EV rule shows CARB has too much power

Our state has hit its emission targets earlier than expected, yet instead of celebrating that accomplishment the California Air Resources Board has approved yet another set of mandates that attempt to force drivers out of their gasoline-powered cars and into electric vehicles.

Unfortunately, state officials remain committed to counterproductive mandates rather than incentives — and they certainly won’t let the marketplace sort things out. Gov. Gavin Newsom last year signed an executive order requiring that all new vehicles sold in California have zero emissions by 2035, and now CARB has upped the ante.

At a hearing this month, CARB unanimously approved a “Clean Miles Standard” that would force all ride-sharing companies to rely almost entirely on electric vehicles by 2030. The new mandate requires that these companies’ drivers log 90% of their miles in EVs — something that will disrupt the industry and impose high costs on lower-income workers.

Only a minuscule percentage of Uber and Lyft drivers have electric vehicles. More broadly, only 1.2% of the state’s registered vehicles are plug-in electric cars. Requiring Californians to move to an overwhelmingly electric fleet in such a short time will have many unintended consequences.

The EV industry is developing quickly, but its growth is hobbled by high purchase costs, low range, an inadequate charging infrastructure and consumer preferences. Californians own nearly half of the nation’s electric vehicles, yet there are trouble signs even in this EV-friendly state.

“For the market share of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) to continue to grow and reach 100 percent of new vehicle sales, adopters of the technology, who initially buy PEVs, will need to continue choosing them in subsequent purchases,” according to a new study from UC Davis researchers.

Yet they found that around 20% of EV buyers switch back to gasoline cars mainly because of charging hassles.

If CARB wants to help the industry grow, it needs to focus on addressing consumers’ concerns. Instead, CARB is targeting ride-sharing because it is “the fastest growing sector relative to other categories of commercial passenger vehicle fleets.” Uber and Lyft “have already been at the forefront of experimenting with electrification through various pilot programs,” the agency admits, but it can’t resist imposing another mandate.

Ride-share drivers typically own their own cars and provide rides as fill-in work. Forcing them (or the companies) to buy EVs, which can cost $20,000 more than gaspowered vehicles, would depress the number of drivers. Although advancing battery technology is improving vehicle range, an EV-only ride-share fleet would inconvenience drivers with long charging stops.

The CARB rules may also reflect an attempt to punish these companies because of their labor policies. “I think we should have every assumption moving into this that an industry that is predicated and based on labor exploitation will simply find a way to exploit their workers in order to do this,” said CARB board member Nathan Fletcher, as reported by CalMatters.

Fletcher alludes to one reasonable (sort of) point: CARB’s rule will mostly harm drivers (and customers). The main problem is the agency has the power to upend an industry by fiat. Its latest vote is a reminder that no matter how successful Californians are at reducing emissions, the agency will continue to prefer a regulatory stick to a carrot.