Californians sour on Newsom’s push to ban gas-powered cars
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom will soon leave office without gaining the support of fellow Californians for his most ambitious climate project: the banning of new gas-burning car sales by 2035.
Newsom issued an executive order in 2020 taking new fossil-fueled passenger vehicles off the California market nine years from now.
But roughly two-thirds of Californians think that’s a lousy idea, according to a poll released last week by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.
Among likely voters, 65% oppose the termed-out governor’s edict and just 34% support it. The opposition among infrequent or nonvoters is even stronger.
Negative attitudes are especially stiff in inland California — particularly the Central Valley — and among middle-class people with incomes between $40,000 and $100,000, those over age 55 and Republicans.
Opposition to being denied new gas vehicles has grown substantially since 2021, when Californians were evenly divided over the issue.
But the state’s anticipated next governor, moderate Democrat Xavier Becerra, is more in line with Californians’ thinking on gas cars than is Newsom.
Becerra told me during his primary election campaign that Newsom’s 2035 goal is not realistic.
“We can’t make it by ‘35,” he said. “But we can make it.” Sometime in the future.
The fact is lots of people can’t afford electric vehicles because they tend to cost more than cars fueled by gas.
Besides, there’s an inconvenience of having to pull off the road for a 40-minute recharging stop on a long trip — if you can find a vacant recharger.
And “electricity is not cheap. It often depends on the time of day,” notes PPIC Polling Director Mark Baldassare, who owns an electric vehicle and says he likes it.
Newsom has been hawking electric vehicles since he came into office, like some slick TV pitchman — his goal being to greatly reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
The governor and the Legislature recently appropriated $135 million to motivate Californians to buy new or used electric vehicles.
First-time EV buyers will receive $3,500 rebates on vehicles with manufacturer’s suggested retail prices of $50,000 or less. Used car buyers will get $1,750 off if the sale price is $25,000 or less.
Automakers will pay for half the incentive costs — obstensibly, at least, if they don’t just secretly add their tab to the vehicle price.
This smacks of a huge taxpayer giveaway to manufacturers if the state isn’t careful. Is it really the state’s job to sell cars? Shouldn’t it be the automakers’ responsibility to offer competitive prices? Whatever.
Newsom’s plan partially replaces a $7,500 federal tax incentive for new EVs that President Trump and the Republican-led Congress allowed to expire last year.
California already leads the nation in EV ownership, with around 1.3 million vehicles registered. That’s more than five times the No. 2 state, Florida. And it’s not just because California’s population is much larger. We also lead in per capita ownership.
There’s plenty of contradiction and hypocrisy in the divided minds of Californians, as highlighted in the lengthy PPIC survey into their views on environmental policies.
People strongly favor fighting climate change — at least in concept — until it adversely affects them directly. That’s just human nature.
Asked what they consider the most important environmental issue facing California, those surveyed placed wildfires first, followed closely by global warming.
Baldassare says what struck him in the poll was “the disconnect between what people support in policies and what they’re prepared to do.”
“Two things are going on in California now,” the pollster continues. “People have their long-standing concerns about the environment. But they also have immediate concerns about affordability.
“When it comes to what people are willing to do, they’re worried about living costs and particularly the cost of energy. It’s something we’ve noticed even more this year. It affects the political and economic landscape.”
Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed support Newsom’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero “as soon as possible, but no later than 2045.”
And there’s overwhelming support for taxing corporations based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce.
Roughly 60% favor requiring all electricity to be generated with renewable energy — such as wind and solar — by 2045, although support for that state edict has dropped by 15 percentage points in the last six years.
Paradoxically, people aren’t willing to pay more for electricity produced by renewable sources. Roughly 60% reject that idea. Ten years ago, almost that many told PPIC pollsters they were willing to pay extra.
And today they’re not nearly ready to surrender their option of buying a new gas-fueled automobile.
For one thing, they’re not convinced there’ll be enough charging stations to handle a lot more EVs. Twice as many people are not confident of that as are confident, the poll found.
The California Energy Commission reported in January that there were more than 200,000 public and private EV charging stations in the state, plus 800,000 chargers in homes. The state is helping to add more along highways.
Becerra has pledged to take a fresh look at several controversial Newsom projects, including the pokey bullet train. There’s much uncertainty about the pending new governor.
But there’s one pretty good bet: In 2035, sales of new gas cars will still be getting a green light.
What else you should be reading
The must-read: Trump escalates election attacks, threatens California over voter data
Bringing back competition: Too many congressional races are over before they start. Here’s a remedy
The L.A. Times Special: Trump’s voter fraud speech was bait. Stop biting
Until next week,
George Skelton
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order banning sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035 has fallen badly out of favor, with roughly two-thirds of Californians now opposed and support eroding across party lines since initial surveys in 2021[1][4][5].
- The piece suggests that opposition is especially pronounced among inland residents, middle-income households, older adults and Republicans, reflecting a growing sense that the mandate is out of step with everyday economic realities rather than just partisan resistance[1][4][5].
- The article argues that California’s likely next governor, Xavier Becerra, is more aligned with public sentiment, portraying Newsom’s 2035 target as unrealistic and signaling a willingness to “pump the brakes” until affordability and infrastructure are sufficient for families[6].
- The column contends that many Californians cannot afford electric vehicles, which are often more expensive upfront than gas cars, and remain wary of long charging times, the reliability of charging networks and the volatility of electricity prices, reinforcing a broader concern about rising living and energy costs[5][8].
- The piece criticizes California’s new EV rebate program as a potential taxpayer giveaway to automakers, arguing that manufacturers could simply pass their share of costs into vehicle prices and questioning whether it is the state’s role to help sell cars rather than requiring companies to offer truly competitive prices[9].
- The article highlights what it calls a contradiction in public opinion: Californians broadly endorse aggressive climate goals, corporate carbon taxes and a long-term transition to renewable energy, yet balk at paying higher electricity rates or giving up the option to buy new gas vehicles when those policies touch them directly[5][8].
- The column underscores widespread skepticism that the state will build enough charging infrastructure to support a much larger EV fleet, noting that survey respondents are far more likely to doubt charger availability than to express confidence in it, despite state reports of rapidly expanding public and private charging networks[3][5].
- The piece suggests that, given the combination of affordability concerns, infrastructure doubts and political resistance, a Becerra administration will reassess Newsom’s climate legacy projects, and it predicts that sales of new gas cars are likely to continue past 2035 despite the existing mandate[6].
Different views on the topic
- In contrast, earlier polling and analysis reported by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of registered California voters backed the gas-car phaseout mandate, with 55% in favor and 39% opposed, indicating substantial support for Newsom’s policy soon after it was adopted[7].
- That coverage noted that support for the mandate cut across many demographic groups and was especially strong among self-identified liberals, while conservatives were much more likely to oppose it, suggesting that ideological commitments to climate action play a central role in attitudes toward EV policies[7].
- A statewide survey by the Public Policy Institute of California described in later reporting found that while a slim majority of adults and likely voters oppose a ban, 45% still favor prohibiting sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, and majorities support federal goals for two-thirds of new vehicles to be electric by 2032, underscoring a sizeable pro-transition constituency[8].
- Climate-focused analyses emphasize that phasing out gas cars is seen by supporters as essential for meeting California’s broader objectives to slash greenhouse gas emissions, reach carbon neutrality by 2045 and reduce climate-driven threats such as extreme heat and more destructive wildfires linked to fossil fuel use[7][8].
- Proponents point to rapid growth in zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure as evidence that a faster transition is feasible, citing state data showing hundreds of thousands of public and private chargers and strong market share for electric models over recent years[2][3].
- Some commentary argues that consumer incentives and regulatory mandates must work together, with robust rebates and tax credits helping overcome the upfront cost barrier for EVs while sales standards push automakers to innovate and achieve economies of scale that ultimately lower prices for buyers[8][9].
- Supporters also highlight that opposition to the mandate is heavily ideological and may soften over time: analyses note that strong liberals overwhelmingly back the policy, many voters believe the state is not moving fast enough on climate, and a sizable share remain open to buying electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles as technology improves[7][8].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Senator Allen has put his money on fire mitigation and bringing stakeholders together in communities up and down the state to reduce their risk and stay insured. In this episode, Host Kate Cagle speaks with Allen about his plans.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
