California has established a requirement that 17% of a given manufacturer’s new vehicle sales in the state be “zero-emissions vehicles” by model year 2023, increasing to 35% in 2026 and then in steps to 100 percent by 2035. The ostensible purpose is a decrease in vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, but with the technology currently available such reductions can be achieved only with a decline in per-mile fuel consumption.

Accordingly, the California mandate is a de facto fuel economy standard more stringent than the federal standards as promulgated by the Department of Transportation. This state-level fuel economy standard clearly is illegal because the Energy Policy and Conservation Act specifically prohibits state-level automobile fleet regulations “related to” fuel economy.

Proponents of the California mandate claim that this is federalism in action. The reality is the opposite: The California mandate will impose costs upon every other state regardless of whether they choose to adopt similar policies. Because zero-emission vehicles do not satisfy consumer preferences as fully as conventional, emissions-creating vehicles in terms of initial cost, operating cost, performance characteristics, and the other parameters shaping consumer vehicle choices, an increase in the sales of such vehicles must be mandated and subsidized. Market competition alone will not yield it.

One necessary form that the needed subsidies take will be an increase in the prices of conventional vehicles. That price effect will prove inexorable in all states, regardless of whether they adopt a mandate such as California’s. Were prices for conventional vehicles to rise only in the states enacting such a mandate, then the result would be a two-price system for identical vehicles. Such a condition cannot prevail because consumers in mandate states would be able to cross state lines to purchase vehicles — California cannot prevent out-of-state cars from using its roads — and this will drive prices up everywhere until they have equalized, taking into account differences in taxes and registration fees, and other such second-order considerations.

There would emerge a sales market for conventional vehicles just across state lines from states adopting a zero-emissions mandate, much as we commonly observe truckers transporting vehicles from manufacturers or from distribution hubs to local dealerships.

Accordingly, the California mandate will have the effect of changing the vehicle fleet in every state, regardless of local needs, because of the artificial increase being forced upon the prices of conventional vehicles.

The perversities do not end there. For conventional vehicles, replacement batteries are only about $250. For zero-emissions vehicles, battery replacement costs are enormous — around $16,000. There is substantial toxic metal pollution attendant upon the production of the batteries and only the cobalt in them is currently economical to recycle. Enormous quantities of lithium, manganese, and nickel are likely to wind up in landfills, with predictably adverse environmental impacts. There also are the emissions resulting from the production of EVs and from the power generation needed to charge their batteries. They are anything but “clean.”

EVs are not for everyone. They have poor range, particularly in cold climates, long charging times, and other major disadvantages. Such physical realities cannot be overcome with massive subsidies. EVs are not viable for the agricultural sector, for people with lengthy commutes, and for many others. These people would be forced to pay higher prices for conventional vehicles to subsidize EV purchases by urban residents. The California mandate will impose such perversities upon all states, and making personal and business transportation much more costly and difficult would create, over time, a household and business location shift away from rural, exurban, and suburban regions toward urban centers.

Such impacts forced across state lines are the opposite of the traditional justification for federalism.