The Her Campus National Editors write about products we love and think you’ll love too. Her Campus has affiliate partnerships, so we get a share of the revenue from your purchase. All products are in stock and all prices are accurate as of publication.
California wants to eliminate all internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by 2035. Several legislative motions have been put in place since 2022 to kickstart the removal of ICE-powered vehicles and force new car sales to be 100% zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). Whether you’re an early adopter of electric vehicles (EVs) or you’re a fan of rumbling gas-powered engines, it’s important to understand what EV mandates mean for the average consumer and worker. We’ll start with some background information on internal combustion, electric power and the environmental impacts of the two, then dig into legislation and opinion.
Internal Combustion, Batteries & Emissions
Before we get into the nitty-gritty, it’s important to clarify some terminology and introduce a few key stakeholders in the issue. Internal combustion engines (ICE) are familiar to all of us; these are your run-of-the-mill gas-powered engines. Essentially, internal combustion happens when a mixture of fuel and oxygen comes into contact with a spark (from part of your engine called a spark plug), creating a controlled explosion that forces the piston to move and generate power — hence the name internal combustion engine.
EVs, on the other hand, operate with a battery as the main source of movement. Almost all EVs use a lithium-ion battery. Upon pressing the accelerator, the battery shoots electricity to the stator, which interacts with the rotor to make it turn. The turning of the rotor then provides energy to the vehicle’s gears to move the car.
While being privy to the magical inner workings of engines is not entirely necessary to understand EV mandates, it’s helpful in understanding key differences between the two types of automobiles and discerning why certain stakeholders in the issue think ICE bans will be beneficial.
When ICE vehicles operate, greenhouse gases from that mini-explosion are routed through their exhaust systems and ultimately out their tailpipes; this is what environmentalists are concerned with. The greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbon, enter the air and can eventually affect the environment. Along with tailpipe emissions, environmentalists are also concerned with well-to-wheels emissions, which come from the cycle of fuel sourcing, production, transportation and distribution. Together, the vehicle life cycle and well-to-wheels emissions are referred to as cradle-to-grave emissions.
Most EVs are considered zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), meaning they do not produce any tailpipe emissions. That being said, they don’t just spawn onto earth — they come with production and energy emissions, just like the well-to-wheel emissions. This is also where things begin to get a bit tricky.
In my opinion, it is somewhat difficult to find information about emissions produced through EV and EV battery production. Perhaps not difficult if you’re persistent like I am, but it is certainly a nuisance. The heavy focus on ICE emissions leads to failures in clear articulation about emissions from EV production methods. Manufacturers and organizations are at risk of being called out for not supporting environmental causes and need to be advocates for the sake of public opinion, resulting in some disparity in how much information these organizations will let you easily access. And that’s not a diss on these organizations; we all have agendas and goals to reach, especially the governmental and environmental agencies pushing the EV mandate agenda, so it doesn’t come as a surprise.
To avoid running terribly astray into chemistry and mining (which I now know way too much about), consider this an abridged version. EVs do, technically, produce about 5 tons less carbon dioxide in their life cycle than ICEs. But not without a cost. EV production uses about ⅓ more tons of carbon dioxide than that of an ICE. Through the production of lithium-ion batteries, we are staring over the edge of the potential for a new environmental crisis.
Demand for these batteries is expected to grow seven-fold from 2022 to 2030. The problem? Lithium doesn’t grow on trees. The mineral has to be mined, filtered and extracted, but the process is extremely reliant on water. In one area of Chile, lithium mining used 65 percent of the region’s water, hurting local farmers who were already sparse on it. “Lithium-brine operations commonly result in high water-volume losses from the use of evaporitic techniques,” according to the Desert Research Institute, who mention that reinjecting the water and surface-mining can still have adverse effects on water. Along with that, toxic chemicals can leak into the water pools, poisoning water supply and local ecological systems. (This already happened in Tibet.)
Similarly, mining cobalt and nickel, two major players in battery production, have a poor reputation with environmentalists. In 2017, the Philippines shut down about half their nickel mines, approximated to be about 10% of the global nickel output.
The point is don’t be misled into thinking that ZEVs are a perfect cure for the climate crisis. We could play this game all day, going back and forth and tearing apart every step of manufacturing engines to see which is really worse. But frankly, there is a certain point where that becomes obsolete because of how intensive that process would be, and we just have to accept that all actions have consequences. What’s truly important to understand, and what I think is commonly misunderstood by those unfamiliar with the issue, is that both ICEs and ZEVs come with plenty of environmental impacts.
Chronological History of ICE & EV Regulations
This whole mess began in 2022 when the California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposed its Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII) regulations. The ACCII is what most consumers are aware of: the plan to make all new cars sold in California ZEVs by 2035. According to CARB, they want to “rapidly scale down (…) emissions” in a two-pronged approach. First, starting with a new vehicle sales quota of 35% ZEVs in 2026, they will annually increase new ZEV sales quotas and ultimately ban new ICEs from being sold in the state by 2035. (Note that these sales requirements are for manufacturers, not third-party dealerships, and they will face civil penalties if they fail to meet the quota). Secondly, they are placing stricter guidelines on emissions testing for existing ICEs in consumer possession.
Now, my Florida friends are probably unfamiliar with emissions testing because we actually don’t have any here. To provide some context for those readers, emissions testing measures the levels of pollutants produced by your vehicle and gets a pass/fail score. Generally, it needs to be done every 1-2 years before you can renew your registration, but timing and standards vary by state. If the test is failed, you’ll be unable to renew your registration until your vehicle successfully passes the test. Keep in mind that older cars generally have a more difficult time passing emissions because of changes in manufacturing requirements and mechanical issues, which could pose a problem for those who lack the financial resources to purchase a newer car, frequently maintain it or get repair services.
So, if you live in California and own an ICE vehicle, are they going to come to your house and demolish it? Not exactly. But that vehicle will be subject to stricter emissions guidelines–mind you, CA already has the strictest emissions laws in the country–which could render your vehicle undriveable. They aren’t directly banning ICEs, but they will certainly make it harder to register and drive an ICE vehicle.
CARB requested a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve the motion and begin implementing the ACCII. In December 2024, the EPA granted the waiver, allowing California to move forward with the regulations.
In March 2024, just months prior to the waiver’s approval, the EPA released their updated vehicle pollution standards, which will apply to all new cars manufactured between 2027 and 2032. The new standards call for 67% of vehicles to be EVs by 2030. I don’t think we need to do the math to understand that 67% is an extremely high number, especially when the EV market share was only 8.7% in Q4 of 2024. That’s a massive jump. Whether you’re pro-EV or anti-EV, we all (hopefully) have the critical thinking skills to understand that a market share increase of nearly 60% is, well, bonkers.
For a little extra context, the EPA guidelines only apply to vehicles to be produced and are not the same as the guidelines followed in state emissions testing. That being said, a key difference between the EPA standards versus the ACCII is that the EPA standards apply nationally, whereas ACCII standards are only required in California (though states can and will choose to follow suit). So, if you thought you were out of the woods because you don’t live in California, think again.
Let’s put it like this: By 2030, only 23% of new vehicles are allowed to be ICEs, assuming the plan goes as projected. Allowed is an important word here. Manufacturers have to abide by EPA production standards. No ifs, ands or buts. Over ¾ of the vehicle market share will be taken over by EVs. Assuming they stay on this course, it won’t be long until all manufactured vehicles are mandated to be EVs. We’ll come back to the impact of this.
Amidst all of these regulations, tax incentives are being dealt left and right for those who want to get in on the action early. Most of the regulations include their respective incentives or point toward them, and the list is lengthy, so I’ll leave it at that. Just know that the government was so excited about EVs that they wanted to give us money to buy them and give manufacturers money to make them, and you can interpret that as you please.
So that’s what happened under the Biden-Harris EPA. Now that President Trump has been elected, the EV mandate pot is being stirred. Whisked, even.
In January 2025, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy moved to reverse the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) fuel efficiency standards from June 2024. Similar to the EPA standards, these USDOT standards called for an annual 2% increase in fuel efficiency for newly produced vehicles in 2027-2031. Anyone who knows sports cars knows that fuel efficiency and power often don’t agree, so this carries implications for all my car enthusiasts, especially those who like naturally aspirated engines better than turbocharged engines.
Separately, Congress is reviewing a proposal to eliminate EV tax incentives and add a one-time $1000 fee onto EVs at the time of purchase. The reason for this new fee is to cover road wear, as EVs can weigh up to three times as much as ICE vehicles and cause increased damage to federal roads. Why don’t ICE vehicles have this one-time fee, you may ask? Well, gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles do pay fees; they’re paid through taxes incurred on gasoline purchases. Currently, some states charge EV owners fees to cover the repairs (ironically, California being one of them), but the federal government hasn’t raised gasoline taxes or charged any fees to cover the rising costs.
The Trump administration has also frozen funding for EV charging station construction. The funding is not necessarily being removed altogether, but it is in review to see if it aligns with the new USDOT goals, which we don’t really know yet.
Things are certainly changing, and they’re changing fast.
Microeconomic Impacts & the Auto Industry
Environment aside, EV mandates would, without a doubt, cause a microeconomic reaction. From blue-collar workers to third-party dealerships, Americans would feel EV mandates pulse through the automotive industry. This is a lengthy topic in its own right, so I’ll briefly cover it before we move into my final thoughts.
If you don’t know, mechanics are trained to work on ICEs. They know spark plugs and fuel injection, not batteries. EV engines are designed in a way that prevents both the everyday mechanic and the DIY car repairer from being able to work on them. They’re also much more dangerous to work on because of the high voltage (i.e., risk of electrocuting yourself) and fire hazards (i.e., lighting yourself on fire). The training that goes into working on an EV engine would basically require mechanics to undergo another trade school program, and I can only imagine the reactions of already jaded mechanics being told they have to redo their entire education.
So we have angry mechanics, and we have trade schools that have to develop new curriculums. Everyone who works in that school will be affected. New policies, new registrations, new teachers, etc. Along with that, there are obviously costs involved in developing a new program, so that is also a consideration. And who pays for re-training of new mechanics? Who pays for trade schools to develop necessary new programs?
Third-party dealerships now have an influx of EVs being sent for distribution and have to sell them. While they don’t directly have any EV selling quotas, I’m sure there would be impacts on revenue as a result. Whether the impact is good or bad depends on whether consumers want to buy EVs or not.
On the same note, if only 23% of vehicle market share is ICE vehicles, consumers’ ability to make free choices in the marketplace takes a hit. Granted, market share isn’t always evenly split, and you could make the opposing argument right now with the 2024 EV market share. But ICEs are the default. They’re what people know. If you take away what people know, they’re not going to be happy, and neither will the salespeople who support their families by selling cars to the people.
On a selfish note, as someone who works in it, the motorsports industry largely operates on ICEs. Though the motorsports industry is somewhat niche, especially on the grassroots side, there is still an incredible amount of jobs reliant on the industry’s success. The industry needs ICEs to continue operating. Many spec race classes are based around certain cars, like Spec E46 or the Mazda MX-5 Cup. Whilst motorsports has implemented new and unique hybrid and EV cars, the overwhelming majority of motorsports classes have predefined rules and run groups based around ICEs. If no one can even register their car, grassroots motorsports will die, and I imagine there will be quite a bit of resentment toward professional motorsport athletes and teams who don’t feel the effects. I’m sure professional motorsports has a big fat target on its head, though. EV mandates are the beginning of the end for motorsports, hence why the Speciality Equipment Market Association (SEMA), a major stakeholder in the industry, has rallied against the ACCII. And personally, I’d like to keep my job.
As aforementioned, the economic impacts are pretty extensive. It stretches much deeper than what I’ve discussed here, but I think that is enough to get you thinking about how far and wide EV mandates could impact the economy.
EV Mandates Are Not the Right Call
I’ll preface this section by stating that I’m no expert on pollution, public policy or vehicle production. But I am a car enthusiast and a promoter of consumer market choice. We will all, naturally, form our own opinions based on our beliefs and biases, but this is mine:
EV mandates are not the answer to climate change. I do think EVs absolutely have a place in society, and some of them are pretty damn cool. But forcing EVs onto consumers in just a few short years is not at all the right move. Even if I believed in moving toward eliminating ICEs altogether (which I don’t), the EPA’s aggressive push toward it is, once again, bonkers.
In general, I think eliminating ICEs is a bonkers idea. There is such a ginormous industry and culture surrounding them, even if most people don’t realize it. Stripping America of ICEs is quite literally taking away our freedom of choice. And sure, you can argue it’s for the greater good of society, but it would be for the greater good to ban cigarettes and alcohol, too, and we still haven’t done that.
The effect of a national EV mandate isn’t worth taking away the freedom of American consumers. There are plenty of routes that could be taken to improve environmental issues without stripping consumer freedom. Implement ZEVs for all public transportation, discourage mass construction and industrialization and continue changing pollution policies for giant industrial plants.
Time to get creative, America. We’re not the only country that feels the effects of climate change, and we shouldn’t be expected to try to solve the issue by taking away consumer freedom. (Which still wouldn’t solve it). By doing so, we’re opening Pandora’s box to a plethora of new issues. Banning internal combustion vehicles is a fast-track to even more hatred for the American government, further division and polarization of our country’s citizens and the collapse of the automotive industry.