Reality is forcing Biden to roll back his electric vehicle mandate

In a development that can surprise no one, the Biden administration is reportedly planning to delay the schedule of its “multi-pollutant emissions standards” rule to force a massive shift to electric vehicles (EVs).

The rule as currently proposed would force an EV market share of 67 percent for new cars and light-duty trucks by 2032, up from 7.6 percent in 2023. The administration is now reportedly planning to slow the rate at which the EV market share would increase through 2030, but with an accelerated pace thereafter.

This EV push is a major part of the Biden climate agenda, and to the deep thinkers in the administration, it is straightforward. “Decarbonize” — a propaganda term — the U.S. economy with a vast array of subsidies, mandates and regulations. Start with the electric power system, a massively expensive attempt to replace conventional generation technologies like gas and coal with wind and solar facilities that are inherently unreliable, high-cost, and plagued with myriad problems, as California, among others, is learning painfully.

However costly, environmentally destructive, and doomed to failure it may be, the intended transformation of the electricity system at least does not depend upon efforts to convince power consumers to buy one form of electricity rather than another. Bureaucrats and various government regulatory agencies can merely force (or try to force) a large shift in power technologies. The producers of electrical power, on the receiving end of regulations, mandates, and politicized decisions affecting their bottom lines, have little choice but to comply, even though they will be blamed for the resulting sharp rise in electricity bills. Consumers? Who do they think they are?

The policy push to shift the vehicle fleet from conventional internal combustion engines to electric vehicles is sharply different. Large numbers of consumers must be induced to move away from conventional vehicles in favor of purchasing EVs, or else it simply won’t happen.

They have to be convinced to accept the severe economic and performance limitations characterizing EVs. They are significantly more expensive than conventional vehicles to purchase, maintain, repair and even to operate, once depreciation costs are included. Under a wide set of operating conditions — cold or hot weather in particular — driving range for a full battery charge is poor. The availability of charging facilities (with the partial exception of the Tesla network) is highly limited, an indication that market forces do not view a large expansion of the EV fleet as likely. (The market-driven growth of the private-sector gasoline station refueling system over the 20th century offers a sharp contrast.) And can anyone trust the prospective reliability and quality characteristics of a government recharging system?

Moreover, while a conventional vehicle can be refueled in minutes, the charging times for EVs are vastly greater. Motorists are unlikely to view their time as cheap. The list of EV disadvantages is lengthy, and consumers are not fools. Notwithstanding all the hype, “The dogs won’t eat it.”

Apart from the ongoing sharp decline in the market for EVs, the production side is afflicted with severe problems, as detailed in a recent on-line event organized by the American Enterprise Institute. The resource requirements — copper, aluminum, lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and more — are staggering, requiring at least 50 tons of the associated ores to produce one EV battery. That number will increase if the EV market grows substantially. Production of the batteries will require the mining of ever-poorer ores as the higher-concentration ores are depleted. The prices of the resources will rise, perhaps substantially. Have the central planners considered any of this?

Then there is the prospective effect of the EV mandate, whatever its finalized schedule, on the electrical grid. The Biden administration’s left hand does not know what its right hand is doing: While attempting to force a massive transformation of the electric grid away from gas- and coal-fired generation toward a wind- and solar power system, the administration is also attempting to transform the vehicle fleet toward EVs. The former effort will yield vastly greater costs and reduced reliability, and the latter will exacerbate both effects, even apart from all the other problems it would create.

The reported slowdown in the regulatory transformation of the vehicle fleet reflects a recognition of the adverse political effects of the costs being imposed upon the U.S. auto industry. But that is almost certain to be only a temporary retreat if Biden or another Democrat is elected this year. If a Republican wins the election, we can expect a rollback of the EV regulatory mandates. Either way, the U.S. auto industry faces severe problems, in the form of massive EV costs and a limited EV market, or in the form of large back-and-forth shifts in regulatory policies, creating substantial uncertainty and difficulties in terms of investment planning.

It is not only the auto industry that will be afflicted with these problems. Such are the fruits of Congress’s failure to clarify what the policy requirements are and to limit the degree to which presidents and the bureaucracy can politicize the automobile market. This is no way to run a nation that is supposed to be governed by the rule of law.

Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.