Face facts and pull the plug on NY’s insane electric-vehicle mandate

New York Post - May 3rd, 2025

New York Governor Kathy Hochul faces mounting pressure to reconsider the state's aggressive electric vehicle (EV) sales mandates, initially inspired by California's Advanced Clean Car II rule and ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo's 2019 Climate Act. The mandates call for 35% of all 2026 model cars sold in New York to be emissions-free, with the goal increasing to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. However, with EVs currently making up only 10% of car sales statewide, and significantly lower in some areas, it is clear that these targets are far from being met. The failure to meet these targets could result in hefty fines for automakers, which may lead to higher vehicle prices or a reduction in the availability of non-EVs. Auto dealers and state lawmakers have expressed concern over the economic repercussions, urging a reassessment of the feasibility of these standards.

Beyond the immediate challenges of meeting sales targets, New York faces a significant lack of infrastructure to support an increased number of EVs. The state has insufficient charging stations, with some stations reporting long wait times, and the current electrical grid is stretched thin. Despite a $60 million initiative to build more charging stations, the reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind farms raises questions about the reliability and adequacy of electricity supply. Other states, like Maryland, have already adjusted their approach to similar mandates, understanding the potential economic drawbacks. As debates continue, Governor Hochul is urged to reflect on these realities and possibly revise or abandon the current EV mandate to avoid further economic and infrastructural issues.

Kathy Hochul Electric Vehicles Andrew Cuomo Automakers New York State Charging Infrastructure Advanced Clean Car Ii Climate Act Ev Mandate

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a critical examination of New York's electric vehicle mandates, highlighting significant challenges and potential economic repercussions. While it effectively raises awareness of practical concerns, such as lagging EV sales and infrastructure inadequacies, the piece is limited by its lack of balanced perspectives and comprehensive evidence. The absence of diverse sources and transparency in claims reduces its reliability, though the timely and relevant topic maintains its public interest and engagement potential. The article's assertive tone and clear structure enhance readability, but the heavy emphasis on negative aspects without constructive alternatives limits its impact. A more nuanced exploration of the topic, incorporating diverse viewpoints and detailed evidence, would enhance the article's quality and credibility.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that are partially accurate but require further verification. The article correctly identifies New York's adoption of California's Advanced Clean Cars II rule, which mandates increasing percentages of electric vehicle (EV) sales by specific future dates. However, the assertion that current EV sales are at 10% statewide and below 2% in some areas is supported by available data, but the exact figures could vary slightly depending on the source. The claim about automakers facing fines is plausible but lacks specific details on the penalty structure. Additionally, the article's mention of insufficient charging infrastructure aligns with industry concerns, though it generalizes the severity of wait times and rural coverage without detailed evidence. The piece also suggests that New York's Department of Environmental Conservation may delay enforcement, a claim not directly substantiated by available evidence. Overall, while the article highlights real issues, some statements are speculative or lack comprehensive support.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a critical perspective on New York's EV mandates, focusing on potential negative outcomes and challenges. It highlights the concerns of auto dealers and some political figures but does not sufficiently explore counterarguments or the potential benefits of the mandates. The piece lacks input from environmental groups or government officials who might support the mandates, leading to an imbalanced presentation. By emphasizing terms like 'madness' and 'harebrained goals,' the article leans heavily towards a critical viewpoint, potentially overshadowing any positive aspects or rationale behind the policy.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging style, using straightforward language and a structured argument to convey its message. The tone is assertive and opinionated, which may resonate with readers who share the author's viewpoint. However, the use of emotive language and rhetorical questions can detract from the neutrality of the piece. While the article is easy to read and follow, the clarity could be improved by providing more balanced information and reducing the use of charged language.

Source quality

The article does not directly cite specific sources or data to support its claims, which affects the perceived credibility of the information. It references statements from auto dealers and political figures but does not provide direct quotes or detailed attributions. The lack of diverse and authoritative sources, such as government reports or expert analyses, limits the reliability of the information. The absence of verifiable data points or references to official documents further diminishes the article's source quality.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of disclosing the basis for its claims and the methodology used to derive its conclusions. It does not explain how the data on EV sales percentages or infrastructure challenges were obtained, nor does it clarify the sources of its information. The piece also fails to disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence its perspective. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to assess the impartiality and reliability of the information presented.