Vermont will temporarily halt its adoption of the California EV sales requirements, with state governor Phil Scott citing concerns over charging infrastructure and technological advancements. Vermont, alongside 10 other states, had previously adopted the Golden State’s stringent zero-emission vehicle rules, aiming to phase out gasoline-only new vehicle sales by 2035. The California rules also seek to increase the number of zero-emissions heavy-duty trucks.
“It’s clear we don’t have anywhere near enough charging infrastructure and insufficient technological advances in heavy-duty vehicles to meet current goals,” Scott said on Tuesday, per Reuters.
According to an analysis by Here Technologies and SBD Automotive, Vermont has one of the more favorable EV charging networks in the country, with a +1.3 charger-to-electric-vehicle ratio.
The California rules currently require zero-emissions models to make up 35 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales for the 2026 model year. However, Governor Scott cited warnings from automakers who indicated they might limit the availability of gas-powered vehicles if forced to comply with the strict EV rules.
The decision aligns with a similar move by Maryland Governor Wes Moore, who postponed enforcement of the zero-emission vehicle rules until the 2028 model year.
Earlier this month, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to block California’s 2035 electric vehicle mandate, as well as repeal legal approval handed down by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) during the Biden administration to grant California the ability to set its own emissions standards. California maintains that its rules are essential for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, aiming for 68 percent of new vehicle sales to be EVs by 2030.
Meanwhile, automakers represented by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, including GM, Toyota, Hyundai, and Volkswagen, have criticized California’s electric vehicle mandate as unrealistic, arguing that the Golden State’s rigid electric vehicle sales targets could lead to a restricted supply of vehicles overall in order to hit the stated EV percentages.
Comments
And so it begins. I see this as an acknowledgement that no groundbreaking technology is coming to replace ICE in the short term. It will be steady increments from now on.
Here in Iowa we don’t have the infrastructure to support this huge EV push either. Plus make them affordable instead of $60k to $120k. That dang hummer is out of control on price
You can lease a Hummer 2X truck for like $700/month. And there are EVs that are affordable – the Equinox EV comes to mind.
Yes…. But at a loss to GM.
That’s the problem. GM lost probably 14K or more per unit on the bolt, which had it been profitable should have returned 5K+ per unit. Instead they have jacked up the price on their ICE vehicles instead. If they met the metric of 39% of their vehicles were to be EV’s they would at least need to break even, so add 14K to the price of a 40K bolt, remove the tax incentives and now, would you still buy a 55K bolt? Or a 25K Trax? Therein lies the fundamental issue.
You do not have enough information to support these calculations about the GM loss on the EV’s. And to blame the ICE price increase on the EV’s is a far fetched hypothesis. Money for new technology development has always come from profits of the current sales.
All the major players in the industry are involved in the EV technology development. They cannot be all wrong.
With the current rebate which will be around until at least the end of 2025, the Equinox EV is cheaper than the Gasoline Equinox.
EV’s are already affordable. The 2 challenges yet to be resolved are very cold weather range and heavy duty towing/hauling range. For everything else EV’s are actually better than ICE vehicles in most parts of the US for most light duty vehicle applications.
3rd challenge, the fact they loose a ton of money on each unit sold.
You forgot that pesky trade-in value after 3 years…
Good
Wow, a glimmer of reality recognition.
Being forced to do anything is not my cup of tea. Besides that, the things won’t work in Minnesota where I live when winter temperatures can be below zero for days on end.
The Bolt has worked four years for me in Minnesota winters, when its -10 degrees I might use 35% of the battery for heating. My 90 mile round trip leaves me with about 80 miles to spare. Plug in overnight and start the day with another full battery.
Hopefully the angry, hypocrite, fossilized politician from Vermont will go home and do what Richard Corry did.
It took almost 30 years to go from predominately horse power to predominately motorized transport. So why should the adoption from ICE to EV be much faster? It shouldn’t. It is both a generational and infrastructure nationwide transition.
Longer
We didn’t jump straight from horses to cars. There was a 50 year period where trains were a major factor as well.
Times change and innovation is much quicker today than in 1900. In the 50’s-60’s it only took us 9 years from the first manned space launch in the US to land men on the moon and return safely. Technological advances are tremendously faster 56 years later. We better get moving as the Chinese are currently kicking our ass in EV technology.