The Positive and Negative Aspects of California's Electric Vehicle Program

A global shift from gasoline-powered cars to electric vehicles (EVs) could significantly decrease the amount of carbon dioxide humans emit to the atmosphere. However, researchers warn that current strategies for vehicle electrification may also transfer some pollution to vulnerable communities that are already facing higher economic, health, and environmental burdens.

An example of this evolving problem is California, which leads the US in EV adoption. The state is seeking aggressively to decrease its carbon footprint and has made significant increases in wind and solar power generation, as well as promoting EV purchases. One of the tools California has used is the California Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) that began in 2010 and offers money back to consumers who purchase or lease new EVs.

An analysis of the CVRP's impact on the state's air quality from 2010 to 2021 was revealed on May 3 in PLOS Climate. The research revealed both good and bad news.

To evaluate the impact of the CVRP on a community and statewide level, the research team developed a computer model that incorporates data to determine where the rebates went, the amount of additional electricity required to power those vehicles, which of the state's electric generating units would provide that power, and how much contamination they may produce. The team then overlapped this information with a mapping tool called CalEnviroScreen that identifies which of the state's more than 8,000 census tracts are most susceptible to pollution. The measure of vulnerability is based not only on pollutant exposure such as power plant emissions and unsafe water but also on factors such as income, education level, access to health care, and linguistic isolation.

The good news is that the CVRP reduced the state's overall CO2 emissions, with an average of about 280,000 metric tons per year, according to environmental scientist Jaye Mejía-Duwan of the University of California, Berkeley. In 2020, transportation in California produced approximately 160 million tons of CO2, accounting for around 40% of the total carbon dioxide emitted by the state that year.

The research highlighted that the program decreased the state's overall emissions of other types of air-polluting gases, including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide gases collectively known as NOx.

The downside is that the most disadvantaged neighborhoods did not experience the same overall air quality improvement. These communities did not have the same decreases in sulfur dioxide and NOx gases and, in some cases, witnessed an increase in tiny particulates known as PM2.5, which can have detrimental health effects. The particles are small enough to penetrate the lungs and bloodstream, increasing the risk of cancer, cardiovascular problems, and cognitive decline.

California uses a computer model called CalEnviroScreen, currently in its fourth version, to determine vulnerability levels to pollution. The most vulnerable communities, identified by both pollution exposure and socio-economic conditions, are disproportionately located near the state's electricity-generating units (EGUs). Increasing electrification, which includes power generated by nonrenewable sources, could increase pollution in several of the most vulnerable communities.

That increase might be indirectly related to putting more EVs on the road. Still, if electricity generation is not wholly fossil fuel-free, the increase would impact air pollution. In 2022, renewables, such as rooftop solar cells, accounted for half of California's electricity supply; however, a significant chunk is still provided by natural gas-fired plants.

Mejía-Duwan notes that electric vehicles are frequently referred to as "zero-emission vehicles," but they are only as clean as the energy grid from which their power is sourced. Additionally, the vehicles' batteries make them relatively heavy, which can produce as much, if not more, particulate matter than equivalently sized fossil fuel-powered cars due to brake, tire, or road wear.

Increasing the cleanliness of the electric grid would help, as would changes to the management of the state’s generated power, the researchers say. California’s solar, wind and hydroelectric energy production has grown rapidly. But the battery technology to store and use that energy later lags behind. Most of that energy is generated during the day, so some researchers have suggested plugging in electric vehicles while it’s light out to take advantage of the daytime glut of electricity — and then using the vehicles to help power houses at nighttime (SN: 12/22/21).

But, clever as that idea is, it doesn’t address the underlying factors behind these inequities. Since 2010, the CVRP has provided over 400,000 rebates for EVs of up to $7,500, depending on income. Yet, as it turns out, those rebates have disproportionately gone to the least disadvantaged communities. “That’s a major driver of these inequities,” Mejía-Duwan says.

Changing that isn’t an easy fix. The state has tried several ways to address the issue, such as by imposing an income cap on eligibility.

But those efforts have had little effect, particularly given strong barriers that stand in the way of the adoption of EVs by people in disadvantaged communities. One roadblock is that prospective EV buyers must have enough money for a down payment, and then fill out forms and be able to wait several months for the rebate money. Another is that car manufacturers are trending toward producing larger, more expensive EVs. Chevrolet, for example, announced in April that its most affordable EV, the Bolt, will be discontinued as the company pivots to producing electric SUVs.

There’s also a lack of equitable access to vehicle charging infrastructure. And then there are subtler but no less insidious issues, such as “a lack of sufficient multicultural and multilingual outreach about EVs, plus the fact that people of color and minoritized communities report facing discrimination at dealerships,” Mejía-Duwan says.

These findings echo and support researchers’ longtime concerns about how current programs to encourage vehicle electrification will disproportionately impact people. “It’s not a surprise,” says Román Partida-López, senior legal counsel for transportation equity at The Greenlining Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Oakland, Calif. “What [California] is doing is a move in the right direction, but it’s not enough.”

California and other states pursuing aggressive zero-emissions policies need to shift their thinking, Partida-López says, to be more intentional about targeting their efforts toward the communities experiencing the greatest impacts (SN: 12/14/22). Rebates, in particular, are known to be an inequitable approach, he says, because they “assume you have the money up front to be able to put down a down payment of several thousand dollars.”

A better strategy to reduce the barriers to EV adoption, he says, would be to provide other types of incentives, such as vouchers that low-income households could use at the time of purchase as well as accessible financing programs.

After all, making EVs accessible to everyone is going to be essential to the big picture of transitioning to zero emissions (SN: 1/27/23). “We’re not going to meet any of those goals unless we center equity” in program designs, Partida-López says. “The focus has always been, ‘How do we transform the market?’ We need to change the narrative to ‘How are we going to focus on the people most impacted, to help with this transition?’”