California's Ban on Gas-Powered Cars Could Wreak Havoc on Its Energy Grid
If all Californians bought E.V.s tomorrow, it would be a nightmare.

In late August, California air regulators announced that the state would ban the sale of most gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, a policy aimed at encouraging a shift to electric vehicles (E.V.s). A week later, amid a massive heat wave, California officials begged E.V. owners not to recharge their cars during peak evening hours so as not to overload the state's energy grid.
The regulations that the California Air Resource Board (CARB) unveiled in August are aimed at meeting a target that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom announced in 2020. Yet if all Californians bought E.V.s tomorrow, it would be a nightmare for the state's power grid.
There are more than half a million E.V.s in California, the most of any state. Although that represents a tiny share of the 14 million or so vehicles on the road in California, E.V.s already pose a problem for the state's energy grid. Summer after summer, Californians are warned to minimize their energy use in the evenings, lest the state resort to rolling blackouts. E.V. owners typically recharge their cars overnight. Given that situation, the plan to dramatically increase the number of E.V.s seems impractical, to say the least.
It's not just gasoline-powered cars that California wants to eliminate. In September, CARB unanimously approved a proposal to ban sales of new natural gas–powered furnaces and water heaters by 2030.
California officials hope these mandates will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet nearly half of the state's electricity production comes from natural gas, according to the California Energy Commission. The same fuel the state wants to prohibit in private homes is largely responsible for the electricity that powers those homes and charges the E.V.s the state is trying to promote.
Nuclear energy, which accounts for less than 10 percent of California's electricity, is one possible solution to the energy crisis and climate change concerns. California lawmakers are not oblivious to that option. Despite decades of opposition by environmentalists, state lawmakers voted in August to extend the life of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in San Luis Obispo County, scheduled to close in 2025. It will now continue operating at least until 2030.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So, the commerce clause is dead?
Filburn's Revenge!
I have even managed $20,000 per calendar month by simply working some easy tasks from my apartment. As I had lost my office career, I was very disturbed but luckily I’ve discovered this best on-line career that’s why I’m capable of earning a thousand USD just from home. Each person can avail this best offer & collect more greenbacks online
HERE====)> http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
How do you think the interstate Commerce Clause applies to California regulations about the goods and services that California residents can buy from California merchants?
Because according to the feds, even refraining from commerce is enough of an impact on interstate commerce for federal jurisdiction.
That only works with Nazi Policy; Everyone knows that.. 🙂
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
It's been dead since Wickard
The California government bureaucracy thinks they can write down rules and reality will conform to their wants, somehow, but how that occurs is a problem for other people. They have DONE SOMETHING.
Also,this was something so ridiculous that the rule did not originate in the legislature, as you would think something greatly imposing on the entire population would have to, despite the California legislature being massively controlled by the Democrats.
I’m currently generating over $35,100 a month thanks to one small internet job, therefore I really like your work! I am aware that with a beginning cdx05 capital of $28,800, you are cdx02 presently making a sizeable quantity of money online.
Just Check ———>>> https://propaymentweb01.blogspot.com/
When an idea is so fucking stupid even California Dems won’t propose legislation for it, you know it’s worse than it sounds.
"Ex-College soccer player sues for being punished for not kneeling.
"Hening accused Hokies head coach Charles "Chugger" Adair of launching a "campaign of abuse and retaliation" after she refused to participate in the pregame social justice demonstration.
The lawsuit – which was filed in the Roanoke Division of the United States District Court's Western District of Virginia on March 3, 2021 – alleges Adair "benched her, subjected her to repeated verbal abuse, and forced her off the team."
The lawsuit claims, "He singled her out and verbally attacked her, pointing a finger directly in her face. He denounced Hening for 'bitching and moaning,' for being selfish and individualistic, and for 'doing her own thing.'"
Best of luck, don't see it being successful.
The football coach was. And he was an employee.
"...for being selfish and individualistic, and for ‘doing her own thing.'”
Enemy of the prog state.
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://cashapp7.pages.dev/
Liberty is racist.
Even if electrical generation exceeded demand could PG&E's poorly maintained grid handle it?
The dirty little secret in all this is it’s not just “California’s grid” or “PGAE’s grid”.
It’s the whole Western Interconnection that California threatens with their hare-brained schemes, a huge part of the western US and large parts of Canada and Mexico too. It’s all tied together y’all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interconnection
In fact, CA does its rolling blackouts because regulators require it, to prevent everyone else in the interconnection from bitting the dust as well.
Wait till some freak notices what happened in North Carolina and try’s it in California.
(Yeah, I know it’s happened in cali before.)
If every home is required to be covered in solar panels can't those just charge the car?
That's fine for vampires.
Yes! As long as you only need to make a short trip every 2-3 days, and pretty much don't use your air conditioning. Which is how progressives think your life should be, and they know better than you do anyway.
They want to curb energy use, but they seem to be ok if it's from wind or sun.
"You will own nothing, and you will be happy"
Eat those bugs.
Most cars are charged at night. Even in the midday sun, the solar panels on an average home probably would take hours to charge the car, and would have to compete with everything else in the home.
Sure... Anything is possible.
Ford Explorer USPS = 33MPGe Highway (where 1Gal Gas=33.7KWH). So it's equivalent to 1KWH per Mile.
Driving for 20-years to 200,000 miles
Eco-Worthy sells a 1.2KW solar kit ?ideal? power of 5KWH/day only $3000. If you only drive 10,000 miles/year you only need to buy 5.5 of them so $16,438.
Now the gas model gets 28MPG div 200,000 = 7142g-gas.
$16,438/7142g-gas = $2.30/gal gas (omitting all other charges).
Vehicle itself $37K for gas ~$60K EV.
So tack on another $20K for an EV (just vehicle no battery costs)
$36,438/7142g-gas = $5.10/gal gas.
What does the Solar to EV car converter/charger cost?
How much will it cost to install the system?
Are you willing to scrape off the snow every-time it snows?
Heck; Why not just buy CA ave Electric Rate 26.71 per KWH
Would be the same as $0.2671/mile to 200,000 miles = $53,420 and let the commercial electric account for all solar maintenance.
$53,420/7142g-gas = $7.48 gal gas price equivalent.
+ $20,000 EV vehicle cost.
------------------------------
$73,420/7142g-gas = $10.28 gal gas price equivalent.
And that probably is fairly accurate all things considered.
We'll just do a never-mind about the 100K mile battery replacement.
Also; Be sure to ignore the $6K commercial electric charger.
And be sure to ignore the $20B+ (B as in Billion) Government throws at it.
Solar panels work at night????? Plus, on cloudy days, everything stops?
Depends on how cloudy. UV light can break through cloud cover, and solar panels can pick up some of that energy.
70-90% less energy on overcast days.
If charging EVs is a problem I’m sure the enlightened leaders of California can just ban all vehicles then-problem solved!
They wouldn't dare ban high-speed rail!
Which also uses enormous amounts of electricity.
I meant privately owned vehicles (except bicycles of course -but no e-bikes). On the other hand, bicycles allow too much speed and freedom, so maybe we should ban those too!
Bicycles emit carbon when operated!
Worse yet, with the push for "smart grids" some bureaucrat will be able to decide who gets to charge their cars and when.
In other words, it's a feature not a bug.
Yeah, my local electric utility wants me to install a device that lets them control how I use electricity, how much, and when.
At least for now it's a voluntary opt-in.
They also wanted me to sign up for another voluntary program where I would pay more per kilowatt to get my electricity from 'green' sources. But couldn't answer any questions about how they sorted the green energy from the not-so-green energy.
But couldn’t answer any questions about how they sorted the green energy from the not-so-green energy.
That information will cost you even more, bud.
"They also wanted me to sign up for another voluntary program where I would pay more per kilowatt to get my electricity from ‘green’ sources. But couldn’t answer any questions about how they sorted the green energy from the not-so-green energy."
They don't. At least here, they funnel the extra monies into "green projects." At least that's what they say they do.
^this and the big tax breaks are where the “green” is for the electric companies
Don't forget the money that goes to sending big-wigs to educational and informational seminars and conventions held in luxury hotels in, say, the Bahamas.
my utility offers the same nonsense. Its like a single $25 bill credit annually to let them control my air conditioning. no thanks.
+
California's Ban on Gas-Powered Cars Could Wreak Havoc on Its Energy Grid
Forget the energy grid, just imagine what it will do to Twitter!
Google is presently paying $10447 to $13025 every month for working on the web from home. I have joined this activity 2 months back and I have earned $15248 in my first month from this activity. I can say my life is improved totally!
Look at it what I do…………..>>> smartcash1
Reminds me of a joke: "What did socialists use for lighting before candles? Electricity."
California is going out of it's way to make th he joke a reality for millions of people.
Nope. They will just ban candles. Candles generate CO2.
Easy fix.
Mandate that electric cars only be recharged directly from wind or solar.
No grid connection allowed.
Why not formally legislate that unicorn farts are the preferred source of energy?
Too much hassle from the animal rights advocates - - - - - - - -
Imaginary animals matter.
By 2035 CA will be a libertarian paradise. Millions of Illegals will be living 10 per 300 square feet of living space and they they will have enough illegals available to carry everyone to work on their backs for 7 cents per mile. Reason will be publishing '....I told you so...' articles by the score.
It looks to me like CA is effectively importing electricity from six other states (OR, WA, MT, ID, UT, and AZ). Probably the most from WA, the biggest electricity generator in the country, with all of its generated hydropower. WA and OR have their own eco nuts, and in WA, they seem intent on removing a lot of the dams that generate so much electrical power. The other four states have rapidly growing populations right now, which translates into the likelihood that some of their excess power be kept, instead of exported.
Compounding this, CA hasn’t been properly maintaining the right of ways for the power that they are importing. This is greatly due to the state disallowing rate increases to pay for maintenance of the right of ways. So, the last several years, they have faced large wildfires started in these right of ways, and then litigation by the victims of those fires. To contrast, up where we live in MT, we have 3x370 KEV lines. One starts at our local dam, the other two run several miles north of town. A big fire came through north of town, a year ago, burning all the way across, and the right of way for the two lines proved effective as a fire break, with the fire never really threatening the town. Without that big firebreak, it is likely that much of the town might have burned. Or if the right of way had been maintained to CA standards.
But then, CA is no smarter with their water usage. They had been overusing their allotment of the CO River, and had that cut back a couple years ago. Instead of voting for reparations, they should be using that money to bring in more water, by for example, bringing some of excess from the north of the state to the south.
I read a few years ago that so many people had signed up for selling roof-top solar power to PG&E that PG&E's budget for those payments had zeroed out, and when PG&E asked its PUC masters for a rate increase to buy all that unexpected roof-top solar power, the PUC told them to pound sand, cut expenses elsewhere. And that the only flexibility PG&E had was in the right-of-way maintenance budget. Everything else was too rigidly controlled by the PUC puppet masters.
I saw no proof one way or the other. But it sounds entirely plausible. As inept as PG&E is, they have very little control over their company. Do what the PUC says, or go work somewhere else. The people that gravitate towards that work environment couldn't find work anywhere else, except in government.
Funny you mention that - They're revisiting it. 75% cut in net energy credit.
The CPUC is looking to revise its net energy metering rules to a new plan called NEM 3.0. The current plan, or NEM 2.0, provides a net energy metering credit of about 25 cents per kilowatt hour of power exported from ag users to the grid. If NEM 3.0 is passed as written, that credit will fall to about 5 cents, or 75% of what it currently is.
Interesting, although I must be missing something.
5 cents is not 75% of 25 cents. If they meant "fall by about 5 cents", that would be 80%.
Well thankfully, that will never happen. The progressive's goal is not to have everyone in EVs. Their goal is to stop the peons from traveling at all. For they believe THAT is what will save the humanity from extinction. THEY will still be able to travel, in both EV and ICE automobiles. It is just the useless air breathers that will be required to bike, walk, or take the undependable public transportation to the destinations that our betters dictate.
Despite decades of opposition by environmentalists, state lawmakers voted in August to extend the life of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in San Luis Obispo County, scheduled to close in 2025. It will now continue operating at least until 2030.
With this lesson directly in their faces, probability that Californians now understand the nature of economic tradeoffs and will apply to other endeavors? Cloudy with a chance of meatballs.
If the state was serious about carbon emissions it would be building new nuclear plants, instead of plopping down new gas/coal plants out of the way to feed electricity to the affluent neighborhoods that pretend they are green.
^ This
The lack of push for nuclear is indicative that the green agenda is about more than just global warming. There's a reason Al Gore has made so much money.
See also the Shellenberger expose of how the Brown family crushed nuclear power in California--to protect their investments in Indonesian oil and gas.
Yup. The core problem is that California is governed by dictat. Sometimes by the governor, sometimes by appointees, and with the referendum process, sometimes by popular opinion. But none of it is based in rational thoughtful statesmanship.
Electric cars sound good. But no thought at all was EVER given to the power grid, in a state with a history of a shitty power grid.
Just this year we were told not to charge our cars in the hottest days of summer. Means we are not ready for more electric cars.
But not just the power grid, the infrastructure in general. Recently talked with a person in the "public charger" industry, and he confirms, the infrastructure for all-electric-car California just isns't there. You can't just plug you car in anywhere, you need special electrical outlets and wiring. So I can't charge my car in my dear mother's garage when I visit, not even with big ass adapter. I can't charge one in my carport at my condo. The carport is not mine, it's HOA property. I can request special dispensation and pay for an upgrade to the electrical outlet and wiring there.
But most people don't have those options. Someone in a rental unit, for example. The retort for the affluent class is "let them eat cake", but also, "just charge your cars at work. Well my workplace has four chargers for two hundred parking spots. There is a special Outlook Calendar just for scheduling everyone's one hour of charging. It's a constant musical chairs of juggling cars in and out of those four special places.
Sure it can be fixed, but that's called INFRASTRUCTURE. Is the future going to be only the employed get to charge their cars? Then we need to get more chargers in workplaces! Otherwise in homes and apartments! What about long trips? One can't just hang out in a Denny's while their car is charging for two hours across the street in a charging station.
The power grid isn't there, the infrastructure isn't there. California just isn't ready. It could be, but it need to focus on those things. Not as a government, but as a marketplace. They will come when more electric cars come. The car companies themselves will provide just to sell the cars. (As Tesla does).
But just giving an dictat that gasoline powered cars will be gone won't do it.
It is not only rental units but also Ag use. Tractors and Harvesters need big ass batteries to go for hours and can't be shut down for hours to recharged.
Plus the grid isn't stout enough to recharge Ag equipment.
They made that bed, they can lay in it.
Yet nearly half of the state's electricity production comes from natural gas, according to the California Energy Commission. The same fuel the state wants to prohibit in private homes is largely responsible for the electricity that powers those homes and charges the E.V.s the state is trying to promote.
Not to mention that heating a home with electricity generated by burning natural gas is *less* efficient and produces more CO2 than heating the same home directly by burning natural gas.
Both Bruce Hayden and Brandybuck have made the important comments.
California is not maintaining the clear cuts (due to eco freaks) under the electric lines, so fires start when it is windy.
So they turn off the power when it is windy.
My guess is wind power will not be a big contributor in the future.
And allowing a nuclear power plant to operate for 5 extra years is not a solution when they need to build 3 or even 5 more nuclear power plants.
It is plain the other states will need the exported power for themselves.
So California better get on the stick and build some nuclear power plants
And use them to desalinate ocean water
But they won’t
Santa Rosa and Mammoth will still have power because they have geothermal energy.
Nuclear is risky in CA. It requires lots of water and the areas in CA that have lots of water are earthquake prone. Oil and gas is still the best option for CA.
Earthquakes mean access to geothermal.
There is (was?) a volcanic geothermal plant in Hawaii, and I know of others in Malaysia. I haven't heard much on development of this technology in at least 10 years, which is too bad.
"Geothermal energy produces over a quarter of Iceland’s total electricity."
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland
Not too many other places on the planet where that can be done. I suppose a serious investment might be able to harness the geothermal power in Yellowstone.
Not too many other places on the planet where that can be done.
Anywhere along the ring of fire, most of the western US, and anywhere there are hot springs.
Geothermal is easier said than done. Theoretically, it seems easy. Use the hot water to make steam, to generate power. Except that the water is highly caustic. It eats through steel in short order.
I figured there must be something holding us back from exploiting such an obvious and ubiquitous source of energy.
Nuclear is risky in CA. It requires lots of water and the areas in CA that have lots of water are earthquake prone.
You do realize that nuclear reactors power submarines and air craft carriers, right? The Diablo Canyon station sits less than a mile from the Shoreline Fault. The nominal yield of the fault is a 6.8 quake. DC is engineered to withstand 7.5 and configured such that the core shuts down well before that point is reached. It might be more costly to build reactors in CA, but nowhere near as costly as forcing everyone to shift to EVs in the next ~10 yrs.
This is just dumb. CA can’t build nuclear because it’s got no water but it can import electricity from the Palo Verde nuclear plant that draws off the vast bodies of water in and around Phoenix, AZ?
Lets all just forget that Socialists + Nuclear = Chernobyl.
It ain't going to do any good even from an environmental prospect to chase off CO2 (plants crave) for instantly destroying the livable condition of an entire area for 100+ years.
If science was to a point to protect such disasters; Chernobyl would've been cleaned up by now. So long a Nazi Dictators don't run things I'm sure free people will find the best most cost-effective solution. Right now the USA is heading for a USSR which spells Chernobyl all over it. (cover-up, deaths and all).
But California isn’t technically socialist, it’s fascist. And Democrats are pushing for fascism, not socialism. They just call it socialism for propaganda reasons.
The difference between socialism and fascism is that socialists put incompetent party functionaries in charge of publicly owned corporations, while fascists leave more competent private owners in charge and tell them what to produce... or else.
SM,
Unless you are a nuclear safety expert, I'll listen to my colleague who is with nearly 40 years of regulatory experience.
"Despite decades of opposition by environmentalists, state lawmakers voted in August to extend the life of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in San Luis Obispo County, scheduled to close in 2025. It will now continue operating at least until 2030."
I've begged lawmakers to extend the 'sell by' date on the bottle of milk in my refrigerator. Another 5 years would be great.
The life of a nuclear power plant is determined by the regulators and their certifications. It is nowhere near the same as an expiry date on a carton of milk.
Engineers are tasked with designing a building to last a certain amount of time. If every building were built to last indefinitely, costs would sky rocket.
There's a reason permanent structures are called "permanent." How long they last is generally a function of upkeep and maintenance. A wooden structure that isn't maintained will collapse in a decade or so, but one that is maintained can last centuries. A more robust structure like a nuclear power plant can only last longer with proper maintenance.
"A more robust structure like a nuclear power plant can only last longer with proper maintenance."
I learned today that to extend the life of a nuclear plant, maintenance isn't necessary. All you need is a bunch of California lawmakers agreeing to extend the life.
"A more robust structure like a nuclear power plant can only last longer with proper maintenance."
I read that neutron bombardment is the problem. It doesn't seem to be a lack of maintenance or a weak structure.
All materials age and eventually need to be replaced. The question of whether to maintain or rebuild is simply one of cost.
For nuclear power plants, the cost of rebuilding is effectively infinite because it won't get approved, so spending whatever it takes on maintenance is automatically cheaper.
"All materials age and eventually need to be replaced."
In nuclear reactors, there's the neutron bombardment. It's not a factor in other types of buildings. I don't believe it's practical to replace the affected parts which is why decommissioning means the complete dismantling of the structure. This is true for reactors all over the world.
"because it won’t get approved,"
The life of the reactors was extended by 5 years with the stroke of a pen.
mt,
are you an experienced nuclear or structural engineer?
I have experience in posting comments on all things nuclear and structural engineering. And many other topics besides.
"California's Ban on Gas-Powered Cars Could Wreak Havoc on Its Energy Grid"
But not on individual freedom? Way to libertarian, Reason.
California's continuation as a U.S. state could wreak havoc on the country. FIFY
Google is presently paying $10447 to $13025 every month for working on the web from home. I have joined this activity 2 months back and I have earned $15248 in my first month from this activity. I can say my life is improved totally!
Look at it what I do…………..>>> smartcash1
could?
The State of California just wants to mandate you must buy one. The law doesn't anything about your being able to drive the damn thing!
You are supposed to keep it in your garage so that its batteries can provide storage capacity to California's electric grid. The motor and wheels are just for decoration.
Don't forget that all new construction must use electricity for everything. Stoves, heat, hot water. A new home in the mountains of California can cost $2000 a month or more in electricity.
They have an electricity hardon.
People are overthinking this.
Sure, California says they're going to go all electric but since the reality of the situation is that's impossible they're simply going to push that date back further and further every time they get near it just like they do with other patently impossible things.
It's social signaling, not a serious plan, and as such expect it to never happen. This is because, if it did happen, California would implode overnight and not even the biggest fools among them think otherwise.
They'll get their implosion. It's a running fact (as-in predictable conclusion/reality that never strays from it's factors) of history. But human greed, selfishness and corruption will just keep selling the "better" line and killing/eating their own with Gov-Guns.
This is true. There's an exception in the EV mandate for dealerships and manufacturers that sell out of EVs. Still it's a shitty mandate that every EV get bought first. Social signalling can, and kinda definitively is, a shitty plan.
Gas cars will remain cheaper even after the mandate so Californians will hold onto them or buy used ones and the air quality will actually get worse as emissions control systems age. That’s prog lack of logic for you.
They're Nazi-politicians.. They think Wreaking Havoc is their job.
"We're the National Sozialists(syn; Nazi's) and we are here to help."
If all Californians starting riding bikes tomorrow, it would be a disaster. People would be late to work and a lot of alterkockers would have heart attacks
"In September, CARB unanimously approved a proposal to ban sales of new natural gas–powered furnaces and water heaters by 2030."
Why don't they just outlaw hot water? It's just an unneeded luxury.
Cold showers are an assault on sexual liberation!
Cold showers are only an assault on masculinity! Women aren't affected, so everything is fine!
Furthermore, cold showers are healthy, lowering California’s medical costs!
Progressives have no understanding of physics, thermodynamics or economic. They think they can pass laws negating natural laws. This is stupid in the extreme. California will reap the whirlwind for electing ignorant people and then putting them in charge of what they don’t understand.
+10000000 Well stated.
lol watching people cry "corporate greed" because of the NEM 3.0 proposal is hilarious. No reasonable person can look at PG&Es recent financials and claim 'greed' (-$15B in earnings the last 4 years) , and anyway they can't so much as fart without regulatory approval
Californians deserve to revert back to the stone age
California is "too big to fail". The rest of the country will be paying for their stupidity.
Well at least with Lawrence Livermore Lab's fusion breakthrough*, "fusion power's only a decade away™". I bet that's what they're banking on.
*it's just marketing
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://www.worksclick.com
I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and
I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do.
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:) https://www.richsalary.com
From a purely libertarian perspective, market economics rule. If a governmental policy doesn't make economic sense (few do), it is likely doomed to failure. In the case of Gov Newsom and California's decree to ban sales of non-zero emission vehicles by 2035, this is mostly for show.
Most likely you won't be able to buy a new gasoline-powered car long before 2035 due to market forces. You'll be able to buy plenty of used cars, however, if you have the money and can buy the gasoline.
One sign of this movement is the amount of new research the automakers (globally) are pouring into gasoline-powered vehicles -- basically none. They're only doing minimal sustaining engineering on existing platforms. I know. I work with them. All new research is going into electric vehicle platforms, or in the case of Toyota, hydrogen (Toyota seems bent on self-destruction). You can hypothesize why this might be happening. But who cares? It is. And it is irreversible.
Another sign is the uptake in EV sales. In the old days of GM's EV-1 (1996 and 1999), 6,000 vehicles sold was amazing. Now, Tesla alone sells ~1M/year and China sells a factor of 3 or so more than that per year (including Teslas). The uptake curve is now believable for nearly all new global sales being EVs by the early 2030's based primarily on market forces. Sure, incentives help, but if EVs didn't beat the performance of conventional cars on acceleration, handling, lower maintenance, and total cost of ownership, people wouldn't buy them.
Finally, the grid argument is a non-starter against EVs. The latest utility modeling estimates are that 100% penetration of EVs will increase the grid load by 10-20%. Power generation won't be an issue. What will be, though, is utility transmission and distribution grid infrastructure, which will need significant investment (transformers, substations, etc).