The debate over California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) program, now adopted by 11 states and Washington, D.C., has brought to light a crucial issue in the nation’s push toward electric vehicle adoption. While California, with EPA approval, has long set its own air quality and emissions standards to address its unique environmental needs, the challenge comes when other states try to follow suit without the same level of readiness.
Automakers have labeled the ACC II program requiring escalating electric vehicle sales targets over the next decade as “an unaccountable, unachievable regulatory wormhole.” But the real question is not whether California can manage its own ambitious regulations, but why so many other states signed on when they clearly lacked the infrastructure, market demand, and support systems needed to achieve similar results.
Now, as the 2026 model year approaches with a 35 percent EV sales requirement, it’s clear that most “California” states are falling far behind schedule. The reality is that these goals, while admirable, have proven unattainable in regions that lack California’s advanced charging infrastructure, favorable geography, and mature EV market. Meanwhile, even California itself faces hurdles in meeting its own targets though that’s a separate conversation.
Congress recently intervened, revoking the EPA’s waiver for the ACC II EV mandate. Lawmakers clarified that this move doesn’t challenge California’s unique authority to set emissions standards, but rather seeks to restore balance in federal emissions regulations, which many believe have strayed too far from market realities.
At its core, the message to the California Air Resources Board is clear: pursue your environmental goals, but don’t expect other states especially those not fully prepared for the transition to maintain the same pace or bear the political consequences of higher car prices and fewer consumer choices.
As the automotive landscape continues to evolve, it’s becoming apparent that one-size-fits-all regulations may not be the best way forward. States need the flexibility to develop EV strategies that reflect their own readiness and realities, rather than trying to match California’s approach step for step.
