No — and the specific reason matters more than the general position

First, a clarification the debate rarely makes: the 2035 rule does not ban all gas-powered vehicles equally. Standard hybrids — vehicles with no plug that rely primarily on gasoline — would no longer be sold new after 2035. Plug-in hybrids with at least 50 miles of all-electric range can still be sold, but only as up to 20% of an automaker's new vehicle sales. The rule also does not touch used cars, does not make existing vehicles illegal to own or drive, and does not affect gas stations. What it does is require automakers to transition their new vehicle sales — a meaningful but frequently misrepresented policy.

My concern is not with the destination. Reducing tailpipe emissions in a state with some of the worst air quality in the nation — including in CA-20's Central Valley communities — is a legitimate and urgent public health goal. My concern is with the timeline and the infrastructure gap between the mandate and the reality.

California needs to increase electricity production by up to 42% by 2035 to support 12.5 million electric vehicles — and that projection assumes building solar and wind at nearly five times the pace of the past decade. It needs 2.11 million public and shared charging stations by 2035. As of 2023, approximately 91,000 existed — meaning a 23-fold increase in roughly a decade. Experts estimate $20-30 billion in annual transmission infrastructure investment is required nationally. Actual investment remains far below that.

In rural CA-20 — where agricultural workers drive long distances between communities with limited charging infrastructure, where power outages during extreme heat events already strain the grid, and where low-income families cannot absorb the cost differential between EVs and conventional vehicles — a mandate without the infrastructure to support it does not solve a problem. It creates a new one.

I support the transition to zero-emission vehicles. I supported nuclear energy as a bridge fuel p