Environment & Climate EV Mandate & Gas-Car Phaseout

EV Mandate & Gas-Car Phaseout

Reads at about grade 6Both sides shown8 sources cited

California's plan to make every new car sold in the state zero-emission — mostly electric — by 2035.

What it is

"Advanced Clean Cars II" is a California rule from 2022 that sets a yearly schedule for the new cars carmakers sell -- each year, more of those new cars must be zero-emission. "Zero-emission" means the car makes no tailpipe pollution; most such cars are battery-electric or run on hydrogen, and some plug-in hybrids count too, but only up to a limit. The share starts at 35% of new cars in 2026 and climbs to 100% by 2035. The rule covers only new car sales -- people can still keep, drive, and buy used gas cars. Cars and trucks are California's biggest source of the gases that heat the planet: transportation was about 38% of the state's climate pollution in 2022. Cars are also a major source of smog, a dirty haze that is bad to breathe. Experts broadly agree that tailpipe pollution harms health and that electric cars, which have no tailpipe, cut local air pollution -- that health and air-quality case is widely accepted. Experts disagree about the mandate itself (a mandate is a government requirement). They argue over its cost, over whether the power grid and charging network can grow fast enough, and over a bigger question: should government require the switch, or let buyers and the market decide? Electric cars still cost several thousand dollars more to buy. California's zero-emission share of new car sales rose fast, from 8% in 2020 to over 20% in 2025. The rule's future is unsettled, too: in 2025, Congress took away the federal permission -- called a waiver -- that California needs to enforce it, and eleven states have also gone to court to challenge the rule. California went back to its older car rules and began writing a new plan.

How it works

California has a special power under the federal Clean Air Act: because its smog was once the worst in the country, the law lets it set stricter car-pollution rules than the rest of the U.S. But there is a catch -- the federal government must first grant a "waiver," basically permission -- and other states are then allowed to copy California's rules. Advanced Clean Cars II works through carmakers, not drivers. Each year, a set share of a company's new cars must be zero-emission: battery-electric and hydrogen cars count fully, and plug-in hybrids count too, but only up to a limit. Carmakers that fall short can be fined, and the required share rises every year, from 35% in 2026 to 100% in 2035. People debate the rule for a few reasons. Supporters point to health and climate -- cars are the state's top source of both smog and heat-trapping gases. Critics ask about cost, the power grid, and charging, and they also ask a bigger question: is a government mandate the right tool, or should the market decide? The rule's future is now stuck in court. In May 2025, Congress took back the waiver that lets California enforce it, and eleven states' attorneys general -- their top lawyers -- also sued to challenge the rule. For now, California has gone back to its older car rules, called ACC I, and is also writing a new plan, called "Drive Forward."

The debate — equal weight, both sides

The case for requiring zero-emission cars by 2035

Most often made by public-health and environmental groups, clean-energy advocates, and California Democrats.

Cars are making people sick, and this rule is a fix -- transportation is California's single biggest source of both smog and climate pollution. The air is unhealthy for almost everyone here. The American Lung Association says 98% of Californians "live in a community impacted by unhealthy ozone and/or particle pollution," and that pollution hits children, seniors, and low-income neighborhoods hardest. Electric cars have no tailpipe, so they add nothing to that smog. Supporters say cleaning up cars saves lives: the Lung Association estimates the switch would prevent "more than 15,000 premature deaths" and bring "$169 billion in public health benefits" in California by 2050. RMI, a clean-energy research group, says a zero-emission transportation sector could "avoid 110,000 premature deaths, 2.78 million asthma attacks, and 13.4 million lost workdays." There is money in it for drivers, too: electric cars usually cost less to fuel and to fix, and buyers can also use tax credits, money off your taxes. The rule is a schedule, not a ban on what you own -- it covers only new cars, so used gas cars stay legal. Supporters also say the market alone won't move fast enough. A clear, rising target gives carmakers a reason to build EVs and gives the state cleaner air on a set timeline. Waiting, they argue, means more sick kids and more climate damage right now.

The case against the mandate: go slower, let buyers choose

Most often made by free-market and libertarian groups, some automakers, and Republicans; cost, grid, and affordability worries also cut across party lines.

Everyone wants clean air -- the debate is about how to get it, and at what cost. Critics say a hard rule is the wrong tool. The Reason Foundation, a free-market think tank, argues that cleaner gasoline or pollution-based fees are "twenty times as cost-effective as EVs" at cutting smog. Spend the money smarter, it says, and get more clean air for each dollar. Cost and choice are the core worry. Electric cars still cost several thousand dollars more to buy, and Reason warns they can be "expensive, yet short on what consumers prize most: range and power." If buyers don't want EVs, they may "keep their old cars longer," and "air quality gains will be lost." A mandate, critics say, takes away choice instead of earning it. Then there is the grid, the system that carries electricity to homes. Millions of cars charging at once is a huge new load, and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, warns that mass EV charging "may have catastrophic consequences for grid reliability," bringing "cascading blackouts and widespread power interruptions." New chargers and power lines cost billions, and those bills can land on taxpayers and on people's power bills. The bottom line for this side: if EVs are truly better, people will buy them without being forced. Let buyers and the market decide, let carmakers sell gas, hybrid, and electric side by side, and drop the 2035 deadline.

Sources

Behind the summary

Cited by "The case for requiring zero-emission cars by 2035"

Cited by "The case against the mandate: go slower, let buyers choose"

The two sides appear only when both are sourced, and every explainer is reviewed by a person before it goes live. We summarize what each side argues; we never tell you how to vote.