The first iteration of zero-emission vehicle sales mandates in California goes into effect next year. But doubts have been raised about whether the targets can be met.

Starting next year, at least 35% of manufacturers’ new passenger car and truck sales must be electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids or hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, known as ZEVs (zero-emission vehicles) for short. The percentages step up each year until hitting 100% in 2035.

While some carmakers like Tesla are selling more than enough ZEVs to meet the mandate, it’s estimated that sale rates for other manufacturers hover at 10% to 12%.

Analysts and trade groups say the mandates are unrealistic because the rate that consumers are buying ZEVs is not moving at a quick enough pace to meet California’s annual requirements. Yet proponents say the targets are necessary because about half of the greenhouse gas emissions in California come from the transportation sector.

Question: Should California back off on 2026 zero-emission car mandates?

Economists

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

YES: Zero-emission mandates favor the rich and are a costly way of reducing carbon emissions. Zero-emission mandates on new vehicles encourage folks to cling to their old fuel-powered vehicles longer, especially those people who can’t afford new EVs. Older vehicles are much worse for the environment than new traditional cars and far worse than hybrids, which don’t count under the mandate. There are better tools than zero-emission car mandates to reduce carbon emissions.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

YES: Attempting to micromanage still evolving technology innovation is highly laden with unintended and unproductive consequences. ZEVs are only as clean and reliable as the power source they plug into and are not as unobtrusive to the environment as presented having much greater impact from digging up minerals necessary for manufacturing batteries. Limiting consumer choices while imposing expensive costs on residents already struggling to absorb the state’s high and ever-increasing cost of living is also burdensome.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

YES: You can lead a horse to water, but that won’t make him drink. The 2026 mandates would sharply limit sales of gas-powered cars, driving the price of those cars up. Some people will travel to Arizona or Nevada to buy the cars they want. Others will keep driving their older, more polluting cars longer than they would like. A better solution is to tax all gas-powered cars driven in California, whether new or used.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: In 2024 we hit a 25% new market share for ZEVs, as many new cheaper models became available, so hitting 35% should be feasible, unless Trump eliminates the $7,500 tax credit and adds tariffs to cheaper ZEV foreign makers like BYD. In that case, it will be impossible to hit these mandates, and my answer switches to “Yes,” let’s decrease the mandates until we have a more pro-environment set of regulations for the auto industry.

David Ely, San Diego State University

YES: Meeting the mandates is not just a matter of manufacturing more ZEVs. Strong growth in demand for these vehicles is crucial, but is not materializing. To ensure the share of ZEVs sold in the state complies with the mandate, auto manufacturers will need to manage the availability of gasoline powered vehicles in California, which will drive up their prices. Federal actions impacting EVs and state mandates present additional challenges to reaching the targets.

Ray Major, economist

YES: First of all, 100% ZEV is not realistic on the aggressive timeline the state is targeting. It is premature to force electric vehicle adoption before the infrastructure is in place to produce adequate electricity to power all the vehicles and the extensive charging network is proven operational. Furthermore, my opinion is EVs create more environmental damage than internal combustion engines and should be limited in their use and used only to complement a fleet of gasoline powered vehicles.

Executives

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: Seems a common thread here: With the new administration impulsively pulling the rug out from under electric cars, charging stations and adding tariffs to moderate and low-priced EVs it is unreasonable to expect that California can reach its very ambitious goal by 2026.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: We are in a ZEV transition period. The mandate speeds the transition. ZEV-vehicles greatly reduce carbon emissions. Source emissions are not yet fully captured, but they will be. There are insufficient “fill-up” stations, but there will be. My personal experience with E-vehicles is that they are better vehicles. They are quicker, quieter, require little maintenance and are fun to drive. They will get cheaper. California sets the standard, and eventually this becomes the national standard.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

YES: California’s zero-emission car mandates are opposed by car dealers and some auto industry groups due to concerns about whether these targets can be met. They cite likely consumer resistance as well as supply chain challenges. Solar and wind power are also unreliable, and California has largely opposed nuclear power. While supporters argue that the mandates are crucial for environmental sustainability, the plan will cause a collapse of the grid during peak hours.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

YES: California should adjust its zero-emission vehicle sale requirements by two to four years. While the goal is critical, the current consumer adoption rate— just 10 to 15% —makes the 35% target unrealistic. Supply chain constraints and high EV costs risk distorting the market, leading to price inflation and limited availability. A more gradual timeline would enable organic consumer adoption, stable supply growth, and infrastructure expansion, ensuring a smoother economic transition without triggering consumer backlash or jeopardizing long-term climate goals.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: Although the mandates are based on good environmental intentions, regulations need to be pragmatic for the times. Given that tariffs could increase the cost of electric vehicles, along with the potential rollback of the national effort to build charging stations across the country, it’s unlikely California’s aggressive plan will be achieved.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

YES: California’s 2026 zero-emission car mandate of 35% is unrealistic given current market conditions. With electric vehicle sales at only 20%, the mandate outpaces consumer demand. Automakers like Toyota have warned it is unattainable, potentially limiting consumer choice and burdening manufacturers. A more gradual, federal approach could be more effective in reducing emissions while aligning with demand to help ensure sustainable progress.

Not participating this week:

Alan Gin, University of San DiegoHaney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Assoc.

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020

©2025 The San Diego Union-Tribune. Visit sandiegouniontribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.