Electric vehicles are no longer a futuristic niche, yet the road ahead for battery-powered cars has rarely looked more uncertain. Automakers are reworking product plans, global regulators are rethinking engine bans, and US buyers are sending mixed signals from dealer lots. In the middle of that turbulence, California is tightening its grip on a zero-emission future, betting that aggressive rules and generous subsidies can keep the state’s climate ambitions on track even as the broader EV market wobbles.
That tension, between a foggy global outlook and a state that still wants to accelerate, now defines the politics and business of clean transportation. California’s choices will shape not only what its own drivers can buy, but also how carmakers invest, how Washington responds, and how quickly the US can cut emissions from one of its most polluting sectors.
California’s high-speed bet on zero-emission cars
California has spent decades turning itself into the country’s de facto emissions regulator, and its latest push is its most sweeping yet. The state is using its authority over air quality to require that new light-duty vehicles transition to zero tailpipe emissions, positioning California as the central test case for whether climate policy can force a reluctant auto market to change. Officials argue that transportation pollution still undermines public health and climate goals, and that only a rapid shift to electric and other zero-emission models can close the gap.
The state’s main regulatory tool is its suite of clean car rules, which now include the second phase of its zero-emission mandate for light-duty vehicles. Through the Advanced Clean Cars program, regulators are tightening fleetwide emissions limits and steadily raising the share of new vehicles that must be zero-emission. That framework sets the stage for more detailed requirements that follow, including durability standards for batteries and stricter oversight of how automakers comply.
Advanced Clean Cars II and the 2035 finish line
The centerpiece of California’s strategy is the rule that effectively ends new gasoline car sales by the middle of the next decade. The California Air Resources Board, formally identified as The California Air Resources Board, approved the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation in SACRAMENTO in Aug, locking in a schedule that ramps up zero-emission sales requirements until they reach 100 percent of new light-duty vehicles by 2035. The rule does not force anyone to give up an existing gasoline car, but it does tell automakers that future lineups must be dominated by battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell models.
Advanced Clean Cars II goes beyond simple sales quotas, layering in “Enhanced Durability and Warranty Requirements” that are meant to reassure buyers that EV batteries will last. The rule also spells out general requirements for how manufacturers track and report compliance, and it interacts with other state policies that support charging infrastructure and consumer incentives. Together, these measures are designed to make the 2035 target more than a slogan, even as industry analysts warn that hitting 100 percent of new sales will require a level of consumer enthusiasm that does not yet exist.
Momentum in sales, and a booming used EV market
Despite the uncertainty, California’s early numbers suggest that the state’s push is not colliding with a wall of resistance. Officials report that zero-emission vehicle sales have held steady into 2025, even as national auto sales soften and some buyers gravitate back to hybrids and efficient gasoline models. The state notes that the first quarter of the year kept pace with the record ZEVs sold mark in 2024, a sign that mandates and incentives are still pulling buyers into showrooms focused on plug-in models.
The used market is also starting to matter, both for affordability and for gauging long-term confidence in EV technology. Online retailer Carvana has reported an 182% increase in used EV sales in 2024 year-over-year, a striking figure that suggests early adopters are cycling out of their vehicles and a second wave of buyers is willing to pick them up at lower prices. For regulators, that secondary market is crucial, because it helps spread the benefits of cleaner vehicles beyond households that can afford a new Tesla Model Y or Hyundai Ioniq 5 at launch.
Federal pushback and the politics of California’s waiver
California’s aggressive stance has never been purely a technical question about emissions; it is also a political fight over who gets to set the rules for the national car market. The state relies on a special waiver under the Clean Air Act that lets it impose stricter standards than the federal government, and that waiver has become a target for opponents who argue that California is effectively dictating policy for the rest of the country. A recent Senate vote to block the state’s electric car mandate underscored how contentious that authority has become, even if the legal outcome remains unsettled.
California Gov Gavin Newsom, who has made zero-emission adoption a signature priority, denounced the attempt to revoke the waiver and framed it as an attack on both climate policy and consumer choice. His administration argues that the state is not forcing anyone to buy a specific model, but is instead setting performance standards that automakers can meet in different ways. That argument echoes a broader national debate about whether environmental rules are overreaching or simply catching up with technological change.
How California’s mandate fits into a national and global backlash
California’s rules are tightening just as other parts of the world are reconsidering their own timelines. In Europe, policymakers have moved to scrap a planned 2035 ban on new internal combustion engines, a reversal that reflects both industry lobbying and voter unease about rapid change. Analysts note that even without a formal ban, Regulatory pressure is intense, with emissions rules and fuel economy standards still pushing automakers toward electrification, but the symbolism of dropping the deadline has emboldened critics of similar policies elsewhere.
In the United States, the broader auto market is showing signs of fatigue after a burst of EV enthusiasm. Industry data suggest that New light vehicle sales in Nov are expected to be down from last year, with automakers looking to end 2025 at 16.1 to 16.2 million units, according to New light vehicle sales projections. Within that total, EVs are still growing but at a slower pace, and some manufacturers are shifting resources back toward hybrids or delaying all-electric models, a trend that complicates California’s expectation that the industry will be ready for a 2035 cutoff.
Automakers retreat, from Ford’s F-150 Lightning to national product plans
The most visible sign of the EV slowdown has come from companies that once touted all-electric futures. Ford has announced that it is scrapping the fully-electric F-150 Lightning in its current form as mounting losses and falling consumer interest hit its EV plans, a dramatic move given how central the truck was to the company’s electrification narrative. The decision reflects a broader reassessment of how quickly buyers, especially in truck-heavy markets, are willing to abandon gasoline and diesel.
Ford’s shift is not isolated. Several other automakers have made changes to their electrified product plans in recent years as consumer demand for EVs has fallen short of earlier forecasts, with some brands delaying models that were supposed to be electric by 2030 or rebalancing lineups toward plug-in hybrids. Reporting on how Several manufacturers are trimming or stretching their EV timelines underscores why California’s mandate is so consequential: it effectively tells these companies that whatever they do elsewhere, they must still deliver a full suite of zero-emission models if they want to keep selling in the country’s largest car market.
Consumer hesitation: price, charging, and the “foggy” demand curve
Behind the corporate pullbacks lies a more basic problem: many drivers remain unconvinced that an EV fits their lives. Surveys and sales data point to concerns about upfront cost, charging access, and battery performance in cold weather, especially outside coastal metros. Analysts tracking the sector describe a market that has moved beyond early adopters but has not yet cracked the mainstream, leaving a gap between policy ambition and what shoppers are actually choosing on dealer lots.
One industry watcher, Stephanie Valdez Streaty, the director of industry insights at Cox, has warned that “Getting to 100 percent might be challenging” because the current pace of adoption does not yet match the regulatory curve. Her assessment, cited in coverage of The Future of EVs Is Foggy, captures the core tension: California can set rules, but it cannot force enthusiasm. That gap is especially visible in places like Michigan, where Experts say EVs will have a spot in the market but caution that many consumers still see them as a risk rather than a default choice.
Infrastructure and reliability: the charging challenge
Even drivers who like the idea of an EV often worry about where and how they will charge it, especially if they live in apartments or rely on long highway trips. Industry research summarized in a Sep analysis of the Adoption Progress Report points to charging infrastructure as one of the main factors hindering faster uptake, alongside vehicle price and consumer awareness. Drivers report frustration with broken chargers, confusing payment systems, and a patchwork of networks that do not always communicate with each other.
California is trying to get ahead of that problem by pouring public money into plugs and setting standards for how they perform. Earlier this year, the state approved a $1.4 billion investment plan to expand EV infrastructure, with a focus on building a bigger, better charging network and establishing charger reliability standards. That spending is meant to complement private investment from companies like Tesla, Electrify America, and ChargePoint, and to ensure that rural areas and disadvantaged communities are not left behind as wealthier neighborhoods fill up with Level 2 ports and fast chargers.
The industry’s own list of “biggest challenges”
Automakers and charging companies are not shy about naming what they see as the obstacles to a smoother EV transition. A recent industry-focused rundown of the Biggest Challenges Facing the EV Industry Today highlights grid capacity, charger uptime, and the complexity of integrating thousands of new fast-charging sites into existing electrical infrastructure. It also notes that, Although EV adoption is rising, the pace is uneven across regions, with some states racing ahead and others lagging far behind, creating a fragmented market for both vehicles and charging services.
Those concerns intersect with California’s rules in complicated ways. On one hand, a guaranteed market for millions of EVs can justify large investments in charging networks and grid upgrades. On the other, if infrastructure does not keep up, drivers may blame the vehicles rather than the plugs, reinforcing skepticism that already shows up in surveys. Industry executives warn that if early experiences are marred by long lines at chargers or frequent outages, word of mouth could slow growth just as mandates are tightening.
Legal and policy crosscurrents in Washington
California’s path is also shaped by what does, and does not, happen at the federal level. Despite heated rhetoric about “EV mandates,” there is currently no national law that forces consumers to buy electric vehicles. A policy guide published in Jul underlines that No Federal Consumer Mandate Exists, Despite claims to the contrary, and that most federal action has focused instead on emissions standards for automakers and tax credits for buyers. That leaves California’s rules as both a model and a lightning rod, especially when national politics shift.
The current administration in Washington, led by President Donald Trump, has clashed with California over infrastructure funding and environmental policy. In one high-profile dispute, the state sued the Trump administration for allegedly withholding billions in bipartisan infrastructure funds, with officials describing the move as “Another Trump gift to China.” In that context, California has emphasized that Grants and rebates for thousands of dollars are still available for low-income Californians to purchase EVs, and it urges residents to Learn more at ClimateAction.ca.gov or ElectricForAll.org. The clash illustrates how state-level ambition can run ahead of, and sometimes directly into, federal priorities.
Equity, incentives, and the hunt for funding
For California’s EV push to stick, it has to work for more than affluent early adopters in coastal ZIP codes. State officials and local advocates argue that cleaner transportation must also reduce pollution in neighborhoods that have long borne the brunt of freeway traffic and diesel trucks. That means targeting incentives and infrastructure toward low-income households, renters, and communities of color, groups that have historically been left out of new technology waves even as they suffer the worst air quality.
To that end, the state and its partners are leaning on a patchwork of grants, rebates, and community programs. The California Grants Portal Official site serves as a hub for public funding programs that support climate action, environmental protection, and sustainability in California communities, including EV charging projects and clean mobility pilots. These efforts are meant to ensure that the benefits of lower fuel and maintenance costs, as well as cleaner air, reach households that might otherwise be priced out of the EV market even with falling battery costs.
Academic scrutiny and the feasibility question
Beyond politics and industry lobbying, researchers are probing whether California’s mandate is technically and economically feasible on the timeline regulators have set. An Abstract examining California’s zero-emission mandate notes that, considering normal annual new vehicle sales, the state will need to oversee a massive turnover of the fleet while enforcing compliance with the Mandate. The study highlights issues, possibilities, and challenges, from manufacturing capacity and raw material supply to the administrative burden of tracking credits and penalties across dozens of automakers.
Other academic and policy analyses, including work that traces how Gov Gavin Newsom used an Executive Order in Nov to set the 2035 target, stress that California’s policy has evolved in response to federal pushback and legal challenges. They argue that the state’s approach is both a climate strategy and a negotiation tactic, signaling to automakers and Washington that it is prepared to hold the line even as others retreat. Whether that stance proves sustainable will depend on how quickly technology improves, how reliably infrastructure is built, and how convincingly policymakers can answer drivers’ lingering doubts.
A foggy future, and a state that refuses to slow down
All of these threads converge in the sense that the EV future is, as one recent analysis put it, foggy. Coverage of The Future of EVs Is Foggy, California Still Wants More of Them notes that even as automakers pull back and consumers hesitate, the state continues to see itself as a global leader in shifting to cleaner transportation. That determination shows up not only in regulations and lawsuits, but also in the mundane details of budget line items, charger reliability standards, and rebate application forms that promise Gifts Under $100 for holiday shoppers while nudging them toward plug-in options.
From my vantage point, the most striking thing about California’s approach is not its ambition, but its willingness to double down in the face of headwinds that would prompt other governments to pause. The state is betting that technology costs will keep falling, that infrastructure will catch up, and that skeptical drivers will eventually be won over by lower running costs and better performance. If that bet pays off, California will have shown that a large, car-dependent economy can pivot on a tight deadline. If it does not, the state may find itself with rules that look visionary on paper but collide with a market that never quite matched the mandate.
More from MorningOverview