California State Motor Vehicle and Engine
Pollution Control Standards; Advanced
Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption
Supplemental Response to Comments
rnA United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
California State Motor Vehicle and Engine
Pollution Control Standards; Advanced
Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption
Supplemental Response to Comments
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-24-024
December 2024
-------
I. Introduction
On December 26, 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a
Federal Register notice announcing its receipt of the California Air Resources Board's
(CARET s) request for a waiver of regulations applicable to new 2026 and subsequent model year
(MY) California on-road light- and medium-duty vehicles, hereinafter the Advanced Clean Cars
II (ACC II) regulations.1 The notice for comment on this waiver request indicated that the
request would be open for public comment until February 27, 2024. The Docket ID No. for the
waiver is EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292. EPA also held a public hearing on the waiver request, and
the transcript of that hearing is included in the docket. EPA has subsequently reached a final
decision, as reflected in the "Decision Document," to waive preemption for CARET s ACC II
regulations, pursuant to section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA announced the decision
in the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice (Notice) noted EPA's decision within the
waiver Decision Document that addresses the public comments relevant to EPA's evaluation of
CARB's waiver request under the criteria set forth in section 209(b).2 Also noted in EPA's
Federal Register Notice of the waiver decision is this Supplemental Response to Comments
document that together with the Notice and the waiver Decision Document comprise EPA's
response and decision regarding CARB's ACC II waiver request.3
This Supplemental Response to Comments (SRTC) document is a compilation of a subset
of the public comments submitted to the public docket as well as EPA responses to those
comments. In general, many public comments that EPA considers non-germane to the criteria for
1 88 FR at 88908-88910 (Dec. 26, 2023).
2 The waiver Decision Document can be found in the public docket at regulations.gov at EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292.
3 The Supplemental Response to Comments (SRTC) document can be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292.
3
-------
waiver consideration and our responses to those comments are contained in this SRTC and are
incorporated by reference into the waiver decision.
The responses in this SRTC document augment the rationale and responses to comments
in the waiver Decision Document and address comments not discussed there. To the extent there
is any confusion or apparent inconsistency between this SRTC document and the waiver
Decision Document, the waiver Decision Document itself remains the definitive statement of the
rationale for the waiver decision. This document, together with the waiver Decision Document,
should be considered collectively as EPA's response to all the significant comments submitted
on the waiver request.
II. EPA's Consideration of Additional Comments Raised
EPA has consistently interpreted CAA section 209(b) as requiring EPA to grant a waiver
unless EPA or opponents of a waiver can demonstrate that one of the criteria for a denial has
been met.4 In this context, since inception, EPA has recognized its limited discretion in
reviewing California waiver requests. Therefore, EPA's role upon receiving a request for waiver
of preemption from California has consistently been limited and remains only to determine
whether it is appropriate to make any of the three factual findings specified by the CAA, as
amended.5 If EPA cannot make at least one of the three findings, then the waiver must be
granted.
4 MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1120-21 ("The language of the statute and its legislative history indicate that California's
regulations, and California's determination that they comply with the statute, when presented to the Administrator
are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks
them."); MEMA II, 142 F.3d 449, 462-63 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("[S]ection 209(b) sets forth the only waiver standards
with which California must comply. .. . If EPA concludes that California's standards pass this test, it is obligated to
approve California's waiver application.").
5 42 U.S.C. §§7401 etseq. (1970), as amended. CAA section 202 is 42 U.S.C. § 7521 and CAA section 209 is 42
U.S.C. § 7543.
4
-------
Additionally, in previous waiver decisions, EPA has noted that CAA section 209(b)(1)
specifies particular and limited grounds for rejecting a waiver and has therefore limited its
review to those grounds.6 EPA has also noted that the structure Congress established for
reviewing California's standards is deliberately narrow, which further supports this approach.
This has led EPA to reject arguments that are not specified in the statute as grounds for denying a
waiver:
The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied unless the specific
findings designated in the statute can properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed
California requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in air quality not
commensurate with its cost or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory
power is not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209, so long as the California
requirement is consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable
Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further reduction in air
pollution in California. Thus, my consideration of all the evidence submitted concerning
a waiver decision is circumscribed by its relevance to those questions that I may consider
under section 209(b).7
EPA has received a number of comments that it believes are beyond the scope of the
three waiver criteria in CAA section 209(b)(1). This SRTC is part of the Administrator's
decision as set forth in the waiver Decision Document relating to the final decision on CARB's
waiver request for the ACC II regulations. The SRTC addresses a number of issues that have
been raised in the context of whether the ACC II regulations are consistent with CAA section
202(a) (the third waiver criterion) but in fact are beyond the narrow scope of EPA's review. This
review considers whether the opponents have met their burden of proof to demonstrate that either
(1) the requisite vehicle emission control technologies are unavailable; (2) to the extent the
technologies are unavailable, is there adequate lead time to develop such technologies; and (3)
6 See, e.g., 78 FR at 2112 (January 9, 2013); 87 FR at 14332 (March 14, 2022) (SAFE 1 Reconsideration Decision).
7 78 FR at 2115 (footnote omitted).
5
-------
whether the cost to develop and implement the vehicle emission control technologies is
unreasonable.
EPA's traditional approach is mandated by the statute. CAA section 209(b)(1)(C)
requires only that California's program be consistent with CAA section 202(a). CAA section
202(a), however, does not identify any of the additional topics raised by commenters (beyond
feasibility of vehicle technologies, lead-time, and cost to regulated entities).8 For example, while
CAA section 202(a) articulates various statutory factors that must be considered in setting motor
vehicle emissions standards, it does not require consideration of many topics raised by
commenters, such as consumer acceptance, marketability, grid reliability, charging
infrastructure, liquid fuels industry impacts, lifecycle analysis, tax revenues, or effects on
environmental justice communities. Nor do the statute's references to terms like "costs of
compliance" or "public health and welfare" mandate consideration of these other topics in the
standard-setting process.9 Thus, consistency with CAA section 202(a) does not mean California
must consider these factors, and EPA cannot deny a waiver based on these factors.
EPA recognizes that these topics may potentially be relevant to EPA's own rulemaking
process for motor vehicle emission standards. Indeed, EPA considered some of these topics in
8 As we explain in the waiver Decision Document Section III.C, the third prong requires only consistency, not
perfect compliance, with CAA section 202(a). Thus, even if a factor is mentioned in CAA section 202(a), the third
prong's consistency requirement may not require California to comply with that factor.
9 See, e.g.,MEMA /, 627 F.2d at 1117-18 ("Section 209's reference to "public health and welfare" refers only to the
impacts associated with air pollution, as opposed to the social costs of pollution control."); id. at 1118 ("Similarly,
there is no indication that Congress intended section 202's 'cost of compliance' consideration to embody 'social
costs' of the type petitioners advance. Every effort at pollution control exacts social costs. Congress, not the
Administrator, made the decision to accept those costs. Section 202's 'cost of compliance' concern, juxtaposed as it
is with the requirement that the Administrator provide the requisite lead time to allow technological developments,
refers to the economic costs of motor vehicle emission standards and accompanying enforcement procedures. It
relates to the timing of a particular emission control regulation rather than to its social implications. Congress
wanted to avoid undue economic disruption in the automotive manufacturing industry and also sought to avoid
doubling or tripling the cost of motor vehicles to purchasers. It therefore requires that emission regulations be
technologically feasible within economic parameters. Therein lies the intent of the 'cost of compliance'
requirement.").
6
-------
our recently promulgated Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later
Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles (the LMDV Multipollutant Rule).10 However, as
explained in the waiver Decision Document for this decision, EPA's role in adjudicating CAA
section 209(b) waivers is not to evaluate the overall reasonableness of California's program.
Congress intentionally designed the waiver provision such that EPA must grant the waiver unless
the Administrator can make one of the statutory findings. The statutory text, context, history, and
purpose are unmistakably clear on this point, and are further corroborated by decades of
regulatory history and caselaw.11 Commenters asking EPA to consider these additional topics
failed to persuasively address the statute and caselaw, and in most cases, failed to even recognize
the law on these points.
Nonetheless, given the considerable interest commenters displayed in these topics, EPA
is providing a summary and response to the comments on these issues, which include consumer
acceptance and marketability of zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs), impacts on the electric grid, the
availability of public charging infrastructure, costs other than vehicle technology costs (such as
consumer costs, charging infrastructure costs, electricity costs, and cost-benefit analyses), and
other topics. Although these factors are not relevant to the third prong inquiry, EPA is
nonetheless evaluating the comments as a factual matter, based on the waiver request from
CARB and the administrative record. CARB's waiver request and rulemaking record provide a
reasonable and reasonably explained analysis related to these additional topics. In most cases, the
10 89 FR 27842 (Apr. 18, 2024).
11 See, e.g., MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1124 n.56 ("[T]he Administrator has no broad mandate to assure that California's
emissions control program conforms to the Administrator's perceptions of the public interest. Absent the
contingency that he is able to make contrary findings, his role with respect to the California program is largely
ministerial."); id. at 1124 ("[W]hether the [CARB] regulations were themselves arbitrary and capricious ... is not a
question for the Administrator or this court.").
7
-------
comments are only raised skeletally and without the benefit of supporting data and analysis. In
the few cases where the comments did provide actual supporting data and analysis, EPA finds
that the opponents of the waiver did not meet their burden of proof, upon the weight of the
evidence, to demonstrate that California was unreasonable in its analysis and conclusions. Thus,
even hypothetically assuming these additional topics were relevant to the third prong inquiry,
EPA finds that the waiver opponents have failed to show that any of these additional issues
creates an inconsistency with CAA section 202(a).
A. Consumer Acceptance and Marketability of ZEVs
Comments regarding consumer acceptance and the marketability of ZEVs encompassed
several topics, which we have grouped into the following categories: consumer choice, consumer
demand and related factors, and consumer impacts and market considerations. In the following
sections, EPA summarizes comments by topic, including comments and information submitted
by CARB. In the final sub-section, EPA provides a response to these comments.
1. Consumer Choice
Many comments addressed consumer choice, that is, the availability, quantity, and
variety of vehicles from which consumers may choose in the marketplace. Some commenters
asserted that vehicle choice will be diminished by California's ZEV standards, especially in later
model years. Their arguments were generally rooted in the belief that, as stated by one
commenter, "CARB's ACC II program ... severely [limits] consumer choice in the early years
and practically [mandates] the elimination of ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicles in future
years."12 Several commenters explicitly characterized the ACC II regulations as an ICE vehicle
(ICEV) ban or ZEV mandate. Regarding natural gas and biofuels, one commenter asserted that
12 American Petroleum Institute (API), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0174, p. 15.
8
-------
CARB will not allow, for example, vehicles "powered using carbon-negative renewable natural
gas" and "deeply carbon-negative biofuels."13'14
Contrary to some commenters' claims, CARB has explained that the ACC II regulations
are not an "ICE ban" or a "ZEV mandate." CARB states that "the LEV IV regulation sets a
performance standard without specifying particular technologies, allowing flexibility in
compliance methods.... Similarly, the ZEV regulation outlines emission levels or requirements
for ZEVs without prescribing a singular technology, providing options for manufacturers to
certify all the known zero-emission platforms of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in
hybrid-electric vehicles (PHEVs), and fuel cell-electric vehicles (FCEVs) and encouraging
innovation in cost-effective strategies for meeting the zero-emission requirements."15 CARB
maintains that the ACC II regulations are performance-based, non-prescriptive, and flexible; and,
as such, the standards allow for innovation. ICE-only vehicles will continue to be driven and
bought and sold in the new and used vehicle market for many years to come, and new vehicle
sales for model year 2035 and later can include up to 20% PHEVs, which contain ICEs.
Moreover, nothing in the CARB regulations preclude a manufacturer from complying by zero-
emission ICEVs, to the extent such technologies become available in the future.
13 Transfer Flow, Inc., EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0223, p.8.
14 In addition to our general responses below about consumer choice, we further note that the comments regarding
biofuels overlap substantially with the comments regarding CARB's protectiveness determination and whether
CARB must account for lifecycle impacts. That is, combusting biofuels in internal combustion engine vehicles
produces significant tailpipe emissions, and any claims regarding such biofuels having negative or zero emissions
necessarily depend on lifecycle assessments. However, as we explain in Section III. A of the waiver Decision
Document, CARB is not required to account for lifecycle impacts (generally, or for fuels specifically) in establishing
its motor vehicle emissions standards, which properly focus on reducing emissions from motor vehicles themselves.
Moreover, we note that the CAA provides a separate program for fuels, including biofuels, see 42 USC 7545, (o),
(o)(12), as does the State of California through its Low Carbon Fuel Standard and other fuel programs. Furthermore,
as we explain in Section II.E of this document, CARB did in fact evaluate lifecycle impacts of ZEVs compared to
ICE vehicles.
15 CARB Public Hearing Response, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0227, p.7.
9
-------
Many commenters noted that the availability of new BEV, PHEV, and FCEV options is
increasing and expanding to include a variety of vehicle powertrains, models, and attributes and
features for consumers to choose from. For example, one commenter stated that "dozens of new
models in all vehicle segments are entering the market now."16 In addition, many commenters
stated that the standards are achievable within the timeframe covered resulting in expanded
choice and reduced vehicle costs, and highlighted programs intended to support low-income,
disadvantaged, and other communities burdened by transportation costs and/or inaccessibility.
For example, a commenter stated that the ACC II regulations will "help satisfy increasing market
demand for and expand the market availability of cost-effective ZEVs, which will only become
more affordable and more accessible as battery prices continue to drop."17 Furthermore,
according to CARB's comments, "by the end of model year 2021, there were already 60 ZEV
and PHEV models available, including options at lower price points and a variety of sizes."18
"Consumers can and are choosing from an increasing number of zero-emission and plug-in
hybrid models across manufacturers, with 103 distinct ZEV and PHEV models from 38 distinct
makes sold in California in 2023 nearly a 70% increase in model availability from 2019."19
Another commenter stated that strong consumer demand and choice of models are driving the
levels of ZEV adoption seen in California today.20 A commenter representing fleet owners and
operators who are seeking an increased supply of commercial ZEVs for their fleet operations
16 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0234, p.61.
17 U.S. Climate Alliance, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0116-0004, p.2.
18 CARB Public Hearing Response, p.6.
19 CARB Testimony of P.C. Brehler, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023 -0292-0046, p.l.
20 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p. 14.
10
-------
commented in support of the ACC II regulations as critical to bridging the gap between supply
and demand.21
On the production side of choice, that is, the vehicles that automobile manufacturers
("Original equipment manufacturers" or OEMs) are offering in the market, several commenters
asserted that OEMs are pulling back on ZEV production and investments whereas other
commenters stated that OEMs are ramping up production of ZEVs and/or investments. For
example, a commenter stated that "manufacturers are rolling back their prior commitments" and
that "the ACC II regulations rely on outdated OEM commitments."22 In contrast, many other
commenters point to OEMs expanding their ZEV commitments. A commenter noted that "even
companies that had previously urged caution on EV commitments are shifting towards greater
electrification."23 CARB stated that "virtually all light-duty vehicle manufacturers have made
commitments to electrify their product lines" with California leading the U.S. in ZEV and PHEV
market share, reaching "nearly 27% EV market share" in the third quarter of 2023.24 Countering
claims that the ACC II regulations depend exclusively on outdated OEM commitments, CARB
attributed increasing demand to many factors, including "regulatory requirements, advancements
in technology, a widening array of ZEV and PHEV models, manufacturer commitments, and the
State's robust infrastructure and incentives for electric vehicles."25
In its Waiver Request Support Document, CARB points to increasing vehicle choice and
consumer demand. Specifically, they state and substantiate that "ZEV technology is steadily
improving, costs are declining, manufacturer investments are expanding, and consumer demand
21 Ceres, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0176, p.l.
22 Valero Energy Corporation (Valero), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0229, p.7 of attachment A; Valero, p.2.
23 Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0199, p.50.
24 CARB Public Hearing Response, p.6.
25 Id.
11
-------
is growing. The ZEV standards can be met in the time provided."26 In addition, CARB sums up
vehicle choice as follows: "Looking to the future of electric drive technologies in the 2026 to
2035 model year timeframe, it is anticipated that there will be even greater efficiency
improvements, longer ranges, and comparable vehicle offerings and capabilities across all
passenger car and truck categories and comparable costs to conventional vehicles with internal
combustion engines."27 In the 2025 model year, CARB "projects that there will be 179 compliant
ZEV and PHEV models available."28
In response, some commenters assert that consumer choice will be diminished by the
ACC II regulations. These commenters have not provided persuasive evidence that this will be
the case. In combination with the supportive comments cited above, CARB has assessed the
existing market for ZEVs and is projecting continued growth in the ZEV market, including
vehicles with the attributes that consumers desire (e.g., range, affordability, wide range of
vehicle segments). EPA notes that while the issue of consumer choice is not within the scope of
our review under CAA section 209(b)(1), we nevertheless have assessed this issue and conclude
that, even if it were a criterion relevant to our review, that commenters have not met their burden
to produce the evidence necessary for EPA to find that the ACC II regulations are not consistent
with CAA section 202(a).
2. Consumer Demand and Related Factors
Comments related to consumer demand addressed the importance of consumers' ability
to meet their needs, satisfy their preferences, match vehicle attributes to their purchase criteria,
and purchase or lease ZEVs. For example, one commenter asserted that "ACC II flies in the face
26 CARB Waiver Request Support Document, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0034, p.50.
21 Id., p.40.
28Id., p.52.
12
-------
of consumers having the freedom to purchase the vehicles that best suit their personal needs and
those of their families."29 In addition, another commenter claimed that the ACC II regulations
are "attempting to drive consumers to purchase products they aren't ready to accept, [and] they
can't afford to purchase."30 Yet another commenter stated that "CARB's ACC IIZEV mandate is
not aligned with a reasonable expectation of the growth of consumer demand for EVs."31
Commenters also addressed specific subsets of consumers, such as rental car customers and
victims of "the devastating Camp Fire that burnt down the town of Paradise, California."32
According to those commenters, "electric cars do not meet rental customer needs [as] borne out
by recent surveys,"33 and "the citizens affected by these wildfires don't want electric vehicles."34
EPA notes the differing needs of vehicle consumers, the unique circumstances under
which people rely on their vehicles, and how diversity in needs affects demand for different
types of vehicles. That said, as with comments related to vehicle choice, these and similar
comments appear not to reflect fully the nature of the ACC II regulations. As noted in the
previous section, CARB has clarified that the ACC II regulations are not an ICE ban. The ACC
II regulations are performance-based, non-prescriptive, flexible, and allow for innovation. ICE-
only vehicles will continue to be driven and bought and sold in the new and used vehicle market
for many years to come, and up to 20% of new vehicles sold under the ACC II regulations could
be PHEVs.
29 Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0163, p.5.
30 Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0059, p.l.
31 National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0173, p.4.
32 Transfer Flow, Inc., p.7.
33 American Car Rental Association (ACRA), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0222, p.7.
34 Transfer Flow, Inc., p.7.
13
-------
We proceed with this discussion of consumer demand and related factors as follows.
First, we summarize comments related to vehicle sales and survey results. Then we summarize
comments related to vehicle attributes, including costs and costs savings for consumers, range,
and other vehicle attributes. Third, we summarize comments regarding ZEV and ZEV-related
policies, investments, and programs, and end with a short summary of comments on consumer
and market impacts. For each of these topics, we include comments and information submitted
by CARB. We close this section with EPA's response to comments on consumer issues,
a. Demand: Vehicle Sales and Surveys
A primary way in which commenters discuss demand is through ZEV sales statistics.
Several commenters provided historical ZEV sales statistics, with some using those sales
statistics to argue against the waiver and others using those statistics to argue in favor of the
waiver. Some argued that recent variability in ZEV sales, specifically dips in sales, demonstrate
that demand for ZEVs is waning. For example, one commenter concluded that "customers are
not embracing the move to electric propulsion vehicles as previously anticipated,"35 while
another stated that "customers simply do not want to buy current electric cars, which is why
those vehicles are piling up on dealer lots."36 Looking forward, another commenter asserted that
"the proposed standards 'are neither reasonable nor achievable in the timeframe covered'" and
described BEV sales assumptions as "unrealistic."37
In contrast, other commenters cited dramatic growth in ZEV sales and expectations for
continued growth. For example, "global annual EV sales climbed to over 13.6 million units in
2023, which accounted for 16% of total car purchases. This increase represents a roughly 30%
35 SEMA, p.2.
36 ACRA, p.7.
37 Valero, p. 13.
14
-------
increase from the previous year's total of 10.5 million vehicles. Overall, 2024 automotive
forecasts from AutoPacific, Cox Automotive, and S&P Global Mobility show increases in EV
sales ranging from 20%-30% for the year."38 According to one commenter, EV sales in the U.S.
outpaced the anticipated market share projected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA) for MY 2026.39 This commenter also noted that "in 2023, while the entire U.S. vehicle
market was up 13% [year-over-year], the EV market was up almost 50% [year-over-year]."40
California has the highest ZEV sales of any state. "California's adoption of ZEVs has
significantly surpassed the national market, and, in 2023, California ZEV sales were 25% of all
light-duty vehicle sales in the state."41
Importantly, none of these commenters establish and substantiate, with certainty, the path
of future sales or EV acceptance via an extension of historical observations. Indeed, another
commenter noted that "consumer sales shares ... is likely an inadequate proxy for actual
consumer interest in ZEVs ... ,"42 Instead, market penetration of new technology is likely to
"follow a S curve leading to a much more rapid pace of adoption between now and when the
ACC II regulations take hold."43 This suggests that ZEV adoption is likely to outpace predicted
sales trajectories that simply extend historical sales statistics. For example, "a recent study
published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science found that consumer
valuation of increased range and lower prices will lead EVs to being the majority of vehicles sold
by 2030" nationally, with California already leading in ZEV sales."44
38 ZETA, p.9.
39 Tesla, Inc., EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0197, p.7.
40Id., p.7.
41 Id, p.7.
42 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.49.
43 Tesla, Inc., EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0197, p.7.
44Id, p.7.
15
-------
According to CARB comments, "when CARB submitted its waiver request ... zero-
emission vehicle sales were surpassing requirements."45 Furthermore, "data from the third
quarter of 2023 show that this consumer demand continues to grow, with California ZEV and
PHEV sales reaching 26.7% of total vehicle sales."46 Furthermore, in its waiver request, CARB
demonstrates, with ZEV sales statistics, that consumer demand for ZEVs has been growing.
CARB expects that demand for ZEVs will continue to grow and expresses confidence that "ZEV
standards can be met in the time provided."47
Commenters also provided survey results in response to the waiver request. First, we
note that the breadth of survey designs (e.g., sample, size, questions, framing) is large. Second,
most commenters cited survey results to support the waiver. However, there were exceptions.
For example, a commenter stated that among business travelers "eighty-one percent of these
customers never choose to rent an electric car, and only 1% always do."48 Another commenter
cited a 2021 and 2023 survey of 1,000 automobile executives in 30 countries, which showed a
drop in estimates of new EV sales in the U.S. from 52% of the new vehicle market in 2030 to
33%.49
In contrast, in a national survey conducted in early 2022, Consumer Reports found that
"[ojverall interest in EVs is high" across all racial demographics. ... "Between 33% and 52% of
respondents (depending on racial demographics) would 'definitely' or 'seriously consider'
purchasing or leasing a ZEV as their next vehicle. Only 28% of Americans would not consider
getting an electric-only vehicle if they were to buy or lease a vehicle today. Even in rural areas,
45 CARB Testimony of P.C. Brehler, p.l.
46Id., p.l.
47 CARB Waiver Request Support Document, p.50.
48 ACRA, p.7.
49 Valero, p. 14.
16
-------
the survey showed that current interest in ZEV purchases is high, with up to 29% of rural drivers
at least seriously considering buying or leasing a ZEV."50 Among surveys of specific groups,
demand for ZEV appears to be more pronounced. For example, "94% of [Uber] drivers have
reported a positive experience with their EV ... up to 93% of them would choose an EV as their
next vehicle according to a survey of Uber drivers."51 In a survey conducted between December
2022 and February 2023, "90% of EV owners said it is 'likely' or 'very likely' that their next
purchase will be another ZEV."52 In another survey, "84% of American car dealers surveyed
agreed that electric vehicles are the future."53 Finally, in a survey-based, consumer discrete
choice experiment designed to mitigate typical concerns of stated-preference methods,54
Forsythe et al. (2023) found that when consumers' basic demands for vehicle attributes are met,
they accept or prefer BEVs to combustion vehicles.55
In its comments, CARB does not refer to survey results, but instead provided ZEV sales
data, as described above. In addition, CARB also does not refer to survey results in their Waiver
Request Support Document. Furthermore, while surveys can be informative, survey results do
not form a basis for EPA's technical decision regarding this waiver request,
b. Demand: Vehicle Attributes
Some commenters called attention to attributes of ZEVs that historically have been key
considerations for ZEV adoption, namely costs and costs savings for consumers and range. More
generally, some commenters asserted, for example, that "consumers don't want to buy electric
50 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.53.
51 ZETA, p.9.
52 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.72.
53Id., p.54.
54 Specifically, the design in Forsythe et al. (2023) mimicked the process of comparing vehicles on an automaker's
website.
55 Environmental and Public Health Organization, p.50.
17
-------
cars because they are not as convenient and desirable as comparable internal-combustion cars."56
Costs and cost savings topics include, for example, purchase price, ownership costs (e.g.,
operating, maintenance, repair), and affordability. Some commenters point to the historically
higher purchase price of ZEVs. For example, one commenter alluded to higher costs for EVs
compared to ICEVs and asserted that the ZEV requirements would "eliminate many of the
affordable vehicles currently in the market."57 Another commenter stated that "most American
households find the cost of new vehicles out of reach,"58 a situation that is further exacerbated by
high ZEV prices, high interest rates, uncertain residual values, and what another commenter
characterized as "volatility and uncertainty with used ZEVs."59 Some commenters questioned the
accuracy of ownership costs estimated by CARB, citing lower savings on ZEV operating costs,
maintenance, and repair, and higher rates of depreciation for ZEVs compared to conventional
vehicles. One commenter stated that the timing of cost parity between ZEVs and conventional
vehicles is becoming longer, citing a survey of 1,000 automobile executives in 30 countries.60
In contrast, other commenters pointed to market conditions that motivate consumer ZEV
demand, such as expectations for growing offerings of ZEVs at lower price points and a variety
of sizes (see discussion of consumer choice above), the narrowing gap between ZEV prices and
conventional vehicle prices for various vehicle types, ZEV ownership cost savings, and the value
of the market certainty provided by the ACC II regulations in spurring further ZEV demand
which in turn could bring down ZEV purchase and operating costs. For example, a commenter
noted that "providing market certainty through a sales requirement will drive investment in clean
56 ACRA, p. 18.
57 Dealership Services Direct, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0196, p.2.
58 NAD A, p.5.
59 ACRA, p.7.
60 Valero, p. 13 of attachment.
18
-------
transportation technologies and infrastructure, leading to cost reductions and increased
accessibility to clean transportation options, especially for underserved communities."61 Another
commenter stated that "ZEVs offer a lower total cost of ownership than their internal combustion
engine counterparts in a growing number of use cases. Meanwhile, electricity prices are more
stable than gasoline prices, making fuel costs in ZEVs easier to predict and budget."62 In
addition, a third commenter stated that "ZEVs are increasingly favorable from an operating cost
and total cost of ownership (TCO) perspective, a factor that is very important to U.S. and
California consumers when deciding which vehicles they want to buy."63 They cite cost of
ownership analyses conducted by Argonne National Laboratories (ANL) and the International
Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). This commenter also described a survey from 2019
and 2020 that "found very significant self-reported consumer savings on repair and maintenance.
The data from surveys of thousands of Consumer Reports members revealed that 'BEV and
PHEV owners are paying half as much as combustion vehicle owners are paying to repair and
maintain their vehicles,' with lifetime savings for ZEVs over combustion vehicles being
approximately $4,600."64 Furthermore, a June 2023 J.D. Power survey also indicated that
consumers are recognizing these savings, finding that "[t]he more miles that vehicle owners
drive, the more likely they are to consider an EV. As in prior-year studies, daily commuters
faced with higher fuel expenses are trading in their gas-powered vehicles for EVs."65
For some consumers, savings could begin with purchase price, according to other
commenters, who expect more lower priced ZEV options to come into the market as vehicle
61 CALSTART, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0224, p.l.
62 Aspen One, et al., EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0198, p.l
63 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.60.
64 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.63.
65 Id., p.61.
19
-------
choice expands. For example, "Forsythe et al. (2023) ... found that reductions in the ZEV price-
premium, which are projected to occur, 'have driven substantial increases in consumer choices of
BEV cars and SUVs over their conventional gasoline vehicle counterparts.'"66 In addition, a
commenter observed that "automakers are taking different approaches to provide more options
for differing consumer demands of lower cost and increased range," including "shorter-range
BEVs [that] can increasingly be attractive to a broader group of drivers."67 Furthermore,
Gillingham et al. (2023) concluded that "EVs can make up a large market share in the U.S. new
car market," and "there is a great deal of untapped product space for EVs in the lower price
brackets."68 Another commenter cited cost competitiveness of ZEVs with ICEVs and suggested
that cost parity on a cost of ownership basis as well as a purchase price basis is imminent due to
a number of factors including continued declines in battery cost, Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
credits, economies of scale, and increasing diversity of ZEV vehicle models.69
CARB conducted a total cost of ownership analysis for BEVs accounting for a number of
cost factors, including vehicle price, loan fees, sales taxes and registration fees, fuel costs,
maintenance costs, and a home charger capital investment for some buyers. Over 10 years,
CARB estimates that consumers will save approximately $3,200 to $8,800, with savings realized
beginning in the first year of ownership."70 In its supplemental comments, CARB described
comments that disagree with CARB's estimates of total cost of ownership as "vague and
66Id., p.61.
67 International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0169, p.5.
68 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.62.
69 ZETA, pp. 10-12.
70 CARB Public Hearing Response, p.7; California Office of the Attorney General et al. (States and Cities), EPA-
HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0235, p.26.
20
-------
unsubstantiated" and stated that commenters "provide no evidence of technological
infeasibility."71 CARB also reiterated that it has addressed such costs in its rulemaking record.72
In addition, CARB's Waiver Request Support Document states that the ACC II
regulations "ensure that emission reductions ... are permanent by imposing ZEV assurance
measures," including range requirements, durability requirements, warranty, serviceability,
charging, data requirements, and battery labeling, "to help ensure that consumers can
successfully replace their conventional vehicles with new or used ZEVs and PHEVs."73 CARB
also demonstrates that the ACC II regulations support affordability. According to CARB's
Waiver Request Support Document, manufacturers can, for example, "meet part of their
requirements by providing ZEVs at reduced prices to community mobility programs," selling
previously leased ZEVs to dealerships participating in a financial assistance program, and
"offering ZEVs at reduced prices to enhance affordable access to clean transportation."74
Regarding range, insufficient vehicle range has historically been cited as one of the ways
in which ZEVs fail to meet the needs of consumers. However, commenters note that average
ZEV range has grown, with the typical range of new ZEVs exceeding the daily needs of most
drivers on most days, and pre-purchase range concerns disappear following ZEV purchase. Some
commenters believe that range, practically and technologically, appears to no longer be an issue
- something that consumers realize after purchase. For example, "[a] study by AAA found that
once drivers own an EV, their previously held concerns (e.g., range anxiety, cost, lack of
71 California Office of the Attorney General (CARB Supplemental Comment), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023 -0292-0540,
p.17.
72 CARB, Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) (Mar. 29, 2022), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0021,
pp.86-98; ACC IIFSOR, Appendix F, Updated Costs and Benefits Analysis ("ACC IIFSOR Appendix F"), EPA-
HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0019, pp. 16-17.
73 CARB Waiver Request Support Document, p. 16.
74 CARB Waiver Request Support Document, p.54.
21
-------
charging) largely disappear. For example, 77% said they had little to no range anxiety after
owning an EV."75
Regarding vehicle range, CARB's Waiver Request Support Document states that "[t]he
median driving range of BEVs has increased from 68 miles for 2011 model year to 234 miles in
the 2021 model year. There are BEV models certified for the 2022 model year to a maximum
range of 520 miles, such as the Lucid Air. While the median range for gasoline vehicles was 403
miles, as more long-range BEVs become available the discrepancy in ranges between gasoline-
powered vehicles and BEVs is likely to narrow. ... FCEVs currently on the market have more
than 300 miles of range, ... [and] PHEV technology also continues to evolve as manufacturers
introduce different architectures and all-electric capabilities in response to consumer demand for
a more all-electric experience."76
Regarding other ZEV attributes, comments were generally positive. For example, a
commenter cited Forsythe et al. (2023), who concluded that "any perceived disadvantages of
BEVs relative to gasoline vehicles are often compensated by the BEV's improved operating cost,
acceleration, and fast-charging capabilities, particularly for BEVs with a longer range."77 More
generally, commenters asserted that "a primary reason the EV market is growing is simply
because consumers prefer the new features and technology in EVs."78 Furthermore, "when
considering the attributes consumers care about most, ZEVs are a great fit."79 Finally,
commenters assert that ZEVs satisfy Californian's preference for environmental sustainability
{i.e., the environmental performance of their vehicle), as well as the demands of California's
75 ZETA, p.7.
76 CARB Waiver Request Support Document, p.52.
77 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.51.
78 ZETA, p.7.
79 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.59.
22
-------
rural citizens.80 Consistent with these comments, CARB has documented the historical increase
in ZEV models available for sale in the U.S. and projects continued expansion of vehicle choice
under the ACC II regulations.81 In addition, CARB anticipates continued improvements in ZEV
attributes across passenger car and truck categories.82
c. Demand: Complementary Policies, Investments, and Other Programs
Here, we summarize comments related to ZEV policies, programs, and incentives as well
as other investments and programs related to ZEVs. Some commenters cast doubt on the
effectiveness of interventions and investments in supporting the ZEV market. One commenter
stated that "it is no secret that large automakers' BEV programs are losing billions each year
despite the massive financial infusion of taxpayer dollars they receive from the government and
subsidies to purchase EVs."83 Another commenter claimed that EV sales continue to drop despite
subsidies and purported—without evidence—that most consumers do not want to purchase
EVs.84 A third commenter highlighted the challenges associated with a misaligned "regulatory
regime" rather than a "broad strategy."85 Relatedly, another commenter criticized the slow
speed—approximately two years—at which funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
flowed into the market.86
In contrast, other commenters highlighted programs and investments at the Federal, State,
and local levels. Nationally, commenters expect that the passage of the BIL and IRA will
significantly spur investment in and demand for ZEVs. For example, a commenter stated that
80 E.g., Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.59; ZETA, p.20.
81 CARB Waiver Request Support Document, p.52.
82 M, p.50.
83 SEMA, p.3.
84 Engineers Labor-Employer Cooperative, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0195, p.l.
85 NAD A, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023 -0292-0052, p.2.
86 API, p. 16.
23
-------
"passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and other federal actions have already spurred more than
$150 billion domestically in private sector investments in EVs and batteries."87 In California,
"consumer incentive programs are well-utilized. ... Every year, [Clean Vehicle Rebate Project]
funding runs out due to high demand, with a lengthy waitlist for when more funding becomes
available."88 In addition, commenters noted the benefits of California's Clean Cars 4 All
program which provides incentives to help lower-income consumers to replace their old higher-
polluting vehicles with cleaner transportation.89 One commenter noted that this program provides
consumers with incentives such as "home charger incentives or prepaid charge cards [for EV
buyers]. Overall, the Clean Cars 4 All program has allocated $436 million and helped upgrade
13,000 Californian's vehicles to more cleaner options."90 In total, "California has spent well over
a decade and billions of dollars developing the infrastructure, providing incentives, and
educating consumers about ZEVs."91 Citing decades of their "programs," CARB attested to
California's progress in "improving air quality, combatting climate change, and protecting public
health," and stated that "market demand for clean transportation continues to grow."92
3. Consumer Impacts and Market Considerations
Commenters' assessments of the impacts of the ACC II regulations on consumers,
negative and positive, vary from the specific to the very general. For example, a commenter
asserted that the proposed standards would negatively impact vehicle choice and cost, noting
disadvantaged communities in particular.93 Another commenter claimed that the ACC II
87 U.S. Climate Alliance, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0116, p.2.
88 ZETA, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0199, p. 10.
89 https://ww2.arb.ea.gov/oiir~work/programs/clean~cars~4~all (last accessed December 5, 2024)
90 ZETA, p. 10.
91 Alliance for Automotive Innovation, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0182, p.5.
92 CARB Comments by L. Randolph, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0045, p.l.
93 Valero, p.6; Consumer choice, affordability, and programs for "disadvantaged" communities are addressed above.
Vehicle cost is addressed elsewhere in this document.
24
-------
regulations will lead consumers "to hold on to their older, dirtier vehicles or buy used vehicles,
defeating the intent or purpose of the legislative action."94 In response to comments received that
the specific regulations are not necessary (as a factual matter) because they may slow fleet
turnover, EPA finds that these commenters have not met their burden of proof to demonstrate
that such a result in fleet turnover will occur or that if it did occur, it would cause an increase in
emissions compared to CARB's existing ACC I regulations.95
Related to production and distribution, a commenter asserted that "under the ACC II
regulations, automakers will be forced to carefully control production" and distribution so that
Californians experience the effects of tighter inventories, including higher prices and/or less
availability in the marketplace of base model vehicles.96 Another commenter highlighted their
concerns about automotive aftermarket businesses.97 In contrast, other commenters cite growing
ZEV sales in the U.S. and conclude that "zero-emission technologies are producing significant
economic benefits that can be sustained and accelerated by the ACC II regulations, including the
creation of good-paying jobs for American workers. The ACC II regulations will also help
satisfy increasing market demand for and expand the market availability of cost-effective ZEVs,
94 Transfer Flow, Inc., p.7; As stated earlier in this document, CARB's Waiver Request Support Document states
that the ACC II program includes requirements "to help ensure that consumers can successfully replace their
conventional vehicles with new or used ZEVs and PHEVs that both meet their needs for transportation and protect
the emission benefits of the program ... ." In addition, as noted earlier in this document, commenters highlighted
California's Clean Cars 4 All program which provides incentives to help lower-income consumers replace their
older, higher polluting vehicles with newer, more cleaner options.
95 EPA further discusses issues of cost in Section III.C.4.C of the waiver Decision Document.
96 New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers (NJ CAR), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0161, pp.2-3; In addition to
commenting on impacts on Californians, NJ CAR more broadly commented on automakers steering vehicles to
CAA section 177 states. Comments related to states other than California are out the scope of the three waiver
criteria, including the third waiver criteria of whether CARB's standards are technologically feasible in terms of the
new vehicles required to be introduced into California. Further discussion of "section 177 states" can be found in
Section IV.B. of the waiver Decision Document.
97 SEMA, p.5.
25
-------
which will only become more affordable and more accessible as battery prices continue to
drop.98
Lastly, in speaking to consumer impacts and market considerations, commenters also
addressed the availability of and access to charging infrastructure, reliability of the electricity
grid, vehicle and battery production capacity, vehicle technology costs, supply chain bottlenecks,
and critical minerals.
We acknowledge the positive relationship between access to reliable charging
infrastructure and supply-side considerations. These issues, and those noted below have to some
extent already been addressed above or EPA otherwise considers them outside the scope of the
CAA section 209(b)(1) criteria set out by Congress. Comments specific to charging
infrastructure and supply-side considerations, such as critical minerals, electric grid, off-vehicle
technology costs, and production capacity, are addressed elsewhere. Furthermore, impacts on
consumer choice and demand have been addressed above. Technology feasibility and technology
cost considerations have been addressed in Section III.C.4 of the waiver Decision Document.
Market considerations such as supplier behavior, aftermarket business, labor markets, and states
other than California (e.g., CAA section 177 states), are out of scope. Similarly, comments such
as "CARB provides no compelling evidence of a market failure"99 and "the market and
innovation drive solutions to the environmental challenges"100 are also out of scope.
4. EPA Response
As explained earlier in Section II.A, consumer issues are not a factor identified in CAA
section 209(b), and therefore EPA cannot deny the waiver based on consumer considerations. As
98 U.S. Climate Alliance, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0116, p.2.
99 ACRA, p. 18.
100 SEMA, p.3.
26
-------
noted above and in EPA's waiver Decision Document, the scope of EPA's review under the
"consistency with 202(a)" criterion is limited to the considerations related to the regulated party
in CARB's ACC II regulations: the vehicle manufacturers. Therefore, the scope of review is
narrowed to whether vehicle emission control technology is available, and if not, can such
technology be developed in the lead time provided by CARB upon issuance of its regulation,
giving consideration to cost.101 Nonetheless, were EPA to consider consumer issues, EPA
believes that CARB's evaluation of these issues is reasonable and reasonably explained. While
some commenters asserted that these various consumer issues will render the ZEV program
unachievable or that the ZEV program will have negative impacts on consumers, these
commenters have not provided persuasive evidence that this will be the case as the ZEV program
is implemented. Supportive commenters attested to the positive impact that ZEVs have on
consumers, such as lower operating costs, and have provided data and analysis to support these
findings. CARB assessed consumer issues, found that consumer demand is growing, and
expressed its confidence that the market will continue to grow to support the levels of ZEVs
indicated in the ACC II regulations.102 CARB noted in its waiver request that although issues
such as consumer demand are not relevant to EPA's consideration of the waiver, the state is
pursuing a suite of complementary policies to ensure the market will be able to accommodate the
ZEV sales anticipated under the ACC II regulations.103 For example, CARB has collaborated
with numerous other state agencies and the Governor's Office of Business and Economic
101 We acknowledge that in some cases there may be overlap between the availability of vehicle technology and
certain consumer issues. For instance, if no light-duty vehicle technology is available to meet the standards, then
consumer demand for new light-duty vehicles cannot be met. However, that is clearly not the situation here, given
the existing vast array of light-duty ZEV and PHEV products and the strong trajectory toward additional product
offerings. As we explain in this response and in Section III.C of the waiver Decision Document, we fully expect the
basic market demand for light-duty vehicles to be met.
102 CARB Waiver Request Support Document, p.50.
103 Ibid, and CARB ACC IIISOR pp.25-26.
27
-------
Development to implement a ZEV Market Development Strategy that outlines how the state
agencies and stakeholders will work together to reach the state's ZEV targets. CARB described
in detail the significant levels of state funding and investments that support these efforts, as well
as public-private partnerships working to increase the ZEV market in California, for example
through consumer awareness campaigns and consumer shopping tools.104 In addition, CARB
responded at length to comments regarding consumer issues during its state rulemaking process
adopting the ACC II regulations.105 EPA again notes that while the consumer issues summarized
here are not within the scope of our review under CAA section 209(b)(1), we nevertheless have
assessed these issues and conclude that, even if it were a criterion relevant to our review,
commenters have not met their burden to produce the evidence necessary for EPA to find that the
ACC II regulations are not consistent with CAA section 202(a).
B. Grid Reliability
Some commenters noted that high-GHG grids, such as those predominantly using coal,
will significantly delay the GHG benefit of plug-in ZEVs.106 Other commenters expressed
concerns about the ability of the electric grid in California to meet the expected demand of BEVs
by 2035, although not all of these comments were limited to the situation in California.107 One of
these commenters specifically mentioned "what kind of improvements to electric transmission
and distribution infrastructure will be required to serve this increased electricity demand" and
who will pay "for these upgrades including the electric vehicle charging infrastructure necessary
to serve the additional [sic] of 1.065 million EVs every year reliably and affordably."108
104 CARB ISOR pp.25-26.
105 CARB Final Statement of Reasons, Appendix E, pp.13-20, 23-24.
106 Dealership Services Direct, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0196, p.3.
107 CEA, p.2; Transfer Flow, Inc., EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0132, pp.3, 11; API, p.12; ACRA, p.9.
108 CEA, p.2.
28
-------
The Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA) noted "[t]he electricity providers
in ZETA's membership are actively preparing for the EV transition," especially since "[ejnergy
demand is not constant, but consists of relatively predictable peaks and troughs throughout the
day."109 ZETA described several case studies from members Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE) regarding how they are preparing their grids for
future demand.110 PG&E also noted that they already provide "95% greenhouse gas-free
electricity to its customers."111 PG&E supports the ACC IIZEV program because it provides
market certainty, which puts their investment plan on firmer footing. Other commenters stated,
"Empirical data from California—which already has more than 1.8 million ZEVs on the road
also supports the readiness of the electrical grid for ZEV penetration rates following the path laid
out in ACC II."112 They continue, "Even in the service territories with the most EVs, the
observed costs have been minor. For instance, in California where EV adoption has been
markedly higher than other states, EV-related distribution upgrade costs appear minor compared
to total distribution costs. Despite the fact EVs are often more concentrated in many
neighborhoods and distribution circuits, California utilities collectively spent less than 0.03% of
their total distribution-related expenses on distribution system upgrades associated with
residential EV adoption."
In its waiver request, CARB noted "[e]ven if concerns about California's electrical grid
were relevant to whether the State is entitled to a waiver for its vehicle emission standards
(which CARB maintains they are not), any concerns about the national grid are irrelevant to
109 ZETA, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023 -0292-0199, p. 13.
110 ZETA, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0199, pp.38-45.
111 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0167, p.2.
112 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p. 17.
29
-------
whether California is entitled to a waiver and therefore outside the scope of EPA's waiver
evaluation. Nevertheless, CARB addressed these issues in its rulemaking."113
CARB has demonstrated that electric power sector resource adequacy, reliability, and
resiliency have been adequately addressed for the anticipated impacts of the ACC II regulations.
Within the ACC IIFSOR, Appendix A, CARB stated that California's electric grid will be
capable of meeting additional demand from ACC II and that this is supported by the data and
studies cited within the CARB Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Analysis
(RtC-DEA).114
CARB estimated that the ACC II regulations will result in approximately 12 million
BEVs being registered in California by 2035.115 The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) study referenced by CARB found sufficient electric power sector resource adequacy to
support 24 million LDV, 200,000 MDV, and 150,000 HDV BEVs by 2028, far exceeding
CARBs estimated BEV share due to the ACC II regulations.116 In addition, the PNNL study
found that resource adequacy can be further doubled via managed charging.117 The findings
regarding managed charging were similar to results of the recent U.S. Department of Energy
113 CARB Public Hearing Response, p. 10.
114 California Air Resources Board, "Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of Comments
and Agency Response, Appendix A - Summary of Comments to the Overall Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations
and Agency Responses." Agenda Item No.: 22-10-1, August 25, 2022.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/defauit/files/barcu/regact/2022/accii/fsorappa.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2024)
115 California Air Resources Board. Master Response 1 - Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental
Analysis - Prepared for the Advanced Clean Cars II Program. August 24, 2022.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/accii/acciirtcl.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2024)
116 Kintner-Meyer, Michael, S. Davis, S. Sridhar, D. Bhatnagar, S. Majserejian, and M. Ghosal. 2020. Electric
Vehicles at Scale - Phase I Analysis: High EV Adoption Impacts on the Western U.S. Power Grid. Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory. July. https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/EV-AT-
SCALE .1. IMPACTS finat.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2024)
117 Ibid.
30
-------
(DOE) Transportation Electrification Impact Study cited by EPA within analyses supporting the
LMDV Multipollutant Rule.118
CARB cited studies showing that the necessary build-out of additional generation
capacity would be more gradual than previous electricity sector growth in California and that the
additional capacity could be achieved primarily through building increased renewable
generation.119 In addition, CARB provided specific examples of policies developed by the
California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Independent System Operator (CAISO)
and specific utility investments approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
that optimize grid resources, maintain grid reliability, and provide reasonable rates for residential
electric vehicle charging as the ACC II regulations are implemented.120 CARB also cited CPUC
118 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Kevala Inc., and U.S.
Department of Energy. Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study: Preparing the Grid for
Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles. DOE/EE-2818, U.S. Department of Energy, 2024.
https://www.energv.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/2024.03.18 NKEL LBNL Kevala DOE Multi-State
Transportation Electrification Impact Sti KET.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2024); EPA. Multi-
Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles - Regulatory
Impact Analysis. Chapter 5.4 - Grid Reliability. Document No. EPA-420-R-24-004. March 2024.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi?Dockev=P1019VPM.pdf. (last accessed December 5, 2024)
119 U.S. DRIVE. 2019. Summary Report onEVs at Scale and the U.S. Electric Power System. U.S. Driving
Research and Innovation for Vehicle Efficiency and Energy Sustainability (DRIVE). November 2019.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f69/GITT%20ISATT%20EVs%20at%20Scaie%20Grid%20Snmm
ary%20Report%20FINAL%20Nov20.1.9.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2024); Matteo Muratori. et al., 2021. "The
rise of electric vehicles—2020 status and future expectations." Prog. Energy 3, 022002. March 25.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2516-1083/abe0ad/meta (last accessed December 5, 2024); Abhyankar,
Nikit, Umed Paliwal, Taylor McNair, David Wooley, Michael O'Boyle, and Amol Phadke. 2021. Powering
America's Clean Economy: A Supplemental Analysis of the 2035 Report. University of California, Berkeley
Goldman School of Public Policy. https://energyiniiovation.org/wp-eontent/iiptoads/2021/04/2030-Report-
FINAL.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2024).
120 California Energy Commission. Draft Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Plan (ZIP). Publication Number:
CEC-600- 2022-054. April 2022. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/600-2022-054-REV.pdf
(last accessed December 5, 2024); California Independent System Operator. 20-year Transmission Outlook: CA
ISO's 20-Year Outlook. January 31, 2022. http://www.caiso.com/InitiativeDocnments/20-
YearTransmissionOutlook-Mav2Q22.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2024); California Public Utilities Commission.
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue Electric Integrated Resource Planning and Related Procurement
Processes. May 14, 2020. https://docs.cpnc.ca.gov/PiiblishedDocs/Pnblished/G000/M337/K641/337641522.pdf (last
accessed December 5, 2024); California Public Utilities Commission. Decision Adopting 2021 Preferred System
Plan. Rulemaking 20-05-003. December 22, 2021.
31
-------
policies to mitigate the impacts of public safety power shutoff (PSPS) events on vehicle
charging, including the potential for using microgrid deployment, grid-independent EV charging
stations, backup electricity generation and use of grid battery storage.121
As explained above, grid reliability is not a vehicle technology nor is it a factor identified
in CAA section 202(a), as referenced in the third waiver criterion, and therefore EPA cannot
deny the waiver based on grid reliability considerations, nor have commenters set forth a rubric
by which to measure such reliability. Nonetheless, even were EPA to consider grid reliability,
EPA believes that CARB's evaluation of this issue is reasonable and reasonably explained. In
EPA's judgment, CARB carefully considered the increased electricity demand potentially
resulting from its program, the resources necessary to meet that demand, and the impacts of
meeting that demand across the electricity sector, including specifically on grid reliability.
Moreover, CARB and supporting commenters identified corroborating evidence from
organizations with expertise in and responsibility for the electric grid in California, including
PG&E, SCE, CEC, CAISO, and CPUC, including relevant data, analysis, and policies. CARB's
analysis, moreover, is consistent with recent analysis from Federal agencies with relevant
expertise, including EPA, PNNL, and DOE. By contrast, opponents to the waiver failed to
adduce any concrete data or analysis regarding the impacts of the ACC II regulations in
California, but instead generally relied on national-level assertions and speculative assertions and
fears about what might possibly happen in the future. Particularly in light of the robust showing
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M449/K173/4491738Q4.pdf (last accessed December 5,
2024); California Independent System Operator. 2022-2023 Transmission Planning Process Unified Planning
Assumptions and Study Plan. June 30, 2022. http://www.caiso.com/InitiativeDocuments/FinalStudvPlan-2022-
2023TransmissionPlanningProcess.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2024).
121 California Public Utilities Commission. Decision 20-06-017: Decision Adopting Short-Term Actions to
Accelerate Microgrid Deployment and Related Resiliency Solutions. June 17, 2020.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M340/K748/34Q748922.pdf (last accessed December 5,
2024).
32
-------
provided by the State and supporting commenters, the opponents' assertions fail to demonstrate
that grid reliability issues—to the extent they are relevant at all—create inconsistency with CAA
section 202(a).
C. Charging Infrastructure
Comments regarding charging infrastructure encompassed a few topics, including the
availability and accessibility of charging, the reliability of charging, and the quality of the
charging experience. We summarize these comments below, and then provide a response which
includes information submitted by CARB related to charging infrastructure.
Comments related to availability and accessibility of charging addressed the number of
charging stations and ports, distribution of and access to charging, and investments in and
construction of charging infrastructure. In addition, comments addressed both public and private
charging. Regarding public charging, commenters discussed the growing demand for public
charging and the pace at which investments yield charging infrastructure. Commenters also
addressed access to chargers, including their views on either the feasibility or infeasibility of at-
home charging for different households, with some commenters highlighting affordability and
equity. For example, some commenters expressed concerns regarding availability and
accessibility of charging, which one commenter summed up as follows: "Every discussion I have
with consumers centers around three concerns: refueling limitations, the availability of charging
points, and affordability."122
Regarding demand for charging, a commenter stated that "public charging networks
remain unable to keep up with charging demand."123 Similarly, citing Edison Electric Institute's
122 NAD A, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023 -0292-0052, p.2.
123 Alliance for Automotive Innovation, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0182, p.4.
33
-------
conclusion that a charging infrastructure gap will result despite significant planned investments,
another commenter stated that "California's petition does not adequately address the impact of
the proposed waiver on public charging demand."124 Similarly, "the Alliance for Automotive
Innovation has also found that an infrastructure gap exists, stating that 'nearly 1.1 million more
public chargers . . . will need to be installed to satisfy the necessary infrastructure estimate. This
means between the end of the third quarter 2023 and December 31, 2030, 414 chargers need to
be installed every day, for the next 7.2 years.'"125 They continued, concluding that "the pace of
investment in charging infrastructure is woefully inadequate to support the demand required to
meet the ACC II mandates."126 This sentiment was echoed by the another commenter, stating
that "CARB does not explain how California can possibly achieve this massive expansion."127
Relatedly, a commenter asserted "there is significant uncertainty regarding the technology and
infrastructure readiness needed to support the ACC II regulations within the stated timeframe,"
also claiming charging infrastructure funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is slow to be
realized.128 Another commenter suggested that "spending hundreds of billions of dollars to
install non-existent EV infrastructure and offer subsidies to incentivize consumers to abandon
cost-efficient ICE vehicles" makes little sense given that "ICE infrastructure is already in
place."129
Regarding the construction and build out of charging infrastructure, one commenter noted
that its "members are ... experiencing firsthand how challenging it is to plan and build out
124 NAD A, p.6.
125 Id., p.6.
126Id., p.4.
127 ACRA, p. 11.
128 API, p. 15.
129 SEMA, p.5.
34
-------
sufficient charging capacity."130 According to another commenter, households also face
challenges regarding charging. While home charging is feasible for many households, "many
[others] do not have garages for home charging or easy access to public charging stations."131
Relatedly, a commenter stated that "[m]ost current EV buyers are affluent single-family
homeowners who can both afford the higher up-front purchase cost of EVs and have ready
access to reliable, low-cost, and convenient home charging. Affluent single-family homeowners
might make up most new car buyers, but the transition to 100 percent ZEVs in ACC II requires
not just 'most new car buyers' but 'all new car buyers.'"132 Contrasting wealthier home owners
with lower income renters, another commenter asked the EPA "to address the systemic inequity
and energy injustice issues embedded in this waiver request that are beyond the financial burden
that will be caused."133 They also stated that "the location of charging infrastructure tends to
benefit the wealthier, whiter, male demographic" and that "white-majority census block groups
were 1.5 times more likely to have access to public charging stations compared to Black- and
Latino-majority census block groups."134
A few comments were received regarding the reliability of chargers and the quality of the
charging experience. For example, a commenter stated that "long lines, complaints of unreliable
stations, and too few stations throughout California and other states are very real concerns for
current and prospective ZEV owners."135 Similarly, another commenter asserted, based on a
130 ACRA, p. 11.
131 Valero, p.6 of the attachment.
132 Alliance for Automotive Innovation, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023 -0292-0182, p.4.
133 CEA, p. 3.
134Id., p.3.
135 Alliance for Automotive Innovation, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0182, p.4.
35
-------
Wall Street Journal article, that "up to 40% of the public chargers may be inoperable at any given
time."136
In contrast, many commenters expressed confidence that the charging infrastructure in
California will continue to scale up on a pace necessary to support the ACC II regulations. A
commenter stated that "infrastructure buildout in California and nationwide is occurring and will
accelerate."137 They also stated, "Empirical data from California shows that the State's charging
network is robust and growing, and that the electric grid will be able to handle ACC II's
requirements."138 Furthermore, "the buildout of charging and grid infrastructure can occur at the
pace and scale needed to support expanded vehicle electrification, and any arguments to the
contrary are unreasonably pessimistic and inconsistent with both economic theory and historical
precedent."139 Similarly, another commenter stated that "industry is continuing to rapidly build
out EV charging capacity both as a result of private investment and with support from billions of
dollars in federal funding."140
Referencing charging infrastructure deployment supported by BIL and IRA programs, a
commenter stated, "Complementary policies that encourage vehicle manufacturers to transition
to EVs sends market signals to the charging industry that provide the certainty needed to make
proactive infrastructure and manufacturing investments." 141 According to another commenter,
complementary policies include "offering state-level incentives that can be combined with
federal tax credits for the purchase and installation of electric vehicle (EV) chargers, leveraging
136 ACRA, p. 11.
137 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.3.
138 Id. p.35.
139 Id. p.46.
140 ZETA, p.46.
141 Id. p.46.
36
-------
investments through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure [NEVI] program to expand
public charging availability, working with utilities to expand investments in ZEV
infrastructure..and establishing EV-ready requirements to ensure new housing and parking
facilities will accommodate EV charging infrastructure."142 In addition, a commenter cited Atlas
Public Policy's estimate that $67 billion dollars in charging infrastructure investments had been
announced by the public, private, and utility sectors.143 Furthermore, "analyses commissioned by
NRDC [the Natural Resources Defense Council] and performed by Atlas Public Policy and Dean
Taylor Consulting found that there is sufficient funding available to support the charging
infrastructure needed in California over the next five years ... With the regulatory certainty
provided by ACC II, investment is expected to continue to increase."144 Relatedly, this
commenter noted that "California's previous standards have already sent a strong signal to the
market to undertake the infrastructure investments needed to accommodate a gradual rise in
vehicle electrification."145 Furthermore, "[a]n influential study by Li eial. (2017), which
included data from California, found that 'EV demand and charging station deployment give rise
to feedback loops' and that 'subsidizing either side of the market will result in an increase in
both EV sales and charging stations.'"146
Regarding access to public and private charging, a commenter stated that "the majority of
charging needs will be ultimately met through at-home or near-home charging" but also "a
robust public charging network" is required, "which the sector is already deploying."147
142 U.S. Climate Alliance, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0116, p.l.
143 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.35.
144M, p.37.
145 Id., p.46.
146Id., p.47.
147 ZETA, p.45.
37
-------
Specifically, the Inflation Reduction Act Section 30C Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling
Property Tax Credit targets "investments toward non-urban and lower-income residents,
[incentivizing] individuals and commercial operators to install charging stations at their homes
and in publicly-accessible locations. Retailers, local businesses, and commercial fleet operators
can utilize the credit to offset the costs of installing charging infrastructure on their property,
enabling them to attract and retain customers."148 Noting federal, state, and industry charging
investments and deployment efforts, this commenter further highlighted specific efforts to
"[recognize] the diverse demographics, landscapes, and types of communities throughout the
United States," to bring "ubiquity and visibility... to national EVSE network deployment", and
to "put together separate toolkits to guide EVSE deployment in both urban and rural areas."149
This includes multiple efforts underway to help EV drivers locate and access charging
infrastructure."150 Taken together, these efforts "will lead to significant buildout of EV charging
in communities, at homes and businesses, and along high-traffic highway corridors."151
On the topics of charging reliability and the quality of the charging experience, one
commenter noted that "drivers are interested in how quickly they can refuel their vehicles" and
highlighted that "ZEVs have real advantages that should not be underestimated."152 For example,
"drivers with access to a garage or dedicated overnight parking spot may simply charge at
home."153 ZEVs also "have the meaningful advantage of refueling at a far wider array of
locations than gasoline stations."154 In addition, with increasing numbers of chargers available in
148 ZETA, p.48.
149Id., p.47.
150Id., p.48.
151 Id., p.48.
152 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.64.
153 Id., p.64.
154Id., p.65.
38
-------
places where drivers otherwise spend their time, "drivers can simply plug in and charge at a
variety of locations where they would naturally park their vehicle for long periods of time."155
Further, this commenter stated that "most [vehicle] trips are well below the average ZEV range,"
and "recent research has shown that 90% of U.S. vehicle trips could be completed in vehicles
with ... range well below the capabilities of the current average [ZEVs]."156
As discussed above in this section, it is important to note again that the charging issues
summarized here are not within the scope of EPA's waiver review under CAA section 209(b)(1).
Nevertheless, if these issues were relevant to our review, EPA finds that commenters have not
persuasively argued that charging infrastructure will be an impediment to compliance with the
ZEV regulations.
In considering the comments on charging infrastructure, we have assessed the technical
record that CARB has developed in support of the ACC II waiver request. In its adoption of the
ACC II regulations, CARB maintained that ZEV infrastructure issues were outside the scope of
its state rulemaking and impacts assessment; nevertheless, CARB documented at length the
comprehensive set of complementary policies, including charging infrastructure development,
that many California agencies are committed to implementing to ensure a successful ZEV
market.157 CARB discussed the many public and private investments and other actions being
taken to accelerate charging infrastructure in California,158 and that it coordinates with CEC and
CPUC, which have the primary roles in implementing programs and investments to build out the
state's infrastructure network. For example, CEC is the state agency responsible for assessing
155 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.65.
156 Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.64.
157 CARB ACC II Initial Statement of Reasons, p.24.
158 Ibid, pp.26-30.
39
-------
charging infrastructure needs in California and tracking progress on planned public investments
to ensure that the state's charging infrastructure goals are met. CARB discussed the many
sources of public investments supporting charging infrastructure deployment, including state
funding, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and Electrify America's commitment to infrastructure
funding in California. CARB stated that large private investments are also being made by
charging providers and automakers, which will contribute to meeting the state's charging
infrastructure goals. CARB expected that private investments will continue to grow with ZEV
demand and points out that the ZEV regulation provides further incentive to both private and
public entities to further develop the necessary charging infrastructure. CARB also provided
detailed responses to comments received during its state rulemaking process on the availability
of charging infrastructure.159 In addition, CARB noted the "continued expansion of California's
charging and hydrogen fueling network as a driver of the growing number of ZEV and PHEV
models."160 CARB concluded that "the State investments and programs currently underway are
expected to make strong contributions towards addressing infrastructure growth for ZEV drivers
in a manner that complements private investments and works to ensure convenient charging
access for all California drivers."161
As explained above, charging infrastructure is not a vehicle emission control technology
nor is it a factor identified in CAA section 209(b)(1), and therefore EPA cannot deny the waiver
based on charging considerations. Nonetheless, even were EPA to consider charging availability,
EPA believes that CARB's evaluation of this issue is reasonable and reasonably explained. In
EPA's judgment, CARB carefully considered the increased demand for charging infrastructure
159 CARB Initial Statement of Reasons, Appendix E, p.20.
160 CARB Waiver Request Support Document, pp.49-50.
161 Ibid. p.30.
40
-------
needed under the ACC II regulations and the resources necessary to meet that demand over time.
Since the time of CARB's state rulemaking, when it conducted its assessment of charging
infrastructure development in the state, California has further increased its investment in the
accelerated deployment of ZEV infrastructure.162 Moreover, CARB and supporting commenters
identified corroborating evidence from organizations with expertise in and responsibility for
charging infrastructure development in California, including CEC and CPUC, and included
relevant data and analysis to support their findings. Furthermore, CARB's assessment is
consistent with recent analysis from Federal agencies with relevant expertise, including EPA,163
DOE, the Joint Office for Energy and Transportation, and National Laboratories,164 which have
found that, given the significant and accelerated public and private investments occurring,
charging infrastructure development is progressing on a pace to meet the needs of anticipated
ZEV demand. By contrast, opponents to the waiver failed to adduce any concrete data or analysis
regarding how charging infrastructure in California would be insufficient to support the ACC II
regulations, but instead generally relied on speculative assertions about what might possibly
happen in the future. In light of the robust showing provided by the State and supporting
commenters, the opponents' assertions fail to demonstrate that charging availability issues—to
the extent they are relevant at all—create inconsistency with CAA section 202(a).
I). Costs Other than Vehicle Technology Costs
162 California Energy Commission, "CEC Approves $1.9 Billion Plan to Expand Zero-Emission Transportation
Infrastructure, February 14, 2024. Accessed August 6, 2024, at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2024-02/cec-
approves-19-biHion-plan-expand-zero-emission-transportation-infrastnictiire (last accessed December 5, 2024).
163 89 FR 28013, April 18, 2024.
164 Wood et al. "The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure," 2023. https://driveelectric.gov/files/2030-charging-network.pdf (last accessed August 6, 2024). See
e.g., p.viii, "Public and private investments in publicly accessible charging infrastructure have accelerated in recent
years. If sustained with long-term market certainty grounded in accelerating consumer demand, these public and
private investments will put the United States on a path to meeting the infrastructure needs simulated in this report."
41
-------
Several commenters raised concerns on aspects of cost that are not vehicle technology
costs. EPA acknowledges and responds to these comments in this section, even though they are
not within the scope of EPA's evaluation of the waiver request.
Commenters noted wide availability of ZEVs available today in all light- and medium-
duty vehicle classes, many offering a favorable total cost of ownership and at a wide range of
price points; further, commenters have noted that ZEV prices are decreasing and are expected to
continue decreasing to attain cost and/or price parity with many similar ICEVs within the general
time frame of the ACC II regulations, especially when considering the effect of the IRC 30D
clean vehicle credit and IRC 45W clean commercial vehicle tax credits for eligible vehicles.165
One commenter stated that "CARB did not give 'appropriate consideration' to the costs
of ACC II's ZEV rule, stating that CARB "underestimated some costs and ignored others that
will predictably result from the rule," and "failed to reasonably weigh the rule's costs against its
benefits." The commenter also asserted that fiscal year losses reported by automakers for their
electric car operations "already exceed the costs CARB expects for the industry as a whole."166
EPA disagrees that CARB did not give appropriate consideration to costs. In a manner consistent
with the consideration of cost under CAA section 202(a), CARB performed an estimate of costs
to manufacturers. The commenter instead has cited other aspects of cost, stating the position that
ZEVs have increased maintenance and repair costs and a higher purchase cost, that subsidies will
not be sufficient, and that CARB did not account for infrastructure costs or higher electricity
costs in California and in CAA section 177 states. The commenter also alleged that if CARB had
considered such factors, the cost would be too high and would outweigh the benefits. However,
I® ZETA. pp.10-12; Environmental and Public Health Organizations, pp.61-62; ICCT, p.2.
166 ACRA, p. 14.
42
-------
as explained previously, commenter's assertions as to higher purchase cost, maintenance and
repair costs, sufficiency of subsidies or lack thereof, infrastructure costs, and higher electricity
costs are not questions of vehicle technology cost to manufacturers and so are not germane to
EPA's evaluation of the waiver in the context of CAA section 202(a). Fiscal year losses reported
by manufacturers and attributed to ZEV technology research and development are not directly
comparable to the cumulative industry costs estimated by CARB, nor are they indicative of per-
vehicle costs for ZEV technology over the long term. Commenter's examples of manufacturer
losses per vehicle are not credible because they are based on large capital and research
investments being amortized over a short period of initial production, which is not a standard
accounting practice for assessing the profitability of a vehicle line. Also, as explained above, a
cost-benefit analysis is not a requirement in assessing consistency with CAA section 202(a).
A commenter stated that "consumer cost impacts may not be adequately addressed by
CARB," pointing to a study on levelized cost of driving (LCOD) that indicated that some ICEVs
and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) have a lower LCOD than a 400-mile BEV.167 Again, EPA
notes that consumer costs are not within the scope of this review. EPA also notes that the cost
analysis provided by CARB in support of its waiver request includes consideration of costs
associated with ICEVs and HEVs as well as a number of ZEV configurations. The commenter's
reference to an LCOD metric is not directly comparable to the per-vehicle manufacturer costs
estimated by CARB. Further, it is not unexpected that the 400-mile BEV cited by the
commenter, which has a particularly long driving range and larger battery compared to many
ZEVs on the market today and in CARB's analysis, might have a relatively high initial cost. The
commenter has not shown that the cited information invalidates CARB's per-vehicle
167 API, p. 16.
43
-------
manufacturer cost estimate which pertains to a fleet consisting of a variety of ZEV and non-ZEV
vehicles.
Some commenters alleged that EVs have higher maintenance and repair costs than
ICEVs.168 In support of this position, one commenter asserted a connection to auto rental firm
Hertz recently choosing to reduce its fleet of EVs.169 In contrast, supportive commenters often
cited operational cost savings and lower maintenance and repair costs for ZEVs.170 As explained
previously, consumer costs are not within the scope of this review. EPA also notes that the
commenter's assertion—that Hertz's decision to reduce its EV fleet was the result of higher
maintenance and repair costs—conflicts with press reports and company statements. These
reports indicate a number of factors contributed to Hertz's decision, many of which are unrelated
to repair and maintenance cost, such as Tesla's decision to reduce its new vehicle prices.171 Even
if the Hertz decision had been based solely on maintenance and repair costs, the commenter did
not indicate how this observation would quantitatively impact the validity of CARB's estimates
of the cost of ZEV control technology to manufacturers.
Another commenter stated that vehicle-to-grid (V2G) savings that were assessed by
CARB are too speculative to include.172 Again, to the degree that V2G savings impact consumer
cost and not cost to the manufacturer, this topic is not within the scope of EPA's review.
Nonetheless, EPA is aware of the potential for V2G to improve the integration of ZEVs with the
grid, manage electricity demand, and provide income to consumers who choose to participate in
168 Valero, p. 17; ACRA, p. 15; Illinois Corn Growers Association, et al. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0185, p. 14.
169 Valero, p. 17.
170 Aspen One, et al., p. 1; Environmental and Public Health Organizations, p.63; ZETA, p.21.
171 For example, see Ewing, J., "Hertz Will Shrink Electric Fleet After Being Burned by Tesla's Price Cuts," The
New York Times, January 11, 2024.
172 ACRA, pp. 17-18.
44
-------
V2G programs. The commenter provided no persuasive evidence to show that it is unreasonable
for CARB to expect that V2G technology has these advantages and is a relevant consideration in
a cost analysis that covers the timeframe of the program. While the precise degree of potential
income from V2G may be uncertain, the commenter did not establish that it is more appropriate
to assign no benefit at all than to assign a reasonable estimate, nor that CARB's estimate is
unreasonable.
Several additional commenters focused on categories of costs which are not vehicle
technology costs. A commenter argued that CARB did not "adequately address the costs
associated with infrastructure development or the procurement of raw materials."173 Two
commenters cited the possibility of decreased tax revenue in California and/or CAA section 177
states resulting from a decrease in gasoline sales.174 Another commenter stated that CARB did
not give appropriate consideration to a number of cost topics including increased price of new
vehicles, cost of grid and charging infrastructure, impacts on low-income and disadvantaged
communities, costs to the in-state fossil fuel industry, cost of abatement of polluting industries
that choose to move out of state, increased risk of wildfire, and cost of compensation for loss of
property use and investment-backed expectations that they characterize as regulatory taking.175
EPA notes again that these costs are not germane to the issue of EPA's consideration of
the waiver request as they are not within the scope of the costs that must be considered under
CAA section 202(a). Specifically, although the Administrator has the discretion to consider a
variety of cost impacts, CAA section 202(a) (and accordingly CARB's per-vehicle cost
173 Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0058, p.5.
174 API, p. 16.; ACRA p. 17.
175 American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0226, p.22. EPA notes that
this issue is addressed in Section IV.E of the waiver Decision Document.
45
-------
estimates) concerns the cost imposed on regulated parties, such as auto manufacturers, and not
non-regulated parties such as tax collection authorities, state legislatures, the fossil fuel industry,
electric grid operators, charging infrastructure providers, or members of specific communities. In
addition, even if these cost topics were germane, commenters have largely not provided
quantification of such costs, nor shown that inclusion of these costs, to the extent such costs may
or may not result from the program, would render CARB's cost estimates invalid or inconsistent
with CAA section 202(a). Regarding effects of potentially decreased tax revenue from gasoline
sales, EPA notes that the first commenter also acknowledged that CARB, in its waiver request,
had analyzed and considered the potential impacts on employment and reduced government
spending resulting from reduced tax.176
A commenter cited higher purchase costs of EVs and stated the position that such higher
costs would continue in years to come, in part because of its contention that manufacturers are
partnering with Chinese suppliers that would render their production ineligible for subsidies.177
However, EPA notes that although manufacturers are free to partner with suppliers that reduce or
eliminate their IRA tax credit eligibility if they see an advantage in doing so, there is little
evidence that manufacturers are commonly doing so given the significant value of the credits.
Indeed, economic theory indicates that manufacturers would rationally act to maximize the value
of the tax credits they can obtain. Moreover, manufacturers have broadly demonstrated
responsiveness to the availability of the credits by publicly announcing investments in new or
upgraded U.S. facilities and moving to source materials from North America to take advantage
176 API, p. 17.
177 Valero, p. 16.
46
-------
of IRC 30D and 45X, as well as increasing the availability of leasing in order to take advantage
of IRC 45W.178
The same commenter also disputed the comparability of the used ZEV market to the used
ICEV market, citing for example lower used ZEV values and fear of battery replacement cost,
which commenter contends will cause ZEVs to be less attractive to buyers particularly on the
used vehicle market.179 However, the commenter has not established that the need for battery
replacement in light-duty vehicles will be a common occurrence, nor that a fear of such an event
or of lower resale values will persist, as consumers gain more experience with ZEVs. The
commenter also has not considered that many factors are likely to contribute to current lower
resale prices of ZEVs, including transitory factors such as the degree of average consumer
experience with ZEVs and the dynamic state of the ZEV industry in which technology is
advancing rapidly and price competition is affecting new vehicle prices. The commenter has not
provided data or evidence to support the belief that these factors will continue to be an issue over
the course of the ACC II regulations.
E. Other Comments
One commenter alleged that CARB failed to consider alternative lower-emission LEV
fleet options that the commenter felt would have a lower cost or better feasibility.180 However,
EPA notes that it is not within the scope of EPA's evaluation of the waiver request to consider
alternative designs for the ACC II regulations. EPA's evaluation of the waiver request considers
the specific stringency levels and program design decisions CARB has made and evaluates them
in the context of the three prongs. The question of whether or not CARB could have selected an
178 89 FR 27852, April 18, 2024.
179 Valero, p. 16.
180 AFPM, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023 -0292-0226, p.23.
47
-------
alternative policy design or level of stringency is not relevant to EPA's waiver decision. EPA
additionally notes that CARB did in fact consider several alternatives in the development of its
ACC II regulations. For example, CARB notes in its supplemental comments that it "considered
and rejected a low-carbon fuel alternative," and "analyzed alternatives with less stringent ZEV
sales requirements and an alternative with no LEV regulation updates."181
Some commenters discussed issues concerning the CAA section 177 states' adoption of
the California ZEV program. One commenter expressed concerns about the feasibility of
meeting the ZEV standards in section 177 states that adopt the CARB program, including
concerns that section 177 states lack the level of supportive policies and incentives that exist in
California to support the ZEV market, that charging infrastructure will be insufficient, and that
the ZEV market will not develop on a pace necessary to meet the ZEV standards.182 Another
commenter discussed the potential for "market distortions" which it believed could occur if auto
manufacturers allocate EVs primarily to section 177 states, while restricting EV supply in non-
section 177 states where there may be more consumer demand.183 Another commenter
mentioned section 177 states in making an argument that the ACC II regulations would reduce
renewable fuel consumption "across a vast swathe of the United States."184 In response, EPA
notes that consideration of the applicability of ACC II regulations in section 177 states is beyond
the scope of the EPA waiver review process. We further explain this in Section IV.B of the
waiver Decision Document.
181 California Supplemental Comments, p.20.
182 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0182, p.2.
183 NAD A, pp.3-4.
184 Illinois Corn Growers Association, etal. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0185, p.36.
48
-------
A commenter also raised the potential for a mismatch between the ACC IIZEV standards
and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS)
requirement to increase renewable fuels content, stating the view that increasing numbers of
ZEVs in California and CAA section 177 states would amount to a reduction in renewable fuel
use, demand for which the commenter believes could not be compensated by demand from other
industries, and which the commenter believes would be against Congress' intent to "increase"
production of renewable fuels.185 As discussed further in Section IV.E of the EPA's waiver
Decision Document, nothing in CAA section 209(b) requires EPA to consider consistency with
the RFS program in deciding whether to grant a waiver. EPA therefore does not consider this
comment to be germane to the waiver proceeding. Moreover, EPA's most recent RFS rule
mandated increasing nationally applicable volumes of renewable fuels.186
Another commenter expressed concern about the ZEV program's impacts on the
petroleum industry, stating that the standard of 100 percent new light-duty vehicle ZEV sales by
MY 2035 "necessitates the complete electrification of the transportation sector, and also forcing
the phase-out of oil and gas production and refinery industries."187 However, EPA notes that the
waiver is not concerned with a national ZEV program but a California program, and even were
the California program to result in 100 percent ZEVs in California, this would not constitute
"complete electrification of the transportation sector" nor would it force the "phase-out of oil and
gas production and refinery industries," as the program would not apply to the majority of the
U.S. Even considering adoption of the ZEV program by CAA section 177 states—again, not
within the waiver consideration scope—the remainder of the U.S. would remain under the
185 Illinois Corn Growers Association, etal., p.36.
186 88 FR 44468 (July 12, 2023).
187 AFPM, p. 10.
49
-------
federal program, which does not mandate ZEVs. Although less oil and gas production might be
needed to supply California vehicles, the oil and gas production and refinery industries within
California and elsewhere would continue to be able to operate and provide products for use
elsewhere in the U.S. and overseas. Further, the sales target of 100 percent ZEVs can include up
to 20 percent PHEVs, which continue to use oil and gas products. Also, the ZEV program
applies to sales of new vehicles; the on-road fleet would turn over only gradually as vehicles age
out of the fleet, meaning that significant demand for oil and gas would continue even after 2035.
Another commenter asserted that approving the waiver would cause manufacturers to
build a single national fleet that meets stricter California standards, which in the commenter's
view would mean that "the vehicles available to Ohioans are not governed by Ohio's standards or
the Federal government's standards, but rather by California's standards."188 The commenter
further asserted that differences in income between Ohio and California residents mean that Ohio
purchasers, and by extension purchasers in other states, would be less able than California
purchasers to afford the California control technology those in Ohio would allegedly be forced to
purchase. EPA disagrees that manufacturers would simply build a single fleet to meet the
California standards. While it is clear that some manufacturers have marketed some emission
control technology in all 50 states even though it is only required under California standards (for
example, Subaru has in the past marketed gasoline vehicle models that meet the "Partial ZEV"
standards nationwide), not all manufacturers have done so. While the commenter apparently
reasoned that the California ZEV requirement will cause a single fleet of ZEVs to be marketed
nationwide, the commenter provided no evidence that this would be the case, considering the
relatively large difference in effort between, for example, extending California Partial ZEV
188 Ohio Office of the Attorney General, et ah, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0172, pp. 9-10.
50
-------
capability across a national product line, and converting ICEVs to ZEVs on a national basis.
Similarly, if the commenter was correct that the Ohio market cannot bear the cost of California
control technology as well as the California market, this would provide stronger motivation for
manufacturers to continue to provide a variety of vehicles nationally rather than a single ZEV-
compliant fleet.
Several commenters opposed the ACC II waiver on the grounds that lifecycle carbon
analyses (LCAs) were not a primary consideration in the rulemaking process or that CARB's
analysis was incomplete because CARB had conducted LCAs for ICEVs but not for ZEVs.189
For example, one commenter reasoned that CARB's public health determination was arbitrary
and capricious because it "failed to focus on the complete life cycles of electric vehicles and
instead focused exclusively on tailpipe emissions," stating that non-tailpipe emissions, such as
those from mineral extraction and processing and vehicle production, disposal and recycling
should have been considered.190 In response, EPA notes that in its comments, CARB stated that
it "did in fact assess and address the lifecycle emission concerns raised for ZEVs," and went on
to cite its findings that, consistent with other studies, "ZEVs have lower lifecycle emissions of all
pollutants than existing ICEVs."191 CARB also noted that its analysis included the lifecycle
emissions associated with transportation fuels, including both on-road vehicle emissions and
upstream emissions, using updated assumptions and including factors such as fuel production,
transportation, and distribution. CARB also noted that the analysis considered the GHG
emissions associated with different vehicle technologies, including production and transportation
189 Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, etal., EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0183, pp.4-5; Transfer Flow, Inc., pp.2-3; AFPM,
EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0226, p.9; TPPF, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0058, p.5; HF Sinclair, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2023-0292-0220, p.8; API, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0010, pp.14-15.
190 HF Sinclair, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0292-0220, p.8.
191 CARB Public Hearing Response, p.8.
51
-------
of materials used in ZEV technology, including batteries. CARB also pointed out that
"[njumerous studies ... also show that BEVs on average have much lower lifecycle emissions
than comparable ICEVs even when accounting for manufacturing."192 CARB also noted that
"[t]he Department of Energy's cradle-to-grave lifecycle GHG emission analysis ... found that
current BEVs, FCEVs, and PHEVs have lower lifecycle emissions than any ICEV or hybrid
gasoline vehicle and future BEVs and FCEVs would have lower lifecycle emissions than even
the lowest carbon intensity drop-in renewable fuel."193 CARB also noted that, "as the carbon
intensity of the California grid continues to decline [...] BEV lifecycle GHG intensities will
continue to fall, creating an even larger benefit compared to current ICEVs."194 Thus, it is clear
that CARB considered lifecycle emissions of ZEVs and determined that they are lower than
those of ICEVs. EPA has evaluated CARB's analysis of its consideration of lifecycle emissions,
and, in our technical judgment, we believe it is reasonable. EPA also notes, as described further
under the discussion of the first prong (see Section III. A of the waiver Decision Document), that
consideration of the waiver application does not require consideration of lifecycle emissions.
Commenters' statements regarding lifecycle analysis, or the need to consider additional specific
aspects of the ZEV lifecycle, are not within the scope of EPA's evaluation of the waiver's
consistency with CAA section 202(a).
192 EPA assumes CARB referred to both criteria pollutant and GHG emissions.
193 CARB Public Hearing Response, p.9.
194 Id., pp.8-9.
52
------- |