Eight U.S. States Now Have Plans to Ban Sales of Gas-Powered Cars

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Several U.S. states and Washington, D.C. plan to ban sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035, prompting debate over whether electric vehicles and the supporting grid will be ready in time. Commenters weigh the merits of outright bans versus pricing emissions or offering incentives, raising concerns about charging infrastructure, grid capacity, costs for lower-income drivers, and the role of plug-in hybrids. Others argue that battery technology, fast charging, and cheaper EV production are advancing quickly, but note that broader energy policy — including renewables, nuclear power, and grid upgrades — will determine whether such mandates are workable.

Scope of the bans

  • States mentioned: Rhode Island, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington, and DC.
  • Target: end of new gas-car sales around 2035; existing ICE cars not outlawed.
  • Some policies classify certain plug‑in hybrids as “zero‑emission” under CA’s Advanced Clean Cars II rules.

Technology trajectory: batteries and charging

  • Optimists: Expect rapid advances—500–600 mile ranges, 500kW+ fast charging, cheaper LFP and future solid‑state/sodium batteries, BEV refueling time approaching ICE.
  • Skeptics: Doubt range, charge speed, and reliability will be sufficient, especially for long‑distance and rural driving by 2035.

Infrastructure and grid capacity

  • Concerns:
    • Insufficient home electrical capacity (esp. older homes, apartments, urban areas).
    • Grid upgrades, local transformers, and generation capacity may lag.
    • Question whether governments have concrete grid plans, not just aspirations.
  • Counterpoints:
    • Smart panels, managed charging, and 100A service can be sufficient.
    • Examples like Norway suggest smart meters + off‑peak pricing can avoid major upgrades.
    • EV load often compares favorably to air conditioning and can be shifted to nights.
    • Distributed solar + home batteries and “virtual power plants” are proposed mitigations.

Bans vs. incentives and market design

  • Some see bans as heavy‑handed, implying alternatives aren’t yet good enough and risking higher prices and resentment.
  • Others argue bans correct mispriced externalities; gas taxes exist but may be too low.
  • A “far‑future” ban is framed by some as a planning signal to automakers rather than a near‑term constraint.

Hybrids vs. BEVs

  • Strong support from some for plug‑in hybrids as transitional tech: lower battery material demands, 120V home charging, no range anxiety.
  • Others argue BEVs are already cheaper to produce or will be soon, and PHEVs add complexity and cost without commensurate benefit for many users.

Costs, equity, and low‑income drivers

  • Worries that bans and EV‑only future will hurt poorer households: higher upfront prices, rising used‑car costs, penalties like elevated EV registration fees.
  • Counterarguments: EV prices are falling, used EVs are already cheap in some markets, and older ICE vehicles will remain legal.

Energy mix and nuclear power

  • One thread: if climate risks are as severe as claimed, an immediate and large nuclear build‑out is argued as mathematically necessary.
  • Others respond that nuclear is slow, expensive, politically difficult, and that renewables + storage + gas (with caveats on methane emissions) can be more practical.
  • Disagreement over whether nuclear is indispensable or just one option.

Policy seriousness and politics

  • Some see 2035 bans as symbolic, likely to be rolled back, or used for “virtue signaling.”
  • Others point to existing EV incentives (tax credits, charging funding) as more impactful than the bans themselves.

Miscellaneous

  • Post‑apocalyptic angle: several note gasoline’s short shelf life vs. EVs paired with solar as more resilient.
  • Registration in other states is discussed but generally noted as illegal or impractical in the long run.