Vermont Pulls the Plug on Its Electric Vehicle Mandate
Another state discovers California-style mandates are not workable given the current technologies and infrastructure.
In the summer of 2024, I reported that the state of Connecticut opted to forgo adopting California-style electric vehicle (EV) mandates. Additionally, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin put the brakes on his state’s EV mandate at the end of the year.
Just last month, Maryland’s governor delayed its sad attempt to be East Coast California via a similar mandate.
Now Vermont Governor Phil Scott issued an executive order halting the enforcement of the state’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate, which had required that 35% of all vehicles delivered to Vermont dealerships be zero-emission starting with the 2026 model year.
This pause affects passenger cars and medium—to heavy-duty trucks and continues the trend of progressive states following California into a progressive blackhole of senseless energy policies.
Vermont is one of 11 states including New York, Maryland and Massachusetts that have adopted California’s zero-emission vehicle rules, which seek to end the sale of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. California’s rules require 35% of light-duty vehicles in the 2026 model year to be zero-emission models.
Scott cited warnings from automakers that they could limit supply of gas-powered vehicles to dealers in the state because of the EV rules.
“It’s clear we don’t have anywhere near enough charging infrastructure and insufficient technological advances in heavy-duty vehicles to meet current goals,” said Scott.
It’s important to note that according to an analysis by Here Technologies and SBD Automotive, Vermont has one of the more favorable EV charging networks in the country, with a +1.3 charger-to-electric-vehicle ratio. That means if the mandate can’t work there, it won’t be working anywhere…and that includes California.
Local automobile dealers, who have to address the realities of customer preferences, are delighted with this news.
Vermont’s auto dealers, meanwhile, welcomed news of the executive order. The California rule doesn’t obligate local dealers to sell a certain percentage of electric vehicles, rather it requires car and truck manufacturers to, starting in model year 2026, ensure that 35% of vehicles shipped to those dealers be zero emissions.
Matt Cota, with the Vermont Vehicle and Automotive Distributors Association, said that demand for those EVs doesn’t yet exist in Vermont (about 14% of new cars registered in Vermont last year were zero emission).
Cota said manufacturers would likely comply with the mandate by sending fewer total vehicles to Vermont dealers. And he said dealers in New Hampshire, which has not adopted the California rule, will be well-positioned to satisfy demand for gas-powered vehicles that are no longer delivered to Vermont.
“In a way, if you don’t create the demand of electric vehicles, all you’re doing with this regulation — you’re not putting more electric vehicles on the road, you’re harming the local businesses that sell vehicles of all types,” Cota said.
It must be noted that the rollback of a federal waiver of the special California rules is poised to occur, which means these governors are simply getting ahead of the likely regulatory changes related to energy policies.
The governor’s decision is a setback for California, whose 2022 Advanced Clean Cars law makes it possible for states to mandate EVs. The 1970 Clean Air Act allows California to obtain a federal waiver to issue vehicle emissions regulations that are stricter than federal emissions standards and for other states like Vermont to adopt those regulations.
In December, the Biden administration issued a waiver green-lighting California’s Advanced Clean Cars rules, which a dozen states have adopted.
The House recently passed a bill to revoke that waiver, but the Senate has yet to take it up. The Trump administration said in February that it would support revoking the waiver.
I predict other states who followed California’s lead are going to rethink their plans. Furthermore, given Gov. Gavin Newsom’s hot, new, centrist rebranding….I foresee him “delaying” the EV mandate for California on the way out the door.
What's the over/under that California Gov. Gavin Newsom jettisons state EV mandates as part of his hot new centrist rebranding efforts? https://t.co/X4SzxOXFaj
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) May 17, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
A knife through Bolshevik Bernie’s shriveled old back!
Comrade Sanders is still expecting his Order of Lenin medal to be conferred upon his wizened cadaver, soon.
The Order of Lenin — what caliber ice axe is that?
one of the biggest tricks lefty uses is
is to ban or curtail certain industries and then b/c the population capitulates to them….
does a survey ( few years down the road) to show how much the public agrees with them….”forgetting” that the only reason the public “agrees” with them is because they no longer have the choice to
drive a gas powered auto
or have toilet flushes……light bulbs etc etc that they the consumers prefer but was taken away by the government
thats one of the reasons I cant stand the whole rfk jr. agenda ( and those before him)
they will take away americans choices…all the while hoping and/or avoiding that fact that we are now forced to pay for others obesity issues etc
The law is the law. RFK Jr. wants medicines (incl. vaccines) not proven safe removed from the market. If such medicines are “out there,” they should be withdrawn from the market, unless and until the manufacturers accept responsibility for the damage they cause. Until now, the government’s stance on this issue wasn’t meant to provide for consumer choice, it’s meant to protect Big Pharma.
“not proven safe”?
if they were gov approved??
its the government (including djt) who have given the pharma the immunity
and again
its one thing for the government to show the public what they know AND PROSECUTE
why havent they prosecuted?
b/c this now goes back to
business as usual
more regs
more curtailment of peoples choices
that is more destructive in the long run to maga
then short term popularity
It’s an old, old trick.
It’s similar to the government arguing that machine guns should not be legal because they are not in common use… neglecting to point out that the only reason they are not is because the government itself practically banned their ownership in 1934 and even more strongly in 1986.
spot on
Biden green new deal built 7 charging stations??
lol
7,5B build somewhere between 2-8. No one seems to be sure. I see different numbers with every story. Where’s all the money?
My question is, do any of them actually work?
One of them gives you oil cancer.
The lie here is that until we no longer rely on any fossil fuels for the production of electricity there are no “zero emission” vehicles. Pretending that today’s electric vehicles are “zero emission” vehicles does not make them so.
This isn’t complicated. The only American company that can make a profit on EV is Tesla.
One of the reasons that Tesla makes a profit selling electric cars is that they can sell carbon offsets to all of the companies that make gas cars and diesels.
While agree with blocking the mandate, was Vermont’s adoption of EV mandate by statute? If so how does a Gov have the authority to use an EO to block it? If he was arguing the Constitutional legitimacy of the EV mandate then sure but no he’s simply stating the same thing the opponents of EV mandate have been arguing all along; the plan will not work b/c the needed infrastructure and charging stations to support it doesn’t exist.
Not just the infrastructure, the customer demand for electric vehicles is not there. For most people, especially ones that live in rural areas, electric vehicles are not a workable solution.
I totally agree. EV have some limited utility as a primary vehicle for short commutes/city drivers or as a second, less often needed vehicle for a family. Consumers should have a choice of products to purchase and shouldn’t be mandated to purchase an EV instead of ICE vehicles.
EV batteries perform worse in cold and hot climates. Tack on the accelerated battery drain from running an EV’s heater in Vermont winters, and, the end result is a debacle that only an utterly useless, neo-communist, apparatchik parasite such as Comrade Sanders would welcome.
“Another state discovers California-style mandates are not workable given the current technologies and infrastructure.”
Nah, you give them WAY too much credit.
When they saw all their cool-kid clique veering off in a different direction, they ran to catch up.
The mandate doesn’t work in VT because people that live there know it’s cold in the winter and the chargers are all in populated areas while much of the state is still pretty rural. I talked to one guy who had one and he liked it but said he can’t go a lot of places because his range in the winter really sucked and there was no place to charge the vehicle. It seems spending an hour or two a couple times a day sitting in zero degree weather charging a car isn’t popular. Who knew?
It seems to me that the auto makers could have “complied” with the mandate by just shipping one or two electric vehicles from dealership to dealership. They just had to be delivered. And if not sold, just deliver that same vehicle to another dealership. Round and round they go.
Electric cars are “zero emission” ony if their power comes from r renewable or nuclear.
Why use the terminology of your adversaries against yourself?