California’s governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order in 2020 that requires all new passenger cars and trucks sold in the state to be zero-emission by 2035. The order also sets a goal of 100% zero-emission for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045, where feasible. The order aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution from the transportation sector, which accounts for about 40% of California’s carbon footprint.
However, the order has faced criticism and opposition from various groups, including the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), a trade association for the oil and gas industry. The AFPM launched a $7 million ad campaign in February 2024, claiming that the order is illegal and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacks the authority to grant California a waiver to implement it.
The AFPM also argues that the order ignores the environmental impacts of producing and disposing of batteries for electric vehicles, and that it limits the consumer choice and freedom of travel for Californians.
In this article, we will examine the arguments and evidence presented by the AFPM and other critics of the order, as well as the responses and counterarguments from the supporters of the order, such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and environmental groups.
The Legal Challenge
One of the main arguments of the AFPM and other critics of the order is that it is illegal under the federal Clean Air Act, which gives the EPA the authority to regulate vehicle emissions and fuel economy standards. The Clean Air Act also allows California to seek a waiver from the EPA to adopt its own stricter standards, as long as they are at least as protective of public health and welfare as the federal standards, and that California has compelling and extraordinary conditions that justify the need for such standards.
California has historically sought and received waivers from the EPA for its vehicle emissions standards, due to its unique air quality problems, especially in the Los Angeles area. However, the AFPM claims that the order goes beyond regulating emissions and effectively bans the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles, which is not within the scope of the Clean Air Act or the EPA’s authority to grant waivers.
The AFPM also cites a legal opinion from the Department of Justice in 2020, which stated that the order is preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which sets the federal fuel economy standards and prohibits states from adopting or enforcing laws or regulations related to fuel economy.
The supporters of the order, on the other hand, argue that the order is not a ban on gasoline-powered vehicles, but a performance standard that requires vehicles to meet certain emissions criteria. They claim that the order is consistent with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s waiver authority, and that California has demonstrated the need for such standards to address its climate and air quality challenges.
They also point out that the order does not prohibit consumers from owning, driving, or buying used gasoline-powered vehicles, and that it allows for some exceptions and flexibility for certain types of vehicles, such as plug-in hybrids.
The legal dispute over the order is likely to be resolved by the courts, as the AFPM and other groups have indicated their intention to sue the EPA if it grants California a waiver for the order. The outcome of the litigation may depend on the interpretation of the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s waiver authority, as well as the scientific and economic evidence presented by both sides.
The Environmental Impact
Another argument of the AFPM and other critics of the order is that it does not consider the environmental impact of producing and disposing of batteries for electric vehicles, which they claim are more harmful than gasoline-powered vehicles. They cite studies that suggest that electric vehicles have higher emissions and energy consumption over their life cycle, taking into account the mining, manufacturing, transportation, charging, and recycling of batteries. They also argue that electric vehicles rely on electricity from fossil fuels, which negates the benefits of reducing tailpipe emissions.
The supporters of the order, however, dispute these claims and cite studies that show that electric vehicles have lower emissions and energy consumption over their life cycle, even when accounting for the battery production and disposal. They also argue that electric vehicles can use electricity from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, which are increasingly available and affordable in California. They also point out that the order is part of a broader strategy to decarbonize the transportation sector, which includes investing in clean energy infrastructure, expanding public transit, and promoting active transportation modes, such as biking and walking.
The environmental impact of the order may depend on the assumptions and methods used to compare the life cycle emissions and energy consumption of different types of vehicles, as well as the availability and mix of electricity sources in California. The impact may also vary depending on the type and size of the vehicle, the driving behavior and patterns of the consumer, and the recycling and disposal practices of the battery industry.
The Consumer Choice and Freedom
A third argument of the AFPM and other critics of the order is that it limits the consumer choice and freedom of travel for Californians, who may prefer or need gasoline-powered vehicles for various reasons. They claim that electric vehicles are more expensive, less reliable, and less convenient than gasoline-powered vehicles, and that they do not suit the needs and preferences of all consumers, especially those who live in rural areas, drive long distances, or have limited access to charging stations. They also claim that the order will hurt the economy and the jobs of the oil and gas industry, which provides fuel and services for millions of Californians.
The supporters of the order, however, counter these claims and argue that electric vehicles are more affordable, more efficient, and more convenient than gasoline-powered vehicles, and that they offer a range of benefits for consumers, such as lower maintenance costs, higher performance, and tax incentives. They also argue that the order will create new opportunities and jobs for the clean energy and transportation industry, which will provide vehicles and services for millions of Californians. They also point out that the order does not force consumers to buy electric vehicles, but gives them more options and incentives to choose them, and that it allows for some exceptions and flexibility for certain types of vehicles, such as plug-in hybrids.
The consumer choice and freedom of the order may depend on the availability and affordability of electric vehicles and charging stations in California, as well as the preferences and needs of different consumers, such as their income, location, lifestyle, and values. The order may also have different economic and social impacts on different sectors and groups, such as the oil and gas industry, the clean energy and transportation industry, and the low-income and disadvantaged communities.
Conclusion
The order signed by California’s governor Gavin Newsom in 2020 that requires all new passenger cars and trucks sold in the state to be zero-emission by 2035 is a controversial and ambitious policy that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution from the transportation sector. The order has faced criticism and opposition from various groups, such as the AFPM, a trade association for the oil and gas industry, which claims that the order is illegal, environmentally harmful, and economically damaging. The order has also received support and praise from various groups, such as the CARB and environmental groups, which claim that the order is legal, environmentally beneficial, and economically viable.
The order raises several issues and questions that may have significant implications for the future of transportation, energy, and climate in California and beyond. Some of these issues and questions include:
- What is the legal basis and authority of the order and the EPA’s waiver for it under the federal Clean Air Act and other laws?
- What is the environmental impact of the order and the electric vehicles it promotes, considering the life cycle emissions and energy consumption of different types of vehicles and electricity sources?
- What is the consumer choice and freedom of the order and the electric vehicles it offers, considering the availability and affordability of different types of vehicles and charging stations, and the preferences and needs of different consumers?
- What is the economic and social impact of the order and the electric vehicles it supports, considering the costs and benefits for different sectors and groups, such as the oil and gas industry, the clean energy and transportation industry, and the low-income and disadvantaged communities?
These issues and questions may not have simple or definitive answers, as they may depend on various factors and assumptions, such as the interpretation of the law, the methods of analysis, the sources of data, and the values and perspectives of the stakeholders. Therefore, it is important to examine the arguments and evidence presented by both sides of the debate, and to weigh the pros and cons of the order and its alternatives, in order to make informed and balanced decisions about the future of transportation, energy, and climate in California and beyond.