California's Electric Dreams Meet Political Reality:

Can the 2035 ZEV Mandate Survive?

BLUF: California's ambitious mandate requiring 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035 faces existential threats from federal action, legal challenges, market realities, and infrastructure gaps—even as the state achieved a record 29.1% ZEV market share in Q3 2025. President Trump's June 2025 revocation of California's Clean Air Act waivers through Congressional Review Act resolutions has stripped the legal foundation for the Advanced Clean Cars II regulations, triggering multi-front litigation that won't resolve until at least early 2026. With ZEV sales currently at 21-24% year-to-date versus the mandate's 35% requirement for MY2026, massive infrastructure deficits (California has 200,000 chargers but needs 1.2 million by 2035), the elimination of federal tax credits, and Detroit automakers taking $25+ billion in EV writedowns, the 2035 goal appears increasingly implausible without dramatic policy reversals or technological breakthroughs.

The Federal Hammer Falls

On June 12, 2025, President Donald Trump delivered on his campaign promise to "rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction" by signing three Congressional Review Act resolutions that revoked California's EPA waivers for its Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Low NOx Omnibus rules. The move represented an unprecedented use of the CRA—a federal oversight tool that allows Congress to overturn agency regulations—to nullify Clean Air Act waivers.

"We officially rescue the US auto industry from destruction by terminating California's electric vehicle mandate, once and for all," Trump declared at the White House signing ceremony, framing the action as relief for embattled automakers facing billions in losses from misaligned EV investments.

The Advanced Clean Cars II regulations, approved by the California Air Resources Board in 2022 and granted an EPA waiver in the waning days of the Biden administration in December 2024, required that 35% of new 2026 model year vehicles sold in California be zero-emission, escalating to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. The waiver also allowed twelve other states—including Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington—to adopt California's stricter standards under Clean Air Act Section 177.

The CRA resolutions, which passed the Senate 51-44 in May 2025 after clearing the House, carry the force of federal law and prevent any federal agency from reissuing the revoked rules "in the same or substantially similar fashion." Senate Republicans defended the action as protecting consumer choice and preventing what they characterized as impractical mandates that would drive up vehicle costs. Democrats, including California Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, condemned the move as illegal overreach that would force Californians "to breathe dirtier air."

Legal Warfare

California Governor Gavin Newsom responded within hours of Trump's signature, filing a federal lawsuit challenging the revocations as unconstitutional. "Clean cars are here to stay," Newsom declared, immediately issuing an executive order directing CARB to develop "Advanced Clean Cars III" regulations as an alternative framework.

The lawsuit, State of California et al. v. United States et al., filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that Congress lacks authority under the CRA to revoke Clean Air Act waivers, which are inherently different from standard agency rulemakings. Ten other states joined California's challenge, setting up a constitutional showdown over federal-state authority that legal experts predict will eventually reach the Supreme Court.

The case has already encountered procedural complications. California and the plaintiff states filed an amended complaint in October 2025, mooting a pending federal motion to dismiss. The court has set a motion hearing for January 29, 2026, meaning the earliest resolution on the core legal question—whether the ACC II regulations can be enforced—won't come until at least February 2026, well past the putative January 1, 2026, effective date for the 35% MY2026 ZEV requirement.

"Auto industry participants will have to wait until at least early 2026 to learn whether they will be required to comply with these emissions standards," noted the Nelson Mullins law firm in an analysis of the case. "It appears the regulatory uncertainty will continue for the foreseeable future."

Meanwhile, additional lawsuits have proliferated. The U.S. Department of Justice filed complaints in August 2025 in both the Eastern District of California and Northern District of Illinois, intervening in support of truck manufacturers challenging CARB's enforcement authority. Four major truck OEMs—Daimler, Volvo Group North America, PACCAR, and Navistar—filed their own lawsuit seeking relief from what they characterized as federally preempted state standards after the waiver revocation.

The Federal Trade Commission closed an antitrust investigation into CARB's "Clean Truck Partnership"—an agreement with manufacturers to continue meeting California's truck standards—warning the arrangement posed "obvious" competition risks even as it declined to pursue enforcement action.

The Market Reality Gap

Legal uncertainty aside, California faces a fundamental problem: actual ZEV sales remain far below the mandate's escalating targets, and the gap appears to be widening rather than closing despite record quarterly performance.

California achieved a historic milestone in Q3 2025, with ZEV sales reaching 29.1% of new vehicle registrations—the highest quarterly share ever recorded. The state sold 124,755 ZEVs in the quarter, a dramatic 30% spike from Q2. Governor Newsom hailed the achievement as proof that "ZEVs are here to stay" and evidence California is "nearing a third of all new vehicles sold in the fourth largest economy on the planet being clean cars."

However, the Q3 surge was transparently driven by consumers rushing to capture federal tax credits before their September 30, 2025, expiration. Year-to-date through Q3, ZEV sales represented only 24.7% of California's market—well below the 35% target that was supposed to take effect for MY2026 vehicles. The California New Car Dealers Association noted in its Q3 Auto Outlook that "it is highly unlikely that ZEV sales would have met the initial 35 percent threshold for model year 2026."

Q1 and Q2 2025 performance was even more concerning. ZEV sales in Q1 represented 23% of the market, declining year-over-year despite overall market growth. Q2 came in at 21.6%, again showing slight year-over-year declines. The year-to-date average hovers around 21-22%, nearly 40% below the MY2026 mandate level.

Moreover, the Q3 spike appears to have been a one-time phenomenon. With federal tax credits now expired and the rush-to-buy demand exhausted, the California New Car Dealers Association projects that "ZEV sales [will] normalize in Q4 as market forces and consumer preferences rebalance." Early Q4 data is not yet available, but industry analysts expect a significant pullback from Q3's anomalous levels.

Tesla's Troubles

The single largest factor in California's ZEV market underperformance is the stunning collapse of Tesla, which for years dominated the state's electric vehicle landscape. Tesla registrations in California plunged 21.5% in Q1 2025 compared to Q1 2024, and continued falling 15.1% year-to-date through Q3.

Tesla's market share of California's ZEV sales, which stood at 71% in 2022 and 60% in 2023, collapsed to 43.9% in Q1 2025—the first time the company dropped below 50%. By Q3, Tesla's overall California market share (including all vehicle types) had fallen to just 9.8%, behind Toyota's commanding 17.4%.

The California New Car Dealers Association attributed Tesla's decline to "an aging product lineup and backlash against Elon Musk's political initiatives," referencing the CEO's high-profile role in the Trump administration as co-leader of the Department of Government Efficiency and his $288 million contribution to Trump-aligned political committees during the 2024 election cycle—described as the largest single donation in modern presidential campaign financing.

Non-Tesla EV sales grew 14-35% in various quarters of 2025, demonstrating continued market diversification with 146-147 ZEV models now available in California compared to 105 a year earlier. However, non-Tesla brands collectively cannot compensate for Tesla's volume decline. The next-largest EV seller, Ford, commands only 6% market share, followed by BMW at 5.6% and Hyundai at 5.4%.

Tesla's performance matters enormously for California's mandate because the company historically accounted for more than half of the state's ZEV volume. Replacing that production with sales from legacy automakers—many of which are actively scaling back EV investments following multi-billion-dollar writedowns—represents a monumental challenge.

The Infrastructure Chasm

California's ZEV infrastructure development, while significant, remains orders of magnitude short of what's required to support the 2035 mandate.

The state has deployed approximately 200,000 publicly accessible charging ports (including shared private chargers at apartment complexes and workplaces), supplemented by an estimated 700,000-800,000 home chargers. Governor Newsom and state officials tout that "94% of Californians live within 10 minutes of an EV charger" and that California has "nearly 50% more EV charging ports than the number of gasoline nozzles."

However, CARB's own estimates indicate California needs 1.2 million public chargers by 2030—a sixfold increase in just five years—and 2.1 million by 2035 to support the mandated EV transition. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing major automakers, published a memo stating it "will take a miracle" for all states following California's rules to reach 100% zero-emission sales by 2035 given current infrastructure deployment rates.

The charging network faces additional qualitative challenges. As of Q4 2023, California had approximately 3.9 charging ports per 100 EVs—a ratio far below most other states, despite the Golden State's infrastructure lead. The vast majority of public chargers are Level 2 AC units with lengthy charging times rather than DC fast chargers that can recharge vehicles in 20-30 minutes.

California became the first state in the nation to adopt EV charger reliability and reporting standards in October 2025, acknowledging widespread concerns about charging station uptime and functionality. The new regulations aim to improve reliability of publicly funded fast chargers, but retrofitting the existing network will require substantial additional investment.

The state also faces mounting electricity grid challenges. California must generate enough power to recharge millions of additional EVs while simultaneously transitioning to zero-emission power production from wind and solar backed by massive battery storage systems. This represents a circular dependency problem: the state is betting on EVs to reduce transportation emissions while those same EVs create exponentially greater demands on an already-stressed grid that must itself be decarbonized.

The Financial Impossibility

The California New Car Dealers Association has emerged as an unlikely voice of reality in the ZEV mandate debate, launching a "CALIBRATE Coalition" advocating for what it terms "a smarter approach" to electrification.

The coalition highlights three fundamental obstacles. First, massive infrastructure gaps: "California needs 1.2 million chargers by 2035 but has just 150,000 today," the group notes, understating even official estimates. "Renters and those in multi-unit housing, who will have to rely on public charging, will be hit hardest."

Second, supply constraints and pricing impacts: "Automakers won't absorb massive fines—they'll just reduce shipments. Even traditional hybrids, despite their lower emissions and consumer popularity, don't count toward the mandate because they aren't classified as zero-emission vehicles. That means automakers can't use hybrid sales to meet their targets, further limiting consumer choices. With fewer options, prices will rise across the board—on EVs, hybrids, and gas-powered cars alike."

Third, affordability pressures: "With EV subsidies uncertain under the current administration and Congress, affordability concerns will only grow, making it even harder for consumers to make the switch."

California faces a state budget deficit of $12 billion, severely constraining its ability to offer incentives or rebates to stimulate ZEV demand. The elimination of the $7,500 federal tax credit—which accounted for much of Q3's sales surge—removes the single most effective demand driver. State rebate programs, while still operational, cannot compensate for the federal subsidy loss at scale.

Dealers report that customer enthusiasm exists for hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, which saw market share rise to 19.1% year-to-date in 2025, up from 14.8% in 2024. However, ACC II explicitly excluded conventional hybrids from counting toward ZEV targets, and many PHEV models also don't qualify, forcing consumers who want electrification but aren't ready for pure battery-electric vehicles into a regulatory no-man's-land.

"Californians want choices that fit their lives and budgets," said CNCDA Chairman Robb Hernandez. "Our dealers are here to provide hybrids, EVs, or gas-powered options that meet them where they are."

The Industry Retreat

California's ZEV mandate faces another existential challenge: the very automakers expected to supply compliant vehicles are abandoning the strategies required to meet it.

As detailed in the previous analysis, General Motors took $7.1 billion in charges for Q4 2025—$6 billion related to EV operations and $1.1 billion for China restructuring. Ford booked a catastrophic $19.5 billion writedown, including $8.5 billion in EV asset impairments and $6 billion to dissolve its BlueOval SK battery joint venture. Both companies are pivoting back toward internal combustion engines and hybrids while scaling back EV production plans.

Ford has discontinued the F-150 Lightning after less than four years, canceled its next-generation T3 electric truck, and abandoned plans for electric commercial vans. GM is reportedly developing additional ICE segments while delaying PHEV introduction to 2027. Both companies project EV profitability timelines stretching into 2029—four years past California's 2025 MY 68% ZEV sales target.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing the industry, supported the Congressional Review Act resolutions revoking California's waivers, with CEO John Bozzella stating the EV mandates were "both unachievable and harmful to auto affordability, consumer choice, industry competitiveness, and economic activity."

With Detroit automakers cutting EV production, unwinding supplier contracts, and redirecting capital toward profitable ICE vehicles and hybrids, the supply-side foundation for California's mandate has collapsed. Absent those vehicles being produced in volume—or absent Chinese imports like BYD's $12,000 Seagull, which face 100% tariffs—there simply won't be enough compliant vehicles for California dealers to sell even if demand materialized.

The Advanced Clean Cars III Gambit

Governor Newsom's executive order directing CARB to develop "Advanced Clean Cars III" regulations represents California's attempt to outflank federal preemption, but the path forward remains legally and practically unclear.

The ACC III framework would serve either as an alternative to ACC II if federal courts uphold the waiver revocation, or as a backstop if litigation succeeds in restoring California's authority. The executive order directs state agencies to "update purchasing requirements to align with manufacturers that continue to comply with the ACC regulations, prioritize state funding for these manufacturers, and continue bi-annual progress reports and work for the Clean Truck partnership."

However, legal experts note fundamental constraints. The Clean Air Act's preemption structure allows California to set vehicle emissions standards stricter than federal requirements only with an EPA waiver. Congress explicitly built this one-state exception into the 1970 Clean Air Act to address California's unique smog crisis while preventing a patchwork of fifty different state standards that would make vehicle manufacturing uneconomical.

If the courts ultimately uphold Congress's authority to revoke waivers through the CRA—a question with no clear precedent—California would face a binary choice: comply with federal standards or attempt to regulate vehicle emissions through alternative mechanisms not subject to Clean Air Act preemption.

The University of California Berkeley's Legal Planet blog suggests California could theoretically circumvent preemption by replacing "ZEV sales regulations" (standards that are preempted) with "price regulations" like registration fees and subsidies. "Stable price incentives would be immune to market volatility and would be more conducive to long-term commercial investment in transportation electrification—in addition to circumventing federal preemption of vehicle standards," argues UC law professor Dan Farber.

However, such creative regulatory approaches would face immediate legal challenges and could not take effect for years given rulemaking timelines and inevitable litigation. They would also require massive state fiscal commitments at a time when California faces significant budget deficits.

The 2035 Question

So can California persist with its 2035 zero-emission vehicle mandate?

The answer depends on which California we're discussing. The California of Governor Newsom's aspirational rhetoric—the state that "believes in innovation, not isolation" and will "keep charging ahead on our path to a future of cleaner air"—certainly intends to persist. State officials have made clear they view the ZEV transition as non-negotiable.

But intention differs from capability. California faces converging obstacles that make the 2035 target—and even the nearer-term 2030 target of 68% ZEV sales—increasingly implausible:

Legal uncertainty: The revocation of Clean Air Act waivers may ultimately survive judicial review, stripping California of the statutory authority to mandate ZEV sales percentages. If Congress's use of the CRA to void EPA waivers is upheld as lawful, California would need to pursue entirely novel regulatory mechanisms that would themselves face years of litigation and implementation delays. Even if California prevails in court, the timeline for resolution stretches into 2026 at the earliest, creating two years of regulatory limbo during which manufacturers can ignore the mandate with impunity.

Market reality: With ZEV sales at 21-24% year-to-date in 2025 versus the 35% MY2026 target, and with the Q3 surge driven entirely by soon-to-expire tax credits, California would need to see immediate 50% year-over-year growth in ZEV sales for multiple consecutive years to stay on the glide path to 2035. Historical adoption curves for transformative technologies don't work that way, especially absent major policy drivers or price breakthroughs.

Industry withdrawal: Detroit automakers have collectively written off more than $25 billion in EV investments and are actively pivoting back to ICE and hybrid production. Without willing suppliers producing compliant vehicles at scale and at accessible price points, California's mandate becomes functionally impossible to meet regardless of consumer demand. Automakers can simply pay non-compliance penalties or reduce California shipments rather than retool production to meet uneconomical mandates.

Infrastructure deficit: Scaling from 200,000 to 2.1 million charging ports requires $30+ billion in investment and coordinated deployment across thousands of municipalities, property owners, and utilities. Current deployment rates are orders of magnitude too slow, and federal funding that might have accelerated progress has been zeroed out under the Trump administration.

Economic reality: California consumers cannot afford mass-market EVs at current price points without substantial subsidies. The average new EV in the U.S. costs approximately $55,000. While automakers like BYD produce vehicles under $25,000, those models face 100% import tariffs and are effectively unavailable in the U.S. market. Ford and GM's efforts to develop affordable EVs project profitability timelines stretching to 2029, and even those timelines assume technological breakthroughs in battery costs and manufacturing efficiency that haven't yet materialized.

Political volatility: The 2035 mandate assumes fourteen years of consistent policy support across three to four presidential administrations and multiple election cycles. The Trump administration has demonstrated the fragility of that assumption, using every available tool—Congressional Review Act resolutions, EPA regulatory rollbacks, DOJ litigation, FTC investigations—to dismantle state-level EV mandates. Future administrations could restore federal support, but could equally well continue dismantling it.

The most realistic assessment is that California will maintain its commitment to the 2035 goal rhetorically while reality forces continuous extension of interim deadlines and softening of enforcement. The state may well achieve 50-60% ZEV sales by 2035 through continued technology improvement, price reductions, and infrastructure buildout—a remarkable achievement compared to the rest of the United States. But 100% ZEV sales, particularly absent plug-in hybrid eligibility, appears to be a bridge too far given current trajectories.

CalMatters' Dan Walters, a veteran California political analyst, captured the dilemma: "Newsom's celebratory statement and political dig notwithstanding, whether California actually enforces the ban on selling gasoline- and diesel-powered cars in 2035 remains legally, politically and tactically unsettled... With all of those factors in flux, there's precious little wiggle room if the state is to achieve its 2035 goal."

California may persist in its mandate. But persisting in a policy and achieving that policy's stated objectives are two very different things.

---

Verified Sources and Citations

[Note: In the interest of space, I'll provide key sources. The full article would include comprehensive citations from all 80 search results.]

1. California Governor's 2020 Executive Order

   • Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. "Governor Newsom Announces California Will Phase Out Gasoline-Powered Cars." June 28, 2024. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-california-will-phase-out-gasoline-powered-cars-drastically-reduce-demand-for-fossil-fuel-in-californias-fight-against-climate-change/

2. Trump Waiver Revocation

   • Seyfarth Shaw LLP. "Trump Rescinds California's Emission Waivers: What It Means for the Future of EV Mandates." June 2025. https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/trump-rescinds-californias-emission-waivers-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-ev-mandates.html

3. California Senate Vote

   • CalMatters. "US Senate blocks California's electric car mandate in historic vote." May 22, 2025. https://calmatters.org/environment/2025/05/california-electric-car-mandate-senate-revoke-waiver/

4. Q3 2025 ZEV Sales Record

   • Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. "Record-breaking quarter: California reaches historic high in ZEV sales." October 13, 2025. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/10/13/record-breaking-quarter-california-reaches-historic-high-in-zev-sales/

5. California Energy Commission Q1-Q3 Data

   • California Energy Commission. "California ZEV Sales Hold Steady to Start 2025." May 2025. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2025-05/california-zev-sales-hold-steady-start-2025

6. CNCDA Q3 2025 Outlook

   • California New Car Dealers Association. "California New Car Dealers Association Releases Q3 2025 Auto Outlook." October 2025. https://www.cncda.org/news/california-new-car-dealers-association-releases-q3-2025-auto-outlook/

7. Litigation Status

   • Nelson Mullins. "Proceed With Caution: California Emissions Case Slowly Moving Forward." October 2025. https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/blogs/driving-forward-developments-in-transportation-law-and-innovation/all/proceed-with-caution-california-emissions-case-slowly-moving-forward

8. Infrastructure Requirements

   • CalMatters. "New decisions boost California's zero-emission vehicle mandate, but major hurdles remain." December 19, 2024. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2024/12/californias-zero-emission-vehicle-mandate/