collected under California’s vehicle registration laws:
— CA state sales tax, currently at 7.25%
— Vehicle License Fee (VLF), calculated at 0.65% of your vehicle’s value, decreasing as the vehicle ages
— Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF), varies based on the vehicle’s value and can range from $0 to $188
— Base Registration Fee, typically around $60.
— California Highway Patrol (CHP) Fee, $27.
— Title Fee, $27
— License Plate Fee, $27
— Registration Card Fee, $27.
In 2024, the average price of a new car in the U.S. was approximately $48,000. Assuming that to be true in California in 2026, California would fail to collect about $3,500 just in sales tax for every new vehicle that is not purchased.
In CY2023 California had 1.77 million new car and truck registrations. Assuming the same number for CY2026, that’s equivalent to $6.2 billion in income from new vehicle sales taxes. So, if just 10% of California’s average number of new vehicle buyers delayed buying a new car going forward, the state would lose about $620 million in revenue each year! Of course, lost sales tax revenue will be even higher going forward since the base price of new vehicles is projected to skyrocket.
There is a simple solution to this stinking mess. Since these guys are so hell bent to force others to comply with their wishes I think we should join with them. My guess is that over ninety percent of EV purchasers are 100 percent virtue signaling we should help them become more than virtue signalers. Any person who buys an EV should be made to go all the way and give up their gas and diesel powered vehicles. We need to help them achieve a 100 percent commitment. They can keep their government subsidies on the first EV but must pay full price on all other EVs. No government help with electric power, you must pay full cost plus a tax for road repair and such. There is no reason for these people to be half assed about their scared beliefs.
If the Biden signature on the mandate was made by a machine, the mandate must be unconstitutional.
Too many presidents have used an autopen for that argument to work. You’d have to prove that he hadn’t approved the document to be signed to make it invalid.
So how does California deal with residents buying used (demo?) ICE vehicles interstate and registering them at home? Clearly they have to plug the leaky boat.
Kali gets their pound of flesh, which we all have to pay here. For a long time all cars sold in the US can be brought into Kali, you just have to pay fees and taxes, pass a smog test, and then register it here, if you are a legal resident of the state. From time to time Cali has tried to extract money beyond the normal fees from both the entrance and exit of vehicles, but the courts slap them down.
The old 7,500 mile (or whatever) rule I think still applies to cars and trucks that are from before the “50 State Emissions” era – 1990? 1995?, so that is becoming a rare problem. Not for old motorcycles though! There are lots of cool old bikes that can’t be registered because of low miles. Heck, there are still 60’s and 70’s bikes brand new in their shipping crates! Of course, the old odo’s are crude mechanical devices and, hmmmm, easily run forward. some are so crude you be lucky to get them to 7,500. That’s OK, just make up a milage, sign an affidavit the odo is broken etc etc.
For the future mandates? I’ve no idea what Kali will do. I just hope the new EPA somehow does away with the exemptions. There’s little doubt the limits will slip out. This already happened with the small engine ban.
Quote of the decade-
“I don’t think I was lied to. I think it was magical thinking,”
Former NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Admits Democrats ‘Were Wrong’ for Backing Joe Biden Despite Clear Signs of Cognitive Decline
Slippery Gav embraces some magic-
‘Slippery character’: Gavin Newsom appearing as a ‘sensible centrist’ for next election | Daily Telegraph
Then you saw me now you don’t!
I’m not so sure about that, there’s a difference between emission limits, and zero emissions regulations.
If the only way they can be California-compliant is by selling a proportion of EV’s, I don’t see how this has a knock-on effect on ICE vehicles sold in non-mandate states.
“the Gavinator’s own presumed desire to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2029 has hit a bump in the road, as he is learning any step toward the center will unleash the vehement anger of the Democratic base”
But if the Dems want to win- they better find someone right at the center- then they’ll have a chance if that person is likeable enough.
My delusional thought is that west coast cities should join together and form their own green socialist nation. They could eradicate capitalism and industry in their own utopia. That would relieve the severe political division.
If the mandate states cars SOLD in Commifornia have to be EV, then set up IC dealerships just outside the border. Buy your car there and drive home. Until Lex Newsom creates the Car Cops that drive around looking for “Gas Offenders”!
You actually believe Governor Newsom or his inevitably-liberal Democrat successors care squat about the US Constitution saying that only the Federal government has the power to control interstate commerce???
Nothing says Kali’s current or future Governor and legislature won’t soon pass a law stating that it is illegal to buy an ICE car out-of-state and then move it permanently into the state within the first five years of purchase . . . the Constitution be damned.