How the EPA's New Emissions Rule Is Likely To Backfire
While drafted with good intentions, the rule prioritizes electric vehicles that run on batteries, even as hybrids see strong sales growth.

This week, the federal government released new rules that would cut the number of gas-burning cars sold over the next decade. While drafted with good intentions, the move could very well backfire.
On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced pollution standards for new vehicles produced for model years 2027–2032. The finalized rule calls for "more stringent emissions standards" for passenger cars, SUVs, and light-duty trucks, with the explicit goal of effecting a switch to electric vehicles (E.V.s). By 2032, the rule anticipates, 56 percent of all vehicles sold in the United States will be fully electric, 16 percent will be hybrids, and fewer than 30 percent will rely solely on an internal combustion engine.
The rule was actually relaxed a bit in its final form: When the EPA first announced plans to issue new vehicle standards in April 2023, the proposal would require that 60 percent of all vehicles sold by 2030 be electric, jumping up to 67 percent by 2032.
Still, the rule risks failure, either by asking too much too soon or by prioritizing one particular technology at the expense of viable alternatives.
"A record 1.2 million electric vehicles rolled off dealers' lots last year, but they made up just 7.6 percent of total U.S. car sales," wrote Coral Davenport in The New York Times. That number represented an increase from 5.9 percent the previous year, and E.V. sales in the fourth quarter of 2023 were 52 percent higher than the same period in 2022, representing 8.1 percent of all cars sold.
But even factoring in that uptick, those numbers are not nearly enough to reach the Biden administration's pledged goal, in which more than half of cars sold within the next decade are electric. S&P Global estimates that by 2030, only one in four vehicles sold will be an E.V.—significantly less than the 44 percent the EPA forecasts.
Overall demand is also slowing down, as consumers fret over issues like range, the availability of public chargers, and the higher prices of E.V.s. Without sufficiently addressing those concerns, motorists will not make the switch in sufficient numbers to meet the EPA's timeline.
Last week, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) called the administration's original timeline "too far, too fast," saying that "new vehicle buyers are not purchasing EVs in the quantities necessary for automakers to meet EPA's requirements."
In November 2023, over 3,000 automotive dealers signed an open letter to President Joe Biden, asking that he "tap the brakes" on the mandate and allow time for the market to catch up and for "the American consumer to get comfortable with the technology and make the choice to buy an electric vehicle."
Notably, the rule also favors battery electric vehicles, which use no gasoline and charge when depleted, over hybrids. The EPA expects that its emission standards will ensure 56 percent of vehicles sold in 2032 will be battery E.V.s, while 13 percent will be plug-in hybrids and only three percent will be traditional hybrids.
This, too, is shortsighted: As consumers grow increasingly wary of an all-electric future, hybrids represent an ideal transition between gas and electricity.
Traditional hybrids use a mix of gasoline and electricity, with an electric motor and a gas-powered engine sharing the task. Plug-in hybrids function the same, but the electric motor is much larger and can run on nothing but electricity for short spans of time, providing 20–50 miles of gasoline-free driving before the engine kicks in.
According to the Department of Transportation, the average American motorist drove 37 miles a day in 2021. While any electrified vehicle could handle that trip, hybrids could do so while still allowing motorists the freedom to take longer drives when necessary. While hybrids still generate more carbon emissions than E.V.s, they are a significant improvement over all-gas vehicles.
In fact, automakers have learned this lesson already. As companies like Ford and General Motors (G.M.) pledged billions of dollars to build out their E.V. fleets, Toyota hedged, remaining dedicated to hybrids. Last year, as E.V. sales slowed, Toyota outsold every single competitor, with hybrids comprising one-third of its sales. Meanwhile, Ford and G.M. have each since pared back their planned E.V. investments, and CNBC reported in December that automakers are increasingly following Toyota's lead.
And yet the EPA's new rule not only deprioritizes hybrids, but it may very well skew the market against them. "The EPA's insistence on mandating EVs, to the exclusion of other alternatively-fueled vehicles, greatly reduces consumer choice," the NADA wrote. "This policy will likely cause manufacturers to produce fewer of these alternative vehicles and will increase their cost, thereby dissuading consumers from considering their purchase."
While a switch from gasoline to a more environmentally friendly source of energy is laudable, even perhaps necessary, the transition should be driven by the free market. Implementing a mandate based on an arbitrary timeline is destined to fail, especially since the mandate ignores that hybrids offer a plausible intermediate technology.
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
All regulations backfire.
While drafted with good intentions
Cite?
Democrat introduced it. Therefore good intentions. Like clockwork.
While drafted with good intentions
How about "While drafted
with good intentionsto pander to a vocal minority of pseudo-religious zealots and to provide an artificial boost to favored industries..."^so much THIS^
assuming good intentions at this point is just being incredibly credulous
-to the point of gaslighting \ mendacity
Click bait.
Good intentions = more money for Democrat politicians, their friends and families, Democrat bureaucrats, and Democrat donors. (Oh, and establishment, status quo, rich, deep state RINO’s, too)
"While drafted with good intentions"
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
Well played sir
Darn you, you beat me to it.
No, Joe.
There were no good intentions.
The intention is to remove every vestige of individual freedom.
“While a switch from gasoline to a more environmentally friendly source of energy is laudable.”
What is that source of energy?
He can’t mean the batteries can he?
Coal!
Carbon-free coal obviously.
Australian Prime Minister Turnbull said years ago that ;
"Coal is now an essential component of our Zero Carbon future."
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com
Stuff your fake website up your ass.
It's going to be interesting see how quickly they backpedal once the reality sets in. I can just see car makers offering huge incentives to make BEVs so cheap you could buy two or three for the price of one ICE car, then go running to Uncle Sugar for rescue.
Meanwhile, people may not know all the details of why they can't buy good cars, but they'll sure as shit know who to blame -- dealers and manufacturers to start with, then Uncle Sam.
The NY AG will file a lawsuit against the auto industry.
That's nice, but reality won't wait for how slow the courts are.
>>While drafted with good intentions,
equivalent of everybody knows the Republicans were the War Party and the Party of the Rich ... it's a tell.
Why are they trying to force me to drive a heavy duty truck? Do they want me to destroy the planet?
People miss this part.
I have an old Toyota tacoma. Small and super useful. I can't replace it without getting a truck nearly as large as a Tundra was 20 years ago -- because of environmental rules.
My truck is now a car for government regulations, so trucks (which are very popular) are all way bigger. Good job "good" intentions.
Proud to drive my blood cobalt vehicle while wearing my blood diamond rings.
No blood-lithium EVs for me, thank you. I'm sticking with clean organic-powered ICE vehicles that emit beneficial plant-sustaining gas.
I’ve always held a suspicion that the whole “blood diamonds” thing was a way to manufacture consent for international laws banning non-diamond cartel scabs from being able to market their wares. It just sounded like they were eliminating a legal loophole where some poor African might find his own diamonds and get rich off them.
A while ago I heard someone refer to the distinction as "blood diamonds" and "the boring kind" (of diamonds) and, like you, I was sold. Pricing things by the number of orphans created and/or killed in the production seems both particularly sensible and classy.
Why bother squeezing blood from a stone to make blood diamonds when Vegan diamonds made out of thin air are a thing :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/06/virtue-is-35000000000-ton-carbon-tax-on.html
Please stuff your fake website up your ass, and then fuck off and die.
“While drafted with good intentions”
Are you fucking high, Joe? The EPA drafted them because they’ve gone whole hog on climate apocalypse and there’s nary a bureaucrat alive who doesn’t think it’s their god given right to tell us what to do.
Word.
Reason is a detriment to libertarianism and should be treated as such.
What are they going to do if you don’t want to get rid of your ICE vehicle?
Send in an EPA tactical team?
I guess I answered my own question.
Pace of electric vehicle adoption must quadruple to reach Illinois goal
https://wirepoints.org/pace-of-electric-vehicle-adoption-must-quadruple-to-reach-illinois-goal-wirepoints/
The hard numbers are EV registrations in Illinois, published by the Illinois Secretary of State. For the most recent 12-month period, Illinois added just 32,478 vehicles to its EV registration rolls. That’s 8,120 per quarter.
But to reach the target of one million by 2030, that number would have to increase to about 34,000 per quarter — a four-fold increase.
Those numbers may be generous because they assume that all registered EVs will stay on the road through 2030. More importantly, in the latest quarter, new EV registrations dropped to just 4,997, well below the average for the year of 8,120 used above to calculate the needed 4X improvement.
The recent drop in the quarterly increase in EV registrations no doubt reflects the new reality for EVs, which was summed up in a CNBC article last week headlined, “EV euphoria is dead. Automakers are scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans.” From that CNBC article:
Now the hype is dwindling, and companies are again cheering consumer choice. Automakers from Ford, General Motor, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin are scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans.
Even U.S. EV leader Tesla, which is estimated to have accounted for 55% of EV sales in the country in 2023, is bracing for what “may be a notably lower” rate of growth, CEO Elon Musk said in late January.
The gap between Illinois’ target and the EV adoption rate is roughly consistent with the numbers at a national scale, where EV sales need to rise 500 percent by 2032 to hit federal emissions targets.
EV optimists point to the expectation of lower priced vehicles coming to showrooms soon and more charging stations coming online, shortages of which have impaired EV demand. They also point to consistent year-over-year improvement in EV sales. That may be true, but a 4X jump in the rate of EV adoption looks questionable at best, and record sales are not enough. To make the EV industry financially viable, far more sales are needed than at the current pace.
So far, Illinois seems unconcerned, and more taxpayer money will go into the effort. Last week, the Illinois Department of Transportation announced round one of the Illinois National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, which will provide up to $50 million for the construction of 46 charging stations across the state.
Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been bet on EVs, making it a historic chapter in government central planning. So far, the numbers look bad.
If people would just do like they are supposed to, the government wouldn’t have to force them.
/jeffy
Those numbers may be generous because they assume that all registered EVs will stay on the road through 2030.
This isn't a case of "may be generous" it's a case of massively overstating how many currently operating EVs will be on the road in 2030. Even if they're really well made, Illinois salts their roads so a winter commuter will be rotting from the bottom up in 6 to 10 years. Model 3s have been around since 2016, the other one since... what, 2010? Same timelines for Chevy Volt -- first gen 2010 and second gen 2015. There's no way all of the fleet prior to 2020 will still be in service in 2030.
So, yeah, Illinois isn't just way off pace, they're way way way way off pace.
But they won't ever admit they're wrong. Because modern political theory is that changing your mind means you're weak so once you're married to an idea that idea becomes sacrosanct.
And that ignores that the manufacturers will simply stop producing things like replacement batteries, which will make them obsolete WAY quicker than ICE cars have ever been.
So far, the numbers look bad.
It’s not about the numbers. They’re a sham. It’s the Overton Window shifting, cultural chilling, and FYTW.
Pritzker only got something like 3 or 5% of the estimated numbers of ‘assault weapons’ and devices required to be registered and people heralded it as a defeat. But a number of gun shops had to register and/or go out of business, others had to juggle their inventory out of state. My 17 yr. old remembers firearms for sale at Wal-Mart, my 10 yr. old probably won’t even remember walking into the shop at the world’s premiere FN FAL manufacturer.
Same thing here, the point is FYTW, if you don’t make the numbers, it doesn’t matter, the beating were going to continue even if you did.
While drafted with good intentions,
That is HIGHLY suspect.
Only one word needed to destroy these stupid government rules. No sarc. From the heart. VROOOOM!
No sarc.
One could hope.
Indeed.
Where’s the fun in that?
The fun is that he dies.
Unless I get to watch I prefer he lives to amuse me with his stupidity.
Nah, they grey boxes just clutter up the theads.
If you do the math the 85 grams of CO2 per mile of car travel works out to about 100 miles per gallon, which basically leaves you with a post- Biden choice between buying a 500 HP Tesla or a 50 cc Moped.
You read it here first:
https://reason.com/2008/07/23/carbon-based-prohibition/
Another dead cricket bites the dust.
"Is Likely To Backfire"
I think you meant, "Will Be A Bloodbath."
Joe Lancaster is too stupid to realize the right people will get rich off this scheme. It will actually be quite successful in its directive.
Why does Reason continue to hire children?
The world must be peopled , lest the commentariat have only the English language to abuse.
Good intentions, sure.
And when the grid is down and you’re stuck at home with your electric car and your electric appliances and you freeze to death or can’t escape a wildfire, it will be Biden’s fault.
Cause of death: Covid-19, Climate Change variant.
"While drafted with good intentions"
Man will Lancaster give the government the benefit of the doubt on everything or what?
Can almost hear the slurping.
It’s very jeffesque.
Government prioritizing a product? What USA?
Heck; We're practically embarrassing the British Monarchy we claimed Independence from with our [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism].
GFY
Drafted with fascist intentions to control every aspect of our lives to benefit a few well connected people and their Chinese paymasters, and at the behest of a Luddite cult of anti-science knownothings
UN official joins long list of "environmentalists" telling the truth...
Ayisha Siddiqa, a "Climate Advisor to the UN General Secretary":
"You want to know why I got into climate activism, it wasn't because I wanted to protect the environment (although that is a very valid reason). I became involved [because] the West slaughtered, bombed and starved my people to death in the name of oil. And no one talks about it," she wrote.
"When I think of fossil fuel, I don't think of pollution... I think of… organized terrorism and I think of demolished democracies at the hands of the West," she wrote in a separate post in November 2020.
Wikipedia: Throughout her activism Ayisha has described herself as a Socialist with Marxist leanings. She has also denounced Capitalism as a purveyor of the world’s problems. She has tweeted on multiple occasions for the destruction of the West and that of White people.
The idea that they were some kinds of bastions of freedom and democracy till the mean old US stepped in is just fucking asinine, counterfactual, and ahistorical.
But I appreciate how many of these assholes have completely ripped off their masks and yelled to the world that they’re totalitarian pieces of shit. Too bad most people aren’t mocking the hellmout of them for such idiotic views.
It's not about climate change or environmentalism, and it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): "Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Daphne Muller, green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon: "This moment requires we the people to rethink democracy as a global mechanism for enacting policy for and by the planet."
Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all...Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
Still waiting for a true evaluation of the 'climate cost' of EVs, from mining with child slaves through disposal of the depleted batteries full of nasty chemicals. And, oh by the way, the associated costs of installing chargers at home, which may require a whole new distribution panel and 'stuff'. Don't forget that the 'clean' EV is recharged with nasty old coal, oil and natural gas electricity.
"While drafted with good intentions, the move could very well backfire."
Since Joe believes it' good intentions instead of just control, Joe I have a bridge to sell you. I saw it's a my good intentions selling it
For all the 'progressives' here, explain how climate change isn't a religion/scam when your prophets like Goracle sells to an oil company for millions. Or you know Kerryurchy saying people would 'feel better' about Ukraine war if Russia reduced emissions.
Climate change - not global warming - because climate is always changing!
"...Overall demand is also slowing down, as consumers fret over issues like range, the availability of public chargers, and the higher prices of E.V.s..."
Plus charging times, fires, repair costs and more. Given the near impossibility of dousing the fires, it's likely that your insurance will soon prohibit indoor parking.
It was important for the scientific community to discover a fascinating connection between the orbits of Earth and Mars, revealing that the gravitational interplay between the two planets influences deep-sea circulation patterns on Earth https://orbitaltoday.com/2024/03/14/scientists-discover-deep-sea-links-between-earth-and-mars/ This discovery, found through geological records, shows a millions years cycle of deep ocean currents that wax and wane, correlating with periods of increased solar energy and a warmer climate.