The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Electric Vehicles — A Sobering Look at California’s Energy Path

In a recent article published by America Out Loud, energy policy expert Ronald Stein offered a detailed critique of the rapid push toward electric vehicles (EVs), calling attention to the environmental, economic, and humanitarian challenges that often go overlooked in the public discourse. His piece, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Electric Vehicles,” is especially timely for Californians, as the state doubles down on policies that restrict domestic oil production while mandating a transition to electric cars, regardless of the cost to consumers or the grid. Stein’s warning is clear: while EVs may appear to be a solution to climate change, their mass production and integration into a strained energy system raise difficult questions. And as California's energy prices rise and its oil imports grow, many are asking whether these policies truly serve the public interest — or merely shift environmental burdens overseas.

Trump Administration Ends California's EV Mandate Waiver

Against this backdrop, the Trump administration in early 2025 formally revoked California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act that allowed the state to mandate 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035. The waiver had enabled California to set vehicle emissions standards stricter than federal requirements, a regulatory tool it used to force automakers toward full electrification. The revocation came with strong justification from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which argued that the state's zero-emissions mandate imposes "unjustifiable economic harm" and "creates undue market instability" for consumers and automakers alike. The move restores regulatory parity across states and opens the door for a broader, more balanced conversation about energy affordability, vehicle diversity, and domestic production. It also reaffirms the federal government’s role in curbing extreme, state-imposed market mandates that restrict consumer choice and undermine national energy security. Ronald Stein’s article echoes this federal pivot, offering a candid assessment of the costs embedded in EV expansion:

• The Mining Reality: Stein underscores that EVs are not powered by magic but by metals — lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese — which are predominantly mined in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and processed in China. These supply chains are marred by forced labor, poor environmental protections, and geopolitical risk.

• Grid Limitations: California’s electrical grid is already under severe stress, with rolling blackouts during summer months and an increasing dependence on solar and wind. Mass electrification of vehicles adds further instability. As Stein writes, “The push for electricity to be the sole energy provider is a dangerous gamble.”

• Lifecycle Emissions: Though EVs emit no tailpipe pollution, Stein notes that the emissions required to manufacture an EV — especially the battery — often exceed those from producing an internal combustion engine vehicle. “The carbon footprint of an EV begins long before it ever reaches the road,” he says.

California’s Oil Imports Continue to Rise

While California phases out domestic production through restrictive permitting and local drilling bans, it continues to import over 70% of its crude oil from foreign countries like Ecuador, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, transported on supertankers that burn high-emission bunker fuel. These imports add logistical costs that drive up gasoline prices and increase California’s dependence on unstable foreign markets.

Despite this, the state has spurred the shutdown of more than a dozen refineries and denied thousands of drilling permits, including permits for offshore wells that could help offset imports. The result: California drivers now pay nearly $6.00 per gallon of gasoline in some regions, with no relief in sight.

CIPA’s Position: A Call for Energy Realism

CIPA continues to call for a balanced, rational energy policy that includes:

• Increased in-state oil production, including safe offshore development, to reduce foreign dependency.

• Regulatory certainty to attract investment in California’s remaining refinery capacity and well operations.

• A diversified vehicle market that includes efficient combustion engine vehicles, hybrids, and EVs, without banning consumer choice.

• Recognition of lifecycle emissions and geopolitical costs associated with EV mineral supply chains.

California’s energy future must prioritize affordability, reliability, and sovereignty, not ideology.