By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23
Science & Environment Editor
Traffic in California is no joke. The California New Car Dealers Association reported that the state had 1.6 million new light vehicle —car and light truck — registrations just in 2020, a low number in comparison to pre-pandemic years.
In a fossil fuel-driven world, more cars mean more gasoline. California accounted for 10 percent of the country’s total motor gasoline consumption in 2020, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. However, a CNN article reported that California’s fuel consumption might drop to new lows over the coming decade, thanks to a new policy that could change transportation in the state and trigger harsher auto emissions laws across the country.
The policy, approved by the California Air Resources Board in late August, consists of a gradual ban on the sale of gasoline vehicles culminating in a total ban in 2035, a New York Times article stated. The report from CNN clarified that the ban only applies to new vehicles, meaning that used cars and trucks can continue to be sold after the policy takes effect.
According to a Los Angeles Times article, the policy will cut auto emissions in half by 2040. The article also reports that the policy will have positive health benefits, such as an estimated 1,400 fewer deaths from heart disease and 700 avoided asthma-related emergency room visits.
The effects of California’s new policy will extend far beyond the state's borders by paving the way for other states to enact similar legislation, a recent article in The Boston Globe said. California’s influence on environmental regulations goes back to the Clean Air Act, a federal law passed in 1970 that created national air quality standards and aims to address a wide range of air pollution sources, according to the EPA. Stipulations in the Clean Air Act prevent states from individually adopting air pollution regulations that are stricter than the national standard. As a populous state with ongoing air quality challenges, California is the exception to this rule and is allowed, by the Clean Air Act, to create tougher regulations. As soon as California’s policies are federally approved, any U.S. state is permitted to adopt them as its own.
Several states are already moving swiftly toward similar gas-powered vehicle bans. According to PBS, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington are among those states likely to assume California’s policy. For Massachusetts, California’s ban represents a continuation of ongoing efforts to reduce auto emissions rather than a drastic new policy, says The Boston Globe. The article cites Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s endorsement of a strikingly similar ban back in 2020, which can now become an official part of Massachusetts state law thanks to California’s path-clearing legislation.
An important step towards reducing air pollution in the state, an article in Science Magazine points out that California’s transition away from gasoline-powered cars will also pressure electric vehicle manufacturers to address the technology’s challenges. The article states that a common issue with EVs is their slow charging time, with even high-quality chargers taking over 10 hours to charge EV batteries fully. Improvements to either the EV chargers or the EV batteries themselves can and must happen to address this issue, the article said. Scientists have taken up the challenge, but it may be some time before quick-charging EVs are widely available. Science Magazine predicts that the rise in demand for EV batteries resulting from this ban will cause the market to “splinter,” meaning that consumers will someday have a choice between several battery types, each presenting unique characteristics such as high charging capacity or low cost.
The Los Angeles Times reveals that there is an additional flaw in the policy due to its reputation as a “zero-emission vehicle mandate.” The regulation’s nickname refers to the lack of emissions from vehicles’ engines as they drive but overlooks the emissions that occur during the production of EV batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. The article explains that depending on where a household’s electricity comes from, whether from renewable sources or burning coal, charging EV batteries may still create considerable emissions.
Other concerns surrounding the EV mandate question California's ability to provide large volumes of electricity, as illustrated by an opinion piece written for The Washington Post. Author Megan McArdle calls California’s electric grids “already fragile and prone to blackouts” and questions how they could support an additional rise in demand for a fully electrified auto industry. McArdle offers some solutions to the challenge, including charging cars using household solar panels or encouraging drivers to charge their vehicles overnight when electricity demand is lower. She concludes that without considerable improvements, California’s “overstretched grid” will struggle to support EVs during peak energy use.
The aforementioned Los Angeles Times article explored how the higher cost of EVs will play into California’s policy. In a discussion with the Times, the chair of the California Air Resources Board revealed that there are ways to address this cost disparity and make buying EVs accessible for low-income residents. Solutions include improving warranties for EVs so that they may become reliable used cars for a lower cost, as well as creating state programs that offer financial aid for EV purchases. Additional measures to ensure equitability in the policy include requiring apartment complexes to provide on-site EV chargers.
