How Newsom’s EV Mandates Affect YOUR Life

Latest News Controversy

There is yet another issue at the forefront of the news cycle as President Trump prepares to take office in just under two weeks for us to discuss! Governor Newsom and the California Legislature are terrified at what his presidency could mean for our state. We looked a few weeks ago at the Governor’s vow to protect California’s sanctuary status I believe we need to address another battle that is on a different topic entirely, but has sparked controversy among administrations nonetheless, and that is clean energy and electric vehicles.

California is heavily invested in moving to utilizing exclusively “clean” forms of energy. A strategic part of that shift is the move to electric vehicles. Since 2010, California has created several incentive programs to help individuals afford electric vehicles through grants or rebates.[1] The state has received these funds from federal programs, such as the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program signed into law by President Biden in 2021. California was allocated close to $400 million from the federal program.[2] The problem for California is that Trump has continuously made clear that he wants to abolish all electric vehicle mandates, and he will also prioritize slashing federal funding to EV subsidies and other programs like the ones California receives money from as part of his transition back into office.[3] But that is the least of California’s worries in this department, because not only did the Biden administration provide the state with funding for its clean energy initiatives, it most recently approved California’s mandate to transition from gas powered cars to electric vehicles over the next ten years.[4] California has the power to set its own vehicle emission standards, independent from federal standards, but it is still required to obtain a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency each time it does so. The EPA can reject granting the waiver if it finds the standards the state is trying to set to be capricious or arbitrary in addressing environmental issues.[5] The Biden Administration took action to approve the California standard before Trump takes office, approving it just two weeks ago, but the fight may not quite be over yet. In response to the EPA’s approval, Trump has promised to rescind these approvals once back in office.[6] And the Trump Administration isn’t the only group examining the legality of California’s mandates – the U.S. Supreme Court has also announced that it will review if the EPA waiver by the Biden Administration is valid or if these mandates fall outside of what California is authorized to require by law.[7]

Clearly, this is a pressing and important issue in our state, and the fight is expected to get more and more attention in the coming weeks and months. This means that now more than ever, we need to be clear and informed on what’s happening, what the law says, what the implications are for us, and what we think about these issues. After all, this could mean higher gas prices, more expensive vehicles, and an even greater deficit for our state government.

Background – How we got here

What exactly is going on with electric vehicles in California to cause this debate? It began back in 2020 when Governor Gavin Newsom passed Executive Order N-79-20, which set the goal for the state that 100% of new passenger car and truck sales be zero emission vehicles, also known as electric vehicles, by 2035. [8] This means that the Governor set the goal that by 2035, all new cars sold in the state must be all electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids. The executive order itself wasn’t law, meaning that it clearly set the intentions for the state’s movement toward electric vehicles, but it didn’t technically outline any mandates for manufacturers, car dealers, or consumers. However, it did mandate that the California Air Resources Board develop regulations that would make this goal a reality by 2035.[9]

What were the driving factors behind this executive order? Why did Governor Newsom decide that 2020 was the year to set intentions for phasing out gas-powered cars? He listed several reasons in the text of the executive order itself. First, this is a response to the “climate crisis,” and is meant to help reduce climate change in our state by reducing carbon emissions. Second, this was passed right in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, so he cites a sharp decline in the need for transportation and the desire to shift to a carbon neutral future as the economy recovers and as individuals return to their everyday use of vehicles. Third, he cites a need to make clean transportation accessible to low-income communities. Fourth, he cites California as a world leader in the manufacturing and selling of zero emission vehicles. And lastly, he emphasizes the need to continue building up public transportation options across the state.[10] In summary, the main drivers can be boiled down to fighting climate change and taking advantage of the disruption of the pandemic to shift the transportation market entirely.

Two years after Newsom’s executive order, in 2022 the California Air Resources Board passed actual legislation, known as the Advanced Clean Cars Program II, to put Newsom’s goals into measurable regulations. It’s titled Program II because it builds off the original Advanced Clean Cars Program that was passed in 2012. The original program focused on Low-Emission Vehicle benchmarks by implementing strict emission standards for non-electric vehicles and tracking these emissions.[11] Advanced Clean Cars II extends the requirements of the original program and will take effect January 1, 2026. The newest addition is the introduction of a zero-emission vehicle program.[12] The Zero-Emission Vehicle Program focuses on shifting society toward driving electric cars. It requires a gradual increase in the portion of annual vehicle sales that are electric vehicles, with the ultimate goal of only electric vehicles being sold in California by 2035. This means that manufacturers have to focus on selling more and more electric cars, while also improving electric vehicles to make them desirable for consumers. There are also stricter requirements added by the new regulations to the low-emission vehicle program as well, further lowering the amount of acceptable carbon emissions throughout the state starting in 2026.

What are the actual benchmarks legislated by these programs? For the Zero-Emission Vehicle Program, the regulations require that 35% of model year 2026 cars sold in California must be zero-emission vehicles – again meaning all electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids. This ramps up each year, reaching 68% of sales in 2030, 88% of sales in 2033, and then finally reaching 100% in 2035.[13] For the Low-Emission Vehicle Program, the original program required California to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in 2030 from what they were in 1990. The California Air Resources Board increased this requirement to 48%, meaning that by 2030, greenhouse gas emissions must be nearly half of what they were 40 years prior.[14] The 2022 amendments to the program also extended durability requirements for vehicle emission control systems. These systems filter and recirculate harmful pollutants, like carbon monoxide. Under the 2012 regulations, vehicles had to comply with emission standards for 10 years or 120,000 miles, but the updated regulations will extend this to require compliance for 15 years or 150,000 miles.[15]

Current Status of Progress Made

How realistic are these goals? Are we on track to reach them in 2035 and beyond?

Let’s start with the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal. Based on where we were in 2022 when the regulations were put in place, total greenhouse gas emissions need to be decreasing by at least 4.4% each year starting in 2022 in order to achieve the target set for 2030.[16] But just one year prior, in 2021, instead of seeing a decrease, we actually saw an increase of 3.4%. One year later, 2022 did see a decrease from 2021, but only a decrease of 2.4%[17] - not even back to the levels that greenhouse gas emissions were at when 2021 started, and barely half of how much of a decline we needed to see to make the 2030 goal attainable.

In fact, here’s a little perspective for you – according to the Director of Research for Next 10 – a nonprofit organization focused on clean energy – over the past 20 years California has only seen annual reductions of over 4% twice.[18] Does it seem realistic then, that we would see reductions over 4% for 8 years in a row? Many researchers are saying it most definitely is not realistic. Co-author of the annual California Green Innovation Index, Stafford Nichols, puts it this way, “The fact that they need to increase the speed of reduction at about three times faster than they’re actually doing — that does not bode well. As we get closer to that 2030 goal, the fact that we’re further off just means that we have to decrease faster each year.”[19] I think it’s safe to say that when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, we are not on target to reach that 40% reduction from 1990 levels, which doesn’t bode well for Gavin Newsom’s mission to reduce toxins in the air.

What about the progress of the zero-emission vehicle program? Are manufacturers increasing production and sales of electric vehicles? Are we on track to phase out gas powered cars and move to 100% of new cars sales being all electric by 2035? Well, it seems we’re running into some speedbumps there too. It’s looking increasingly difficult to incentivize and mobilize more Californians to purchase electric cars. The first problem is sheer sales themselves. By next year, the first benchmark to hit is 35% of all new car sales should be zero-emission vehicles. For 2024, the total share of zero-emission vehicles by the end of September (Q3) was at 25.4%.[20] Supporters of Newsom’s initiative will say that is a good sign, that we only have to see 10% growth next year to be on target, but it is important to compare the growth we’ve seen in prior years. In reality, the 2024 Q3 total was just 0.3% growth, as 2023 ended with sales having 25.02% zero-emission vehicles.[21] Expecting 10% growth by the end of 2026 is a hefty lift, especially when the historical growth doesn’t seem to be there to back it up.

Car manufacturers know this dilemma firsthand. The Chief Operating Officer of Toyota reported that demand for electric vehicles is not high enough to make the 2035 goal achievable. An analyst with Edmunds, an online car dealer, agreed, reporting that the 2035 target is “definitely a challenge.”[22] Even the Alliance for Automotive Innovation issued a release saying that “achieving the mandate will take a miracle.”[23] As sales have slowed, and as demand for electric vehicles has stagnated, car manufacturers have begun to scale back their production of EVs. Fisker, a California-based EV startup created by a former design consultant for Tesla, declared bankruptcy in June of this year.[24] Other manufacturers are shifting their strategies away from all electric vehicles and toward gas-powered hybrids, which have been outpacing electric vehicles[25] but cannot count as zero-emission vehicles for California’s goal if they still burn fossil fuels. A recent poll conducted by Pew Research Center found that in 2024, only 3 out of 10 Americans would somewhat or seriously consider buying an electric vehicle, which is a decrease of 9 percentage points from polls conducted a year earlier.[26] Electric vehicle sales have slowed down, because quite frankly, consumer demand just isn’t there.

Let’s dig a little deeper. Why isn’t consumer demand there? What are the roadblocks that have caused the hype around electric vehicles to wane? Going back to that Pew Research poll, a large barrier is the higher cost to purchase an electric vehicle, with 72% of Americans reporting it would be more expensive for them to buy an EV versus a traditional gas-powered car.[27] This is a huge consideration for people and families right now, especially in a shifting economy, with high inflation that has made the cost of living for most people hurt. This couldn’t be any truer in a state like California, where our cost of living is so high compared to most other states in the country! If people can’t afford a home, if they don’t even feel like they can afford groceries week to week, then they certainly aren’t going to entertain the idea of buying a more expensive vehicle. Some say that the prices of electric vehicles have been dropping over the past year – and that is true but consider these prices: Tesla’s base Model 3 Sedan originally cost $47,000 in 2023 and dropped to $39,000 in early 2024. Their premium Model Y was selling for $70,000 in 2023 and dropped to $52,500 in that same period.[28] Those are significant decreases for sure but paying $52,000 or even $39,000 for a new car is still far, far more than I have ever spent on a car! It’s certainly more than someone who is trying to save for a house or who is struggling to make ends meet is going to be able to pay. This isn’t even mentioning that the reason that prices are decreasing is because there is less and less demand for EVs in the first place, so if everyone started buying them at these lower prices, we would surely see costs rise right back up to astronomical amounts. Think for yourself, do you want to get to 2035 and essentially be forced to spend $70,000 on a Tesla because our government requires you can only purchase an electric vehicle? Wouldn’t that concern you?

Beyond just cost concerns, it seems that Americans also have concerns about the reliability of electric vehicles. Only 9% of those polled say that EVs are more reliable than gas-powered cars, with over half of individuals saying they are less reliable.[29] This gut instinct is backed up by a report from 2023 showing that electric vehicles have nearly 80% more problems than traditional vehicles.[30] The report published that EV owners had the most trouble with the batteries and charging systems in their vehicles, which is a critical part of driving an electric vehicle.

This leads to an even bigger concern – and one that severely affects California – which is consumer hesitancy over limited charging stations and inadequate infrastructure to support electric vehicles. Only 13% of Americans reported that they are confident that there will be proper infrastructure to support the rise in electric vehicles, with a whopping 56% reporting they are NOT confident there will be enough energy support.[31] In California specifically, this is a massive issue. Our electrical grid is already overwhelmed, as evidenced by regular power outages during peak seasons, especially on the hottest days in summer. I personally have experienced officials shutting off our power periodically over night during the summer. Or outages during the day, always on the hottest days of the year, when suddenly all our lights go off and we feel the air conditioner stop working. In fact, just six days after the California Air Resources Board announced the new regulations to move to all electric vehicles, our state power grid was so overloaded by routine summer heat that residents were warned in an unprecedented, 10-day emergency alert to cut their electricity usage and prepare for outages.[32] But what’s worse is that at the time of the crisis, electric vehicles accounted for less than 1% usage of the power grid. If the 2035 goal for all electric vehicle sales is achieved, it is forecasted that electric vehicles will increase usage of the power grid to ten percent![33] If we are already experiencing power outages due to an overloaded grid with EVs using just less than one percent of it, how in the world will we sustain EVs using 10 percent of its capacity?

Real Implications

It seems then, based on everything we have discussed, that we are very far off from the lofty electric vehicle goals written into regulation and law by the California government for the next ten years. What implications does that have on us? What does this mean as we enter year 2025? There are a few real-world effects that you need to be aware of as a result of these clean energy programs. Because certain EV benchmarks begin in 2026, this new year will be used to prepare to reach those goals. What do those preparations entail?

First, it means we will see even more new legislation and regulations passed as the government continues to stress the mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift to electric vehicles. The legislature just voted in November to put in place even more regulations aimed at achieving their zero-emission vehicle goals – regulations that an independent study found will increase the cost of gas per gallon by anywhere from 20 to 65 cents across the state.[34] In my area, gas is already $4.50 per gallon, so adding additional costs within that range could bring the price to above $5 per gallon – which is just insane and incredibly unaffordable!

Another implication we are starting to see is a tightening grip of the state government to usurp the voices, input, and autonomy of local governments. Newsom and the California legislature passed a law to allow the state government to have authority over local governments as to where solar, wind, and other clean energy infrastructure will be expanded. This was a huge slap in the face to rural communities who know best how to permit their areas and use the land to their advantage. John Kennedy, of the Rural County Representatives of California, responded to the bill this way, “Local governments are viewed as an impediment, another layer you have to go through to get your project across the finish line. But we permit these facilities all the time. It’s one of the core functions we perform as local government.”[35] This means that realistically the state government has the power to push through clean energy projects to rural communities without their input or say, which will challenge the makeup of these communities and what they are required to implement. It has already made local government less willing to comply with the state, as elected leaders are excluded from decisions and are not allowed to represent the people of their neighborhoods, communities, and districts. It would be no surprise if we started to see more and more battles between local governments and the state government, especially as state officials become desperate to achieve their lofty goals.

We also must consider the costs that the state will be incurring in order to further shift its energy sources to things like wind turbines and other clean forms of energy, which includes the need to add more vehicle chargers around the state. It’s estimated that by 2030, California needs to have 1.2 million chargers to sustain its projections for electric vehicles.[36] Currently, there are only a little over 152,000.[37] This means that huge strides will have to be made to add over one million electric vehicle chargers in the next five years. This is not a small task. California would have to build 129,000 new chargers annually to reach that goal by 2030. For some perspective, in 2023 California added just 17,000 new EV chargers. We needed 129,000, and we built 17,000! How in the world are we planning to reach over a million in just 5 more years?! But that isn’t all – according to a 2023 study, each charger costs roughly $117,000.[38] That would mean that to build the one million chargers we need, it would cost our state roughly $117 billion to do so. That’s an exorbitant amount of money that our state does not have, to be spending on a program it cannot achieve, to potentially reduce greenhouse gasses by a marginal amount.

My point in highlighting all these difficulties is that it is taking a tremendous, and might I say unrealistic, toll on our government, on our communities, and on our tax dollars, to rush to achieve a goal that Newsom just waived his hand and said he wanted enacted. This isn’t even considering if reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a worthwhile goal – I haven’t even gotten into that – but regardless of that, you could believe that reducing emissions and increasing electric vehicles is the best goal in the entire world, and these facts would still tell you that it actually isn’t worth the incredible cost to citizens here and now. Newsom and our legislature and climate activists continue to spread hysteria that they are enacting all of this legislation and increasing regulations in order to save the world, save the planet, and save our state, but in the meantime, they are increasing costs around us, and still failing to implement the very goals they tout as their biggest successes. It’s atrocious. No existential agenda is worth the real-world suffering caused by mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and refusal to acknowledge what is realistic and achievable.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, I am not saying that electric vehicles are bad. I think new technology is a great thing! The wild success of companies like Tesla is only possible in a country and economy like ours, where we challenge entrepreneurs to think outside of the box and to innovate beyond what we think is possible. If you own an electric vehicle, or you want one, that’s great! What I am saying though is that it is unreasonable to demand all Californians purchase or drive an EV. With a free market economy, you have to listen to consumers – and while California is definitely popular for electric vehicles, I see that with my own eyes when I see the number of Teslas on the road around here, you cannot just demand that every single person in this state has to favor electric vehicles and be moving in that direction when their current car dies. If consumers are concerned about EVs – and rightly so – then you must let them, and the market, determine the value and popularity of electric vehicles. People deserve free choice. It’s a fundamental principle of living in America. Our government should not force our choices because of a political ideology or agenda that they believe is supreme. Governor Newsom and our current legislature are proving that they care more about pushing down their own preferences and decisions on local governments, and on YOU, than they do about expanding your options and letting YOU make the best decision for your family, your finances, and your life. That is unacceptable.

Even beyond just the personal choice of what car to buy, our state government is expending excessive amounts of money, ungodly amounts of money – while being in a multibillion-dollar deficit, mind you – on these goals. Money that could be spent on supporting law enforcement as we see a rise in crime around our state, on addressing homelessness and the drug epidemic, or on programs to reduce the cost of housing – and as they are spending this money, they are also driving up the price of gas and refusing to address ongoing problems with our electrical grid. In short, it’s a complete and utter disaster.

So, if Trump gets in office and on day one slashes funding for these EV programs, repeals all electric vehicle mandates from a federal level, and rescinds the EPA approval of Newsom’s agenda, then I say good for him, it’s about time someone starts leading with some common sense.

References:

[1] Lopez, Nadia. “California Approves Far-reaching Strategy for Tackling Climate Change. So What’s Next?” CalMatters, December 16, 2022. https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/12/california-plan-climate-change/.

[2] California Energy Commission. “California Awards $32 Million in Federal Funding to Deploy Over 450 Fast Chargers Along Interstates and Highways,” n.d. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2024-09/california-awards-32-million-federal-funding-deploy-over-450-fast-chargers-along#:~:text=California%20awarded%20over%20%2432%20million,a%20bigger%2C%20better%20charging%20network.

[3] Gitlin, Jonathan. “Trump Will Reportedly Block the US Government and Military From Buying EVs.” WIRED, December 17, 2024. https://www.wired.com/story/trump-to-block-the-government-and-military-from-buying-evs/.

[4] Lazo, Alejandro. “Biden Administration Approves California Electric Car Mandate. Will Trump Try to Revoke It?” CalMatters, December 18, 2024. https://calmatters.org/environment/2024/12/california-electric-car-mandate-epa-waiver/.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Shepardson, David. “US EPA Approves California Plan to Ban Sale of Gas-only Cars Starting in 2035.” Reuters, December 18, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-epa-approves-california-plan-ban-gas-only-cars-starting-2035-2024-12-18/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

[7] Alejandro Lazo, “Supreme Court to Weigh in on Case Involving California’S Power to Clean Its Air,” CalMatters, December 13, 2024, https://calmatters.org/environment/2024/12/supreme-court-california-vehicle-emission-standards/.

[8] NEWSOM, GAVIN. “EXECUTIVE ORDER N-79-20.” STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 2020. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf.

Copy to clipboard

[9] Karris, Cooper. “The New Legislative Steps Towards a Zero Emission Roadway.” Blog Post, 2022. https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-10/Cooper%20Karras%20-%20Blog%20Post%201.pdf.

[10] NEWSOM, “EXECUTIVE ORDER N-79-20.”

[11] Ibid.

[12] Mills, Ryan. “Understanding California’s Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation.” RMI, December 2, 2024. https://rmi.org/understanding-californias-advanced-clean-cars-ii-regulation/.

[13] Nikolewski, Rob. “California Sales of Zero-emission Vehicles Hit 25.7% but Are Numbers Increasing Fast Enough?” Silicon Valley, August 7, 2024. https://www.siliconvalley.com/2024/08/07/ca-sales-of-zero-emission-vehicles-hit-25-7-but-are-numbers-increasing-fast-enough/.

[14] Lopez, “California Approves Far-Reaching Strategy for Tackling Climate Change. So What’s Next?”

[15] California Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board. “California Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures For 2026 And Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, Medium-Duty Vehicles, And Heavy-Duty Vehicles,” August 25, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/accii/2acciifro_evap_tp_2026%2B.pdf.

[16] Alejandro Lazo, “California Isn’t on Track to Meet Its Climate Change Mandates — and a New Analysis Says It’s Not Even Close,” CalMatters, March 14, 2024, https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/03/california-climate-change-mandate-analysis/#:~:text=A%20new%20analysis%20concludes%20that,issues%20that%20affect%20all%20Californians.

[17] Briscoe, Tony. “California Emissions Drop 2.4% Due to Electric Vehicles and Cleaner Fuels - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, September 21, 2024. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-09-20/california-emissions-drop-2-4-due-to-electric-vehicles-cleaner-fuels.

[18] Lazo, “California Isn’t on Track to Meet Its Climate Change Mandates — and a New Analysis Says It’s Not Even Close,” March 14, 2024.

[19] Ibid.

[20] California Energy Commission. “New ZEV Sales in California,” September 30, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics-collection/new-zev.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Mitchell, Russ. “Why California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Electric Vehicle Mandate Is in Trouble.” Greater Milwaukee Today, December 11, 2024. https://www.gmtoday.com/autos/why-california-governor-gavin-newsom-s-electric-vehicle-mandate-is-in-trouble/article_53019e36-b814-11ef-9723-13b2246abee3.html.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Sriram, Akash. “EV Startup Fisker Files for Bankruptcy, Aims to Sell Assets.” Reuters, June 18, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ev-startup-fisker-files-bankruptcy-2024-06-18/.

[25] Wayland, Michael. “Why Automakers Are Turning to Hybrids in the Middle of the Industry’s EV Transition.” CNBC, December 8, 2023. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/08/automakers-turn-to-hybrids-ev-transition.html#:~:text=Automakers%20turn%20to%20hybrids%20in%20the%20middle%20of%20the%20EV%20transition.

[26] Tyson, Alec, and Emma Kikuchi. “About 3 in 10 Americans Would Seriously Consider Buying an Electric Vehicle.” Pew Research Center, June 27, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/06/27/about-3-in-10-americans-would-seriously-consider-buying-an-electric-vehicle/.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Rivero, Nicolas. “It’s Never Been Cheaper To Buy An EV. Here’s Why.” The Washington Post, March 18, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/03/18/electric-vehicle-price-drop/.

[29] Tyson and Kikuchi, “About 3 in 10 Americans Would Seriously Consider Buying an Electric Vehicle.”

[30] Picchi, Aimee. “Electric Vehicles Have Almost 80% More Problems Than Gas-powered Ones, Consumer Reports Says.” CBS News, December 8, 2023. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-vehicles-consumer-reports-reliability-report/.

[31] Tyson and Kikuchi, “About 3 in 10 Americans Would Seriously Consider Buying an Electric Vehicle.”

[32] Nadia Lopez, “Race to Zero: Can California’s Power Grid Handle a 15-fold Increase in Electric Cars?,” CalMatters, February 7, 2023, https://calmatters.org/environment/2023/01/california-electric-cars-grid/.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Betz, Bradford. “Blue State Drivers Brace for Higher Prices at the Pump Over Tighter Climate Standards.” New York Post, November 11, 2024. https://nypost.com/2024/11/11/business/blue-state-drivers-brace-for-higher-prices-at-the-pump-over-tighter-climate-standards/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

[35] Cart, Julie. “Wrangling Over Renewables: Counties Push Back on Newsom Administration Usurping Local Control.” Times-Standard, August 5, 2022. https://www.times-standard.com/2022/08/05/wrangling-over-renewables-counties-push-back-on-newsom-administration-usurping-local-control/.

[36] Lopez, “Race to Zero: Can California’s Power Grid Handle a 15-Fold Increase in Electric Cars?”

[37] California Energy Commission. “Electric Vehicle Chargers in California,” n.d. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics-collection/electric.

[38] Alejandro Lazo, “California Needs a Million EV Charging Stations — but That’s ‘Unlikely’ and ‘Unrealistic,’” CalMatters, July 17, 2024, https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/07/california-electric-car-chargers-unrealistic-goals/.