OFFICIAL SITE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

No. The degree to which power plants are cleaner than gasoline vehicles varies across the country. However, New Jersey’s electricity comes from relatively clean power generation.  

A simple way to compare the emissions of New Jersey fossil fuel power plants versus gasoline and diesel vehicles is to look at the Department’s 2017 Criteria Pollutant Air Emissions Inventories. See https://njdepwptest.net/airplanning/emissions-inventories/. For the purpose of the State air emissions inventories, power plants are classified as large stationary point sources of emissions. For volatile organic compounds, on-road mobile sources account for 20 percent of emissions, while point sources are eight percent. For oxides of nitrogen, on-road mobile sources account for 44 percent, while point sources are 14 percent. For fine particles, on-road mobile sources account for 10 percent, while point sources are 11 percent. With the exception of fine particles (where the numbers are similar), the overall on-road mobile sources emit a greater percentage of criteria air pollutants than power plants. 

The ACC II rules are one piece in a larger strategy to mitigate climate change and address air pollution. The State’s goal, set forth in the GWRA, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent less than the 2006 level of Statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (80×50 goal). Executive Order No. 274 also developed an interim benchmark goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 2006 levels by 2030 (50×30 goal). Given the magnitude of reductions necessary to meet the State’s 80×50 or 50×30 goal, there is no single rule or strategy that will achieve all the emission reductions necessary. The State will need to continue to develop, and refine, the mix of policies, rules, and laws that will work to mitigate climate change and reduce criteria pollutants in the State. And though the emission reduction estimates from this rulemaking may seem relatively modest on a global scale, it is important to remember that no single policy, state, or country will solve the issue of climate change or air pollution. Accordingly, New Jersey continues to work collaboratively with California, other states that have adopted California’s emission standards pursuant to Section 177 of the CAA (a “Section 177 state”), the Federal government, and the international community to implement policies that will build upon one another – policies that, when taken together, have a global impact.  To this end, the Department can and will continue to promulgate rules “preventing, controlling and prohibiting air pollution throughout the State” (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-8 and 8.1) through the adoption of technologically feasible, emission reducing measures.  

In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Department must address the largest source sectors. The Department’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory indicates that emissions from transportation represent 39 percent of New Jersey’s greenhouse gas emissions. 55 N.J.R. at 1774; https://njdepwptest.net/ghg/nj-ghg-inventory/.  This is the largest single sector of greenhouse gas emissions in the State. See https://njdepwptest.net/ghg/nj-ghg-inventory/.  Within the transportation sector, the largest source, about 82 percent, is gasoline-fueled light-duty passenger cars and trucks. For these reasons, the Department has determined that the ACC II rules are a necessary piece of a more comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions. The Department and other State agencies, like the BPU, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and Economic Development Authority (EDA) have, and will continue to take steps to address greenhouse gas emissions from every sector including electric generation.  To learn more about the ongoing efforts of the Department, please refer to:  https://njdepwptest.net/climatechange/mitigation/.     

While the ACC II proposal focused on the in-State emission reductions and health benefits, the study conducted by Sonoma, Inc., demonstrates that those benefits are magnified when one considers the cumulative emission reductions that will be achieved by the implementation of ACC II in all of the other Section 177 states. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ACC-II-project-report-final-042623.pdf.  The reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and criteria pollutants, such as NOx and PM2.5, are quantifiable and significant in New Jersey and as part of a regional approach. Further, criteria pollutants primarily affect the health and environment of New Jersey residents and residents of downwind states. Accordingly, there will be a positive impact on the environment, even beyond addressing climate change.   

Unlike criteria pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions have a cumulative global impact. Climate change impacts are significant and far reaching. These impacts include worsening ground-level ozone concentrations, despite the work the State has done to reduce the ozone precursor emissions. While these rules have costs associated with their implementation, the failure to mitigate climate change carries its own price. To help explain the costs of the failure to act, the Department examined the social cost of carbon, a measure of the monetized global damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year, as part of its Economic Impact analysis. After careful consideration of all of these factors, the Department determined that the ACC II rules will have an overall net positive impact.

While it is true that the Department did not account for vehicle manufacturing emissions from electric vehicles, it also did not include vehicle manufacturing emissions from ICE vehicles. However, the EPA has concluded that while initial manufacturing emissions from electric vehicles are higher than from ICE vehicles, the reduced emissions over the vehicles’ lifetimes more than make up for the difference. See https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths at “Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing.” Likewise, the International Council on Clean Transportation published a study on this topic and arrived at the same conclusion.  See https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf. 

Also, note that the cited ICCT report indicates that future factors are likely to further widen the gap in life-cycle emissions in favor of electric vehicles. ICCT mentions improved battery technology, battery reuse and recycling, and increased electric grid decarbonization as examples. Finally, the cited ICCT report recommends against using life-cycle manufacturing emissions, considering it misguided for a number of reasons they detail in the report.

With any change in emission standards, there is the potential for some consumers to decide to purchase used, rather than new vehicles, or delay the purchase of new vehicles. However, the Department cannot objectively predict whether or how many people may keep their ICE vehicles longer. The mobile source emissions model used for estimating environmental benefits of the ACC II program (U.S. EPA MOVES) predicts vehicle ownership over time based on historical trends. Should the New Jersey vehicle population become older, if consumers decide to keep ICE vehicles for longer than predicted, there would be some impact on emission reductions. However, there is no practical way to predict and model this behavioral change ahead of an actual documented trend. 

However, current Federal emissions standards and the CARB LEV III emission standards (previously adopted by New Jersey) have been harmonized and may continue to be harmonized if that trend continues regarding CARB’s LEV IV standards. As such, even if there is a greater proportion of used vehicles in the State or drivers keep their ICE vehicles longer, any decrease in emissions reductions benefit is expected to be slight.   

Electric vehicles generally require less maintenance than internal combustion engine vehicles because they have fewer internal mechanical components. Many common maintenance items, such as tires, brakes, suspension, windshield wipers, glass and lights are the same on electric vehicles as on internal combustion engine vehicles and any vehicle service facility can address these items without electric vehicle-specific training or equipment.

Since dealerships that sell electric vehicles are typically required by the auto manufacturers to be equipped to service what they sell, the Department anticipates no shortfall in service facilities for the duration of new vehicle warranties.  While dealerships generally need to provide warranty and recall repairs where the manufacturer bears the cost of parts and labor, it is not necessary for dealerships to perform out-of-warranty work. There are several provisions of the ACC II program that address that issue. First is the requirement that California-certified ZEVs must adhere to standard data connector and communications protocols (on-board diagnostics, or OBD). This makes it easier for non-dealers to use standard scan tools and diagnostic equipment on electric vehicles. Second is a requirement  that  vehicle manufacturers “… make available for purchase… all emission-related motor vehicle information and emission-related engine information, and propulsion-related information, as applicable, that is provided to the motor vehicle manufacturer’s or engine manufacturer’s franchised dealerships or authorized service networks for the engine or vehicle models they have certified in California.” 13 CCR 1969(e)(1), adopted by reference at N.J.A.C. 7:27-29A.7. Pursuant to this requirement, individuals and independent repair shops will have access to the same vehicle information as dealerships. If independent repair shops require special equipment to work on electric vehicles, such as battery tray lifts or forklifts, it is up to the shop as to whether they wish to make such investments. However, there is no obstacle in terms of vehicle data or repair information that would prevent an independent repair shop from servicing an electric vehicle. Additionally, the Department notes that the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) offers several relevant certification paths for automotive technicians working on hybrid and electric vehicles.  These include the Light Duty Hybrid/Electric Vehicle Specialist Certification Test (L3), parts of their Automobile & Light Truck Certification Tests (A1 – A9) which cover electronics and electrical systems, and new xEV Safety Certifications for technicians working on high voltage batteries and electrical systems.

The Department cannot predict how the adoption of ACC II will impact the marketing strategy or distribution of vehicles by each manufacturer. Rather, the Department expects the rules to drive technology and increase choice for consumers, as manufacturers will produce greater number and variety of compliant vehicles for sale and lease in New Jersey, California, and other states that have adopted or will adopt the ACC II rules. Manufacturers have stated that ‘the future is electric’ and many have set their own targets for ZEV sales. As such, although dealerships will have to adapt to increasing percentages of ZEVs to be sold or leased, the Department does not expect dealerships to suffer losses from vehicle sales. Consumers looking to purchase a new vehicle will still visit dealerships to find vehicles, including, at least until 2035, new ICE vehicles that have been certified by CARB.

The transition to ZEVs will occur over the next couple of decades; thus, retail businesses and employees will have time to respond to changes in the labor market. For instance, it is possible that new business models will develop as a result of public charging.  Gas stations may choose to install electric vehicle charging stations, and attendants may be employed to assist with charging and/or retail spending may increase as drivers stop to charge their electric vehicles.

The Department conducted an agriculture industry impact analysis setting forth the nature and extent of the impact of the proposed rule on the agriculture industry. The Department included a discussion of the impacts of climate change on the industry as part of the agriculture industry impact and the social impact included in the notice of proposal. Further, the issue of economic impact on consumers, as it relates to the adopted rules, was thoroughly addressed in the economic impact provision of the notice of proposal. ACC II applies only to the purchase of new light duty vehicles and does not require anyone, including farmers, to stop using an existing ICE vehicle or affect any heavy-duty ICE vehicles or other gasoline or diesel fueled farm machinery.  Further, the Department expects the used ICE vehicles that the farming community tends to rely on will remain available for years to come. The used vehicle market is an interstate market, which helps to equilibrate used vehicle prices across the country. In short, the Department anticipates that used ICE vehicles will remain available until such time as the economies of scale and technology advance to ensure that the farm community can purchase ZEVs that meet their operational needs in the used and new vehicle market. 

N.J.A.C. 7:27-29A.2 sets forth the scope and applicability of the Department’s rules. The rule states that “The New Jersey Advanced Clean Cars II program shall apply to all model year 2027 or later motor vehicles that are passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles subject to the California Advanced Clean Cars II program and delivered for sale in New Jersey on or after January 1, 2027.” As a result, the provisions incorporated by reference at adopted N.J.A.C. 7:29A.7, including 13 CCR 2222, will only apply to model year 2027 or later motor vehicles that are passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles.  It would also not require CARB-certified aftermarket parts for Federally certified vehicles legally registered in the State of New Jersey at any time. 

The Department is not imposing any new requirements on the aftermarket parts industry. It has been the case for decades that aftermarket emission control devices must perform similarly to the original equipment parts and that aftermarket performance modifications may not make any pollutants emitted from the vehicle worse than the original certified configuration. See U.S. EPA Memorandum 1A, dated June 25, 1974 (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tamper-memo1a_0.pdf) and its subsequent updates such as November 23, 2020 (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/epatamperingpolicy-enforcementpolicyonvehicleandenginetampering.pdf). The Department’s incorporation by reference of 13 CCR 2222 at N.J.A.C. 7:27-29A.7 only requires that model year 2027 and newer vehicles subject to the ACC II regulation be repaired with CARB-approved parts to ensure that such vehicles continue to meet their CARB-certified emission levels.   

Before proposing ACC II, CARB staff evaluated potential ZEV compliance requirements based, in part, on manufacturers’ public announcements and investments in ZEV technology.  CARB noted that “manufacturers have announced plans to electrify, and many have indicated to CARB in survey responses that even in the near-term there will be significant electrification growth. This indicates manufacturers are not only adding specialty low-volume ZEV models but transitioning high-volume gasoline models into ZEVs. [CARB] staff expects this sort of compliance response as manufacturers seek to meet the early years of the requirement with the easiest segments to electrify, such as small and midsized cars, and small crossover utility vehicles. The proposed trajectory for 2026 through 2030 aligns with what [original equipment manufacturers] have stated in projections of ZEVs and PHEVs. [CARB] staff is proposing a trajectory that moderates in the final years to 2035. This is because staff expect the last 20-percent of the fleet will be more challenging to electrify than the first 80-percent.”  CARB ISOR, p. 40. The Department recognizes that the available makes and models of ZEVs on the market today will not meet the operational needs of all consumers today. The Department is confident that the number of makes and models serving a greater diversity of operational needs will increase as the annual ZEV requirement increases.

The Department notes that roadside charging programs for electric vehicles continue to be developed and expanded upon. See, for example., Electrifying AAA Member Benefits (December 1, 2022). In addition to AAA service, many motor vehicle manufacturers offer roadside assistance for their electric vehicles. See  https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/roadside-assistance-in-an-electric-car.

The Department acknowledges concerns about higher upfront costs to purchase or lease a new electric vehicle compared with an ICE vehicle with similar features, functionality, style, etc. Although the typical electric vehicle model currently has an upfront purchase price that is higher than a comparable conventional vehicle model, when considering total cost of ownership (TCO) an owner would see savings on fuel and maintenance, resulting in total net savings over the course of vehicle ownership. The total cost of ownership over a 10-year period for a battery electric vehicle purchased in 2026 is expected to result in a $1,732 cost-savings compared to an internal combustion engine vehicle. The potential cost savings of a battery electric vehicle purchased in 2035 is $6,683 when compared to an internal combustion engine vehicle.

The TCO analysis conducted by CARB and reviewed by the Department accounts for a number of cost factors, including vehicle price, loan fees, sales taxes and registration fees, fuel costs, maintenance costs, a home charger capital investment for some buyers, and insurance costs. CARB assumed maintenance costs of BEVs to be 40 percent lower than maintenance costs of comparable conventional vehicles. Because of warranty and useful life requirements in the rules, CARB did not assume that BEV and PHEV batteries would require replacement at the end of their useful life during the 10-year total-cost-of-ownership analysis period.

Although a ZEV costs more than a comparable conventional vehicle, the gap is closing.  “The cost of the average EV in the second quarter of 2023, was about $54,300 while the average cost of all new light-duty vehicles in that time was about $48,500. Year-over-year, EV prices declined more than $10,700 from the second quarter of 2022 while the average cost of all new light-duty vehicles rose over just $2,000.” Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Get Connected, Electric Vehicle Quarterly Report (Second Quarter, 2023).  However, as CARB cautioned, the current average transaction price is a misleading metric given that it obscures the true variability in prices of ZEV that auto manufacturers offer and can be skewed higher by a small volume of high-priced vehicles.

In response to concerns about faster depreciation of ZEVs, ACC II includes requirements to guarantee access to service information, assure minimum durability, and provide the protection of minimum warranties. ZEV assurance measures are necessary to address varied operating characteristics and consumer needs and priorities for household transportation: durability for vehicle longevity and value retention; warranty for vehicle longevity and peace of mind in avoiding costly unexpected repairs; and data availability for transparency to drivers and prospective used vehicle purchasers, reassurance about vehicle component health, and availability and convenience of service options.

As the ZEV sales mandate increases and technology advances, economies of scale and more vehicle choices for consumers are likely to result in price parity of electric vehicles with comparable internal combustion engine vehicles. ZEVs will be as affordable as conventional new vehicles and more affordable when considering total cost of ownership.

Also of note is that an average transaction price may not include tax incentives or rebates that do not occur at the point of sale. To assist with the purchase price, the State has various incentives in place.  Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:32B-8.55, zero-emission vehicles (as defined by the New Jersey statute), are exempt from the vehicle sales tax, which is currently 6.625 percent. The BPU also has a cash on the hood program for electric vehicles, Charge Up New Jersey. In addition to State-sponsored programs, there are also Federal programs to support the purchase of all-electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell electric vehicles. For example, there is a federal tax credit available to individuals who purchase a qualified vehicle and meet the income requirements. See Federal Tax Credits for Plug-in Electric and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles Purchased in 2023 or After . Similarly, there is a federal tax credit available to a business or tax-exempt organization that buys a qualified commercial clean vehicle. See Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit | Internal Revenue Service . Although the Department cannot predict how long the State and Federal incentives will be available, the Department anticipates that incentives will help the affordability of EVs at least during the early years of the rules, when price parity concerns are greater.

As another mechanism to increase ZEV affordability, the ACC II rules include a provision that allows manufacturers to earn an additional 0.10 vehicle value for a 2026 through 2028 model year ZEV or PHEV delivered for sale with an MSRP less than or equal to $20,725 for passenger cars and less than or equal to $26,670 for light-duty trucks. This flexibility may encourage manufacturers to increase production in the more affordable ZEV market segments in the early years as they work toward parity and economies of scale for all market segments.

As more ZEVs are produced, the variety of ZEVs in all price ranges is also expected to increase. And as more ZEVs are sold, more ZEVs will be available in the used vehicle market, which will also increase access to ZEVs for residents in the State. In addition to being able to access used ZEVs, customers seeking vehicles at lower price points will continue to be able to purchase used conventional vehicles throughout and well beyond the period of the ACC II program.

The annual ZEV requirement for new light-duty vehicles is applicable to manufacturers, not consumers. Nevertheless, as required at N.J.A.C. 7:27-29A.3(a), “no person who is a resident of this State, or who operates an established place of business within this State, shall sell, lease, import, deliver, purchase, acquire, register, receive, or otherwise transfer in this State, or offer for sale, lese, or rental in this State, a new 2027 or subsequent model-year passenger car, light-duty truck, or medium-duty vehicle unless the vehicle has been certified by CARB.” Therefore, all new light-duty vehicles registered in New Jersey are required to be CARB-certified regardless of where they are purchased.  This is a pre-existing requirement that is not changed by ACC II. All the states bordering New Jersey, including Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware, and Maryland, also currently require CARB-certified vehicles be sold in their states. Of those neighboring states, New York, Delaware, and Maryland have also adopted the ACC II program and will require increasing sales of electric vehicles. Thus, residents will not be able to register in the State a non-compliant vehicle (i.e., a non-CARB-certified new vehicle) purchased out of State, unless one of the exemptions applies.

Transitioning light-duty cars to ZEV technology is critical if New Jersey hopes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants, which will have public health benefits, protect water and air quality, and safeguard ecosystems in the State.

Some may argue that the market (consumer demand) should dictate when and whether ZEVs become the majority in the light-duty vehicle market, and that currently the majority of consumers are not interested in ZEV technology.  However, the EPA, CARB, and the states that have adopted California’s motor vehicle standards pursuant to section 177 of the Clean Air Act (known as “Section 177 states”) have used emission standards to compel the market to adopt feasible, emission reducing technology measures for decades.  Emission standards require manufacturers to produce the vehicles consumers want while using the technology necessary to reduce air pollution, protect public health, and mitigate the harms of climate change.

The minimum technical requirements a ZEV must meet under ACC II, in order to be certified by CARB, are very similar to the multi-pollutant exhaust emission standards that CARB and the EPA have been setting for ICE vehicles for decades. The range value, durability, useful life standards, labeling, warranty and recall requirements, data standardization and charging requirements are all included in the ACC II program to ensure that owners of ZEVs have the same experience and comfort level that the owners of CARB-certified or EPA-certified ICE vehicles have had for decades. Though it is true that consumer demand for ZEV technology is not currently as great as consumer demand for ICE technology, the increasing annual ZEV requirement through model year 2035 is expected to incentivize manufacturers to produce a greater volume of vehicles in more market segments to appeal to a larger number of consumers with varied operational needs and budgets.

The Department recognizes that so long as consumer choice remains limited, vehicle affordability will remain limited. ZEV vehicles are expected to reach price parity with comparable ICE vehicles as the ZEV sales mandate increases due to technology advances and economies of scale. As more models of new ZEVs become available for purchase, and a greater number of new ZEVs are sold, a greater number of more affordable, used ZEVs will be available on the market.  And as a result of the minimum technical requirements of ACC II, the used ZEVs coming on the market after model year 2027 will have greater range for a longer period of time and be subject to the new battery warranty provisions within ACC II.  A recent study demonstrated that most EVs driven close to 100,000 miles still have at least 90 percent of their original range left. For now, the choice to purchase a new, strictly ICE vehicle remains possible through at least model year 2034. Used ICE vehicles may be purchased indefinitely.  And PHEVs (which can be powered by electric or gasoline) will remain a choice under ACC II indefinitely, because manufacturers may use CARB-certified PHEVs to satisfy a portion of their annual ZEV requirement.

In New Jersey, all automotive manufacturers are subject to the Franchise Practices Act (FPA), which requires auto manufacturers to distribute their new motor vehicles through dealerships. See N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq. Although the FPA generally prohibits manufacturers from selling a new motor vehicle directly to a consumer, direct sale by a manufacturer of only zero emission vehicles is permitted if certain conditions and requirements set forth in the statute are met. Any changes to the FPA require legislative action and are outside the scope of the Department’s authority.

As CARB noted in its Final Statement of Reasons, “[m]anufacturers continue to conduct durability testing of their ZEV models in the same extreme weather environments that they test their conventional vehicle models. Additionally, the SAE J1634 BEV range testing standard has an optional 5-cycle pathway that allows manufacturers to test in cold weather conditions to generate different range calculations than they would be able to on the more standard testing pathways. Some manufacturers have started to choose this pathway, because their cold weather performance is outperforming the standard reduction multiplier created with years of input testing vehicles of all types.” (FSOR Appendix A, Page A-11). In short, ZEV technology continues to improve because manufacturers know that they will need to build vehicles for consumer segments with varying needs.

The ACC II program incorporates data standardization requirements for model year 2026 and later ZEVs which require electric vehicles to conform to the same standards for data collection, storage, transmission, and connection as all other light-duty gasoline and diesel vehicles. In other words, data security will be treated the same way in electric vehicles as in other vehicles and will not present any unique data vulnerability just because they have an electric drivetrain. The specific standards are established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and are fully referenced at 13 CCR 1962.5. A manufacturer must test their electric vehicles to ensure compliance with the SAE standards. Failure to comply subjects a manufacturer to enforcement action.

In addition to the Level 1 and 2 charging cord, ACC II requires that all electric vehicles are equipped with a port for DC Fast Charging (DCFC). This is important as some base models of electric vehicles recently available did not include this as a standard feature. DCFC enables an electric vehicle to be charged to approximately 80 percent within 20 to 30 minutes, and those speeds and capabilities are improving over time. DCFC would be the preferred charging method for motorists travelling longer distances who need to charge quickly.

Please see https://njdepwptest.net/drivegreen/charging/.

While the Department cannot deploy charging stations outside of State boundaries, it is working with several organizations and neighboring states to collaborate on strategic charging locations on interstate corridors.  There are also several Federal programs designed to accelerate the installation of chargers nationwide.  These programs will serve to increase access to electric vehicle charging for New Jersey motorists travelling out of state. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has $5 billion in grants for electric vehicle charging infrastructure along identified alternate fuel corridors, which are national network of national highway system corridors as designated by the FHWA.  Additionally, the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program, also administered by FHWA, has another $2.5 billion in grants for charger installation.  This second FHWA program prioritizes charging station installation in rural areas, predominantly low-income areas, as well as areas with a high ratio of multi-unit dwellings. See https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/; https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/.

Another Federal program offering assistance to businesses looking to install charging stations is the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Tax Credit administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  This program offers tax credits of up to $100,000 to businesses that install qualifying charging or fueling stations.  All of these Federal programs are part of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

To address concerns regarding the environmental impact of charging stations, the Department considered the following scenarios. As the Department anticipates that most charging will take place at home, such charging would be accommodated with a Level 1 or Level 2 charging station. These units may be either wall mounted or in-line on the power cord itself and thus lay on the ground. Level 1 and 2 charging stations of this type are typically around the size of a couple of paperback books, as an example. Home charging stations would have no environmental impact as they are either not permanently mounted, or they are wall mounted on existing facilities. Public Level 2 charging stations are designed to be more robust and weather-resistant and are physically larger. Public Level 2 charging stations are either wall-mounted (for example, in a parking garage), mounted on a small pedestal with a concrete pad, or on a pre-existing parking lot surface. As an example, Level 2 charging stations are about the size of a mailbox on a pedestal. The largest of public charging stations would be DC fast chargers. These are, for example, about the size of a vending machine and may be mounted on a similarly-sized concrete pad or on a pre-existing parking lot surface. In none of these scenarios does the Department consider the footprint of the charging station to have significant environmental impact, especially considering that public charging stations are typically co-located with existing paved parking surfaces.

The Department recognizes that an increasing number of electric vehicles will require a corresponding increase in charging ports and stations at residences as well as public charging stations. The Department expects charging at home to be the most common and economical charging method for electric vehicle owners.  The State has also addressed and will continue to address charging availability at multi-family dwellings which can be more challenging than single family homes. Legislation requires minimum charging infrastructure in new construction, while grants and education are being used to retrofit existing structures.

As CARB understood the critical importance of charging as part of electric vehicle ownership, CARB included charging as part of the total cost of ownership when it proposed the ACC II regulation. CARB estimated net savings for a battery electric vehicle owner both with and without a home charger. For someone without a home charger, they still experience annual savings within a year, and almost the same net savings over a 10-year total-cost-of-ownership period ($7,659 vs. $8,835 for owner with a home charger), due to the savings from lower fuel costs. Various State and Federal grant programs as well as Federal tax credits exist to help offset charging installation costs.

The Department acknowledges concerns about higher upfront costs to purchase or lease a new electric vehicle compared with an ICE vehicle with similar features, functionality, style, etc. Although the typical electric vehicle model currently has an upfront purchase price that is higher than a comparable conventional vehicle model, when considering total cost of ownership (TCO) an owner would see savings on fuel and maintenance, resulting in total net savings over the course of vehicle ownership. The total cost of ownership over a 10-year period for a battery electric vehicle purchased in 2026 is expected to result in a $1,732 cost-savings compared to an internal combustion engine vehicle. The potential cost savings of a battery electric vehicle purchased in 2035 is $6,683 when compared to an internal combustion engine vehicle.

The TCO analysis conducted by CARB and reviewed by the Department accounts for a number of cost factors, including vehicle price, loan fees, sales taxes and registration fees, fuel costs, maintenance costs, a home charger capital investment for some buyers, and insurance costs. CARB assumed maintenance costs of BEVs to be 40 percent lower than maintenance costs of comparable conventional vehicles. Because of warranty and useful life requirements in the rules, CARB did not assume that BEV and PHEV batteries would require replacement at the end of their useful life during the 10-year total-cost-of-ownership analysis period.

Although a ZEV costs more than a comparable conventional vehicle, the gap is closing.  “The cost of the average EV in the second quarter of 2023, was about $54,300 while the average cost of all new light-duty vehicles in that time was about $48,500. Year-over-year, EV prices declined more than $10,700 from the second quarter of 2022 while the average cost of all new light-duty vehicles rose over just $2,000.” Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Get Connected, Electric Vehicle Quarterly Report (Second Quarter, 2023).  However, as CARB cautioned, the current average transaction price is a misleading metric given that it obscures the true variability in prices of ZEV that auto manufacturers offer and can be skewed higher by a small volume of high-priced vehicles.

In response to concerns about faster depreciation of ZEVs, ACC II includes requirements to guarantee access to service information, assure minimum durability, and provide the protection of minimum warranties. ZEV assurance measures are necessary to address varied operating characteristics and consumer needs and priorities for household transportation: durability for vehicle longevity and value retention; warranty for vehicle longevity and peace of mind in avoiding costly unexpected repairs; and data availability for transparency to drivers and prospective used vehicle purchasers, reassurance about vehicle component health, and availability and convenience of service options.

As the ZEV sales mandate increases and technology advances, economies of scale and more vehicle choices for consumers are likely to result in price parity of electric vehicles with comparable internal combustion engine vehicles. ZEVs will be as affordable as conventional new vehicles and more affordable when considering total cost of ownership.

Also of note is that an average transaction price may not include tax incentives or rebates that do not occur at the point of sale. To assist with the purchase price, the State has various incentives in place.  Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:32B-8.55, zero-emission vehicles (as defined by the New Jersey statute), are exempt from the vehicle sales tax, which is currently 6.625 percent. The BPU also has a cash on the hood program for electric vehicles, Charge Up New Jersey. In addition to State-sponsored programs, there are also Federal programs to support the purchase of all-electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell electric vehicles. For example, there is a federal tax credit available to individuals who purchase a qualified vehicle and meet the income requirements. See Federal Tax Credits for Plug-in Electric and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles Purchased in 2023 or After . Similarly, there is a federal tax credit available to a business or tax-exempt organization that buys a qualified commercial clean vehicle. See Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit | Internal Revenue Service . Although the Department cannot predict how long the State and Federal incentives will be available, the Department anticipates that incentives will help the affordability of EVs at least during the early years of the rules, when price parity concerns are greater.

As another mechanism to increase ZEV affordability, the ACC II rules include a provision that allows manufacturers to earn an additional 0.10 vehicle value for a 2026 through 2028 model year ZEV or PHEV delivered for sale with an MSRP less than or equal to $20,725 for passenger cars and less than or equal to $26,670 for light-duty trucks. This flexibility may encourage manufacturers to increase production in the more affordable ZEV market segments in the early years as they work toward parity and economies of scale for all market segments.

As more ZEVs are produced, the variety of ZEVs in all price ranges is also expected to increase. And as more ZEVs are sold, more ZEVs will be available in the used vehicle market, which will also increase access to ZEVs for residents in the State. In addition to being able to access used ZEVs, customers seeking vehicles at lower price points will continue to be able to purchase used conventional vehicles throughout and well beyond the period of the ACC II program.

The Department acknowledges that increased demand for electricity from ZEV adoption may increase the per kilowatt price of electricity. However, there is some evidence that increased adoption can lead to lower electricity costs for all ratepayers (see https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6dz355d9 and https://chargevc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ChargEVC-New-Jersey-Study.pdf), although it is unclear if this will be the case in New Jersey. The Department cannot predict the impacts that might be felt by ratepayers, as rates are beyond the Department’s authority and depend on a number of inter-related factors, including ZEV owner behavior, the current state of capital investments by utilities, the ebbs and flows of the overall global energy market and policy, regulatory, and legislative choices that are about the design of electric rates and allocation of costs for transmission upgrades.

The Department acknowledges the expense of charging infrastructure as well as the significance of plentiful electric vehicle charging options in public spaces like parking garages and workplaces; grant funding is available to assist with the cost. Each electric distribution company (EDC) in the State has an electric vehicle program where ratepayers are funding the make ready portion of public and private electric vehicle chargers but are not funding the charging stations themselves.

As CARB has noted, the used vehicle market is not necessarily a localized market that depends on vehicles supplied solely from the State. The used vehicle market is an interstate market, with vehicles sold through various channels, including auctions that are open to parties from any state. This helps to equilibrate used vehicle prices across the country.

CARB stated that it “expects, supported by the record, that California’s electric grid will be capable of meeting additional demand from ACC II” and addressed concerns about grid blackouts. See CARB FSOR Appendix A at 28.  An article in National Geographic on the history of blackouts in California noted that such rolling blackouts began in 2000, well before electric vehicles were in common usage. There is no indication that electric vehicle charging has contributed to the power problems California has experienced.

While the Department acknowledges that the sourcing of mineral resources required for electric vehicle battery production is an important issue as it relates to ZEV production, supply chain and national security issues must be addressed at a national level.  The Federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides incentives for domestic sourcing of minerals and batteries. The IRA includes the Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit, which is applicable to critical minerals and battery technology, the Clean Vehicle Credit, which aligns the tax credit available to taxpayers who purchase electric vehicles with the sourcing of critical minerals and domestic manufacture of batteries, and an Extension of the Advanced Energy Project Credit, which is applicable to facilities that manufacture electric vehicles and batteries. With the understanding that it takes years to commence a new mining operation, this is a longer-term strategy but one that nevertheless should help alleviate concerns regarding overseas mineral sourcing as demand for ZEVs continues to increase in the future.

In addition, to better address concerns over sourcing of critical minerals and conditions for mine workers, the U.S. Department of State formed the Mineral Securities Partnership (MSP). MSP partners include Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union (represented by the European Commission). The MSP will support projects that:

• Demonstrate responsible stewardship of the natural environment;
• Engage in consultative and participatory processes regarding land access and acquisition;
• Commit to meaningful, ongoing consultation with communities;
• Ensure safe, fair, inclusive, and ethical conditions in the community and the workplace;
• Provide economic benefit for workers, and local communities; and
• Ensure transparent, ethical business operations.

(https://www.state.gov/minerals-security-partnership/#Principles).

Because of the importance of issues related to ZEV batteries, such as mineral resource supply chains, current or future resource pricing, and the sourcing of minerals, the Department will monitor, participate, and coordinate with all Federal efforts to address potential mineral resource concerns. Material recovered from recycling batteries would enable a significant amount of critical materials to be reintroduced back into the supply chain. This circular economy can provide a large portion of the material needed to produce a new electric vehicle battery, which would increase the domestic sources for such materials, and reduce the demand for raw material mining.

As referenced in CARB’s rulemaking documents,  AutoinsuranceEZ conducted an analysis, using data collected by the National Transportation Safety Board, the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and recall data from a multi-agency U.S. government website (https://www.recalls.gov/), to calculate the number of vehicle fires by fuel type in 2022 with the following results:

(https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/)

By scaling down, to make the numbers more straightforward, the analysis shows that for every 1,000 gasoline vehicles, 15.3 may catch on fire. For every 1,000 electric vehicles, only 0.025 may catch on fire. In summary, the risk of fire in a gasoline vehicle is 60 times greater than the risk of fire in an electric vehicle.

The AutoinsuranceEZ analysis also looked at vehicle recalls for fire risk. For the year 2020, 1,085,800 gasoline vehicles were subject to recall for fire risk from electrical shorts, fuel leaks and ABS (anti-lock braking system) overheating. During the same time, 32,100 hybrids and 152,000 electric vehicles were subject to recall for battery issues. There are frequent recalls for fire risk on gasoline vehicles, including some with warnings to park the vehicle outside and away from buildings and some with warnings to not drive the vehicle. Gasoline vehicles are subject to frequent fire risk recalls but receive relatively little media coverage because it is more the norm than newer technology electric vehicles subject to greater scrutiny.

The Highway Loss Data Institute (https://www.iihs.org/) published a Bulletin (Vol. 38, No. 11: April 2021) comparing the risk of noncrash vehicle fires in electric vehicles with their internal combustion engine vehicle counterparts. To clarify, this study looked only at vehicles for which the manufacturer offered both an electric and non-electric version of essentially the same vehicle. They concluded, “[o]bserved noncrash fire claim frequencies were similar for the electric vehicles (0.19 claims per 1,000 insured vehicle years) and conventional counterparts (0.20 claims).” In contrast, the AutoinsuranceEZ study, above, which used data across all vehicle types, found that gasoline vehicles overall have a higher fire risk than electric vehicles.

The Australian Department of Defense funds a private company, EV FireSafe, to compile statistics on global electric vehicle usage and fire risk. EV FireSafe provides quarterly reports. The latest report is found here: https://www.evfiresafe.com/_files/ugd/8b9ad1_01aa449ee5074086a55cb42aa7603f40.pdf. As of June 30, 2023, they have recorded only 393 verified electric vehicle fires worldwide since 2010. While the total number of electric vehicles on the road worldwide is not precisely known, some sources calculate at least 26 million vehicles based on sales data from recent years. In 2022 alone, electric vehicle sales exceeded 10 million, accounting for 14 percent of all new car sales globally. A total of 393 verified electric vehicle fires out of a population of 26 million electric vehicles is a fire risk of 0.0015 percent, or 4 out of 260,000.

As the already noted, the risk of an electric vehicle spontaneously igniting is far less than the risk of a gasoline vehicle fire. Advances in battery technology are continuing to create safer batteries that decrease this risk. If we apply the historical risk of electric vehicle fires to future EVs, even if an unrealistic assumption, the number of electric vehicle fires is still so few as to have an insignificant impact on air toxics in New Jersey on a statewide scale. As with any catastrophic event like a fire where toxic chemicals are involved, there may be an impact in the immediate vicinity. However, the minimal risk of electric vehicle fires, coupled with the inability to predict where and when such fires may occur makes it impossible for the Department to meaningfully assess any impact on air toxics in New Jersey. The same principle applies to any potential localized soil or groundwater contamination. Additionally, adoption of the ACC II program will reduce the emissions of toxic air contaminants that result when fossil fuel is combusted in internal combustion engine vehicles.