California's EV Mandate - A Costly Overreach That Ignores Economic Realities

California’s aggressive push to mandate electric vehicles (EVs) by 2035 is a troubling example of government overreach, and the consequences will be felt far beyond the Golden State. This mandate, while heralded by some as a bold step towards reducing emissions, overlooks the significant burdens it places on families and small businesses, especially those in low-income and underserved communities.

The notion of forcing every new car sold in California to be electric by 2035 might sound like progress, but in reality, it’s a one-size-fits-all policy that ignores the economic realities faced by most Americans. As a recent CEA analysis shows, the costs associated with this mandate are staggering. From the high purchase price of EVs to the lack of affordable charging infrastructure, families are being asked to foot the bill for a policy that is disconnected from their daily lives.

Low-income households will be hit the hardest. The upfront cost of an electric vehicle is far beyond the reach of many families, even with subsidies. According to recent studies, the average EV costs $10,000 more than a gas-powered car, and that gap doesn’t include the additional expenses related to charging infrastructure, maintenance, and potential upgrades to home electrical systems. For families already struggling to make ends meet, this mandate could force them into older, less reliable vehicles, or leave them without a viable transportation option altogether.

Small businesses, particularly those in the service and logistics industries, are also in the crosshairs. Many of these businesses rely on affordable, reliable gas-powered vehicles to operate. Transitioning to EVs not only means higher upfront costs but also potential disruptions due to the inadequacy of California’s current charging infrastructure. The state needs a tenfold increase in public chargers by 2030 to meet its own targets, yet it is already struggling with backlogged permits and an outdated grid. These are not just growing pains—they are signs that the state is not ready to support such an ambitious mandate.

What’s more, the environmental benefits of this mandate are questionable at best. EVs still rely on a power grid that is not fully renewable, meaning the emissions are simply shifted from the tailpipe to the power plant. Additionally, the environmental costs of mining for the materials needed for EV batteries are significant and often overlooked. These realities raise serious doubts about whether the benefits of this mandate outweigh the costs.

The solution to our environmental challenges isn’t to force every American into an electric vehicle, but to allow the free market to guide the transition to cleaner technologies. Innovation, consumer choice, and competition—not government mandates—should drive this process. By allowing the market to determine the best mix of vehicles, we can ensure that new technologies are affordable, accessible, and truly beneficial for all.