1Title 13. California  Air Resources  Board
Notice  of Public  Hearing  to Consider  Proposed  Advanced  
Clean  Cars  II Regulations  
The California  Air Resources  Board  (CARB  or Board)  will conduct  a public  hearing  at the date 
and time noted  below  to consider  the proposed  Advanced  Clean  Cars II (ACC  II) rulemaking.
Date:   June  9, 2022
Time:   9:00 A.M.
In-Person   
Location:  California  Air Resources  Board   
                      Byron  Sher Auditorium  
                      1001  I Street,  Sacramento,  California  95814  
Remote   
Option:  Zoom
This public  meeting  may continue  at 8:30 a.m.,  on June  10, 2022 . Please  consult  the public  
agenda,  which  will be posted  ten days before  the June  9, 2022 , Board  Meeting,  for 
important  details,  including,  but not limited  to, the day in which  this item will be considered,  
how to participate  via Zoom,  and any appropriate  direction  regarding  a possible  remote -only 
Board  Meeting  if needed .
Written Comment Period and Submittal of Comments
In accordance  with the Administrative  Procedure  Act, interested  members  of the public  may 
present  comments  orally  or in writing  during  the hearing  and may provide  commen ts by 
postal  mail or by electronic  submittal  before  the hearing.  The public  comment  period  for this 
regulatory  action  will begin  on Friday,  April  15, 2022 . Written  comments  not submitted  
during  the hearing  must  be submitted  on or after  Friday,  April  15, 2022, and received  no 
later than Tuesday , May 31, 2022 . Comments  submitted  outside  that comment  period  are 
considered  untimely.  CARB  may,  but is not required  to, respond  to untimely  comments,  
including  those  raising  significant  environmental  issues.  The Boar d also encourages  members  
of the public  to bring  to the attention  of staff in advance  of the hearing  any suggestions  for 
modification  of the proposed  regulatory  action.  Comments  submitted  in advance  of the 
hearing  must  be addressed  to one of the following:  
Postal  mail:  Clerks’  Office,  California  Air Resources  Board  
1001  I Street,  Sacramento,  California  95814
Electronic  submittal : https://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php
Please  note that under  the California  Public  Records  Act (Gov.  Code,  § 6250  et seq.),  your 
written  and oral comments,  attachments,  and associated  contact  information  (e.g.,  your 
address,  phone,  email,  etc.) become part of the public  record  and can be released  to the 
public  upon  request.Additionally,  the Board  requests  but does  not require  that persons  who submit  written  
comments  to the Board  reference  the title of the proposal  in their comments  to facilitate  
review.
Authority and Reference
This regulatory  action  is proposed  under  the authority  granted  in California  Health  and Safety  
Code,  sections  38560, 39002, 39003, 39500, 39600, 39601, 39602.5, 43013, 43016, 43018, 
43101, 43104, 43105, and 43600 . This action  is proposed  to implement,  interpret,  and make  
specific  sections  38562, 39002, 39003, 39602.5, 39667, 43000, 43013, 43016, 43018, 
43018.5, 43100, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43106, 43107, 43204, 43205.5, and 43600 .
Informative Digest of Proposed Action and Policy Statement 
Overview (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3))
Existing  statutes  declare  that emissions  from  motor  vehicles  with internal  combustion  engines  
are a significant  public  health  threat.  Existing  statutes  direct  the Board  to “endeavor  to 
achieve  the maximum  degree  of emission  reduction  possible  from  vehicular  and other  mobile  
sources  to accomplish  the attainment  of the state  [ambient  air quality]  standards  [for air 
pollution]  at the earliest  practicable  date.”1
The Board  has adopted  numerous  regulation s, including  those  cited  below  that are proposed  
to be amended,  to reduce  harmful  emissions  from  motor  vehicles.  These  existing  regulations  
establish  emission  standards  for vehicle  exhaust  and evaporative  emissions  from  vehicles  with 
internal  combustion  engines.  These  existing  regulations  also require  manufacturers  of motor  
vehicles  to produce  and deliver  for sale in California  zero-emission  vehicles  in an increasing  
percentage  of their total deliveries.  
The Advanced Clean Cars II proposal regulations will  amend and extend these existing 
regulations , identified below under Sections Affected,  to further reduce harmful pollution 
from light - and medium -duty motor vehicles. The proposed regulations will increase the 
stringency of existing regulations to ensure emissions are reduced under a wider range of 
conditions under which vehicles are used and will transition new light -duty vehicle sales in 
California to 100% zero -emission by 2035.  In addition to the substantive proposals, several 
conforming changes are pr oposed to related regulations to maintain consistency with 
existing regulations and maintain existing requirements in regulations that are not being 
proposed for amendment . 
Sections  Affected:  
Proposed  adoption  to California  Code  of Regulations,  title 13, sections  1961.4,  1962.4,  
1962.5,  1926.6,  1962.7,  and 1962.8.
Proposed  amendment  to California  Code  of Regulations,  title 13, section s 1900,  1961.2,  
1961.3,  1962. 2, 1962. 3, 1965,  1968.2, 1969 , 1976,  1978,  2037,  2038,  2112,  2139,  2140,  2147,  
2317 , 2903 .
1 Health  & Saf. Code,  § 43018.Documents  Incorporated  by Reference  (Cal. Code  Regs.,  tit. 1, § 20, 
subd.  (c)(3)):  
Although  there  are a number  of documents  that are incorporated  by reference  in the above -
mentioned  adopted  and amended  regulations  and their associated  test procedures,  which  
are themselves  incorporated  by reference  into the regulations,  only those  documents  that are 
newly  incorporated  by this rulemaking  are noted  below.  
The following  documents  are incorporated  by reference  in the specified  regulation s:
·SAE International , 2017.  J1772:  “Electric  Vehicle  and Plug in Hybrid  Electric  Vehicle  
Conductive  Charger  Coupler”  as revised  by SAE International  in October  2017 , in 
Section  1962.3  (c)(1)  and Section  1962.4  (e)(3)(A)4 .
·SAE International,  2015.  SAE J1962:  SAE J1962  “Diagnostic  Connector”,  July 2016  
(SAE  J1962) , in Section  1962.5(b)
·SAE International,  2022. SAE J1979 -3 “E/E Diagnostic  Test Modes:  Zero Emission  
Vehicle  Propulsion  Systems  on UDS (ZEVonUDS)”,  published  draft  March  2022  (SAE  
J1979 -3), in Section  1962.5(b)
·SAE International,  2021.  SAE J1979 -DA, “Digital  Annex  of E/E Diagnostic  Test 
Modes”,  April  2021 , in Section  1962.5(b)
·SAE International,  2016. SAE J2012  “Diagnostic  Trouble  Code  Definitions”,  December  
2016  (SAE  J2012) , in Section  1962.5(b)  
·SAE International,  2013.  SAE J2012 -DA_201812  “Digital  Annex  of Diagnostic  Trouble  
Code  Definitions  and Failure  Type  Byte Definitions”,  December  2018  (SAE  J2012 -DA), 
in Section  1962.5(b)
·SAE International,  2021.  SAE J2984  “Chemical  Identification  of Transportation  
Batteries  for Recycling”  SEP 2021,  (SAE  J2984),  in Section  1962.6  (b)(1)(A).
·SAE International,  2020.  SAE J2288  “Life  Cycle  Testing  of Electric  Vehicle  Battery  
Modules”,  November  2020  (SAE  J2288),  in Section  1962.6  (b)(1)(B)
·SAE Internat ional,  2017. J1930: “Electrical/Electronic  Systems,  Diagnostic  Terms,  
Definitions,  Abbreviations,  and Acronyms  - Equivalent  to ISO/TR  15031 -2,” as revised  
by SAE International  in March , 2017 (copyrighted ), in Section  1969 (f)(2)(K) 1
·SAE International,  2014. J2403 : “Medium/Heavy -Duty  E/E Systems  Diagnosis  
Nomenclature ,” as revised  by SAE International  in February , 2014 (copyrighted ), in 
Section  1969(f)(2)(K) 2
·UL, LLC, 2016.  UL 2594.  “Standard  for Electric  Vehicle  Equipment”  as adopted  by UL 
in December  2016,  in Section  1962.3  (c)(3)(D)
·International  Standards  Organization,  2015.  ISO 18004:2015,  “Information  technology  
— Automatic  identification  and data capture  techniques  — QR Code  bar code  
symbology  specification”,  adopted  February  2015,  in Section  1962.6(b) (3)(B)
·CARB  2021a.  “Data  Record  Reporting  Procedures  for Over -the-Air Reprogrammed  
Vehicles  and Engines  Using  SAE J1979 -2”, December  2021,  in Section  1962.5(c)(6)(B).
·“California  2015  Through  2025  Model  Criteria  Pollutant  Exhaust  Emission  Standards  
and Test Procedures  And 2017  And Subsequent  Model  Greenhouse  Gas Exhaust  
Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  For Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  And 
Medium -Duty  Vehicles ”, of which  the title has changed,  dated  [INSERT  DATE] , re-
incorporated  by reference  with a changed  title in section s 1961.2 , 1965 , 2037,  and 
2038 , and is Appendix  B-1 of the Initial  Statement  of Reasons·“California  2026  And Subsequent  Model  Criteria  Pollutant  Exhaust  Emission  Standards  
and Test Procedures  for Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  And Medium -Duty  
Vehicles ”, dated  [INSERT  DATE],  in sections  1961.2 , 1961.4 , 1965,  2037,  2038,  2140,  
and 2903 , is Appendix  B-2 of the Initial  Statement  of Reasons
·“California  Evaporative  Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  For 2001  Through  
2025  Model  Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  Medium -Duty  Vehicles,  And Heavy -
Duty  Vehicles  And 2001  And Subsequent  Model  Motorcycles ”, adopted  August  1999,  
amended  [INSERT  DATE],  re-incorporated  by reference  with a changed  title in section  
1976 , and is Appendix  B-3 of the Initial  Statement  of Reasons  
·“California  Evaporative  Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  For 2026  And 
Subsequent  Model  Year Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  Medium -Duty  Vehicles,  
And Heavy -Duty  Vehicles ”, dated  [INSERT  DATE],  in section  1976,  and is Appendix  B-
4 of the Initial  Statement  of Reasons
·“California  Refueling  Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  For 2001  And 
Subsequent  Model  Motor  Vehicles ”, adopted  August  1999,  amended  [INSERT  DATE],  
in Section  1978  to reflect  new amended  date,  and is Appendix  B-5 of the Initial  
Statement  of Reasons
·“California  Non-Methane  Organic  Gas Test Procedures  For 2017  And Subsequent  
Model  Year Vehicles ”, dated  [INSERT  DATE],  in Section  1961.4 , and in Section  1961.2  
to reflect  new amended  date, and is Appendix  B-6 of the Initial  Statement  of Reasons
·“California  Test Procedures  For Evaluating  Substitute  Fuels  And New Clean  Fuels  In 
2015  And Subsequent  Years ” amended  [INSERT  DATE],  in Section  2137  to reflect  new 
amended  date,  and is Appendix  B-7 of the Initial  Statement  of Reasons
·“California  Exhaust  Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  For 2018  Through  2025  
Model  Zero-Emission  Vehicles  and Hybrid  Electric  Vehicles,  In The Passenger  Car, 
Light -Duty  Truck  And Medium -Duty  Vehicle  Classes” , of which  the title has changed,  
dated  [INSERT  DATE],  re-incorporated  by reference  with a changed  title in sections  
1961.2  and1962.2,  and is Appendix  B-8 of the Initial  Statement  of Reasons
·“California  Test Procedures  for 2026  and Subsequent  Model  Zero-Emission  Vehicles  
and Plug-In Hybrid  Electric  Vehicles,  in the Passenger  Car, Light -Duty  Truck  and 
Medium -Duty  Vehicle  Classes ”, dated  [INSERT  DATE] , incorporated  by reference  in 
section  1961.4  and 1962.4 , and is Appendix  B-9 of the Initial  Statement  of Reasons
The following  documents  are incorporated  by reference  in the "California  2015  through  2025  
Model  Criteria  Pollutant  Exhaust  Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  and 2017  and 
Subsequent  Model  Greenhouse  Gas Exhaust  Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  for 
Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  and Medium -Duty  Vehicles ": 
· SAE International,  2017.  J1930:  “Electrical/Electronic  Systems,  Diagnostic  Terms,  
Definitions,  Abbreviations,  and Acronyms  - Equivalent  to ISO/TR  15031 -2,” as revised  
by SAE International  in March,  2017.  Copyrighted.
The following  documents  are incorporated  by reference  in the "California  2026  and 
Subsequent  Model  Criteria  Pollutant  Exhaust  Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  for 
Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  and Medium -Duty Vehicles ": 
·ASTM  Standard  D975,  2021.  “Standard  Specification  for Diesel  Fuel,” ASTM  
International,  West  Conshohocken,  PA, 2010.  Copyrighted.·ASTM  Standard  D5769 , 2010 . “Standard  Test Method  for Determination  of Benzene,  
Toluene,  and Total  Aromatics  in Finished  Gasoline  by Gas Chromatography/Mass  
Spectrom etry,”  ASTM  International , West  Conshohocken,  PA, 2010 . Copyrighted.
·SAE International,  2010 . J1711:  “Recommended  Practice  for Measuring  the Exha ust 
Emissions  and Fuel Economy  of Hybrid -Electric  Vehicles,  Including  Plug-in Hybrid  
Vehicles,”  as revised  by SAE International  in June,  2010 . Copyrighted.
·SAE International,  2017.  J1930:  “Electrical/Electronic  Systems,  Diagnostic  Terms,  
Definitions,  Abbreviations,  and Acronyms  - Equivalent  to ISO/TR  15031 -2,” as revised  
by SAE International  in March,  2017.  Copyrighted.
·SAE International,  2017.  J1979:  “E/E Diagnostic  Test Modes,”  as revised  by SAE 
International  in February,  2017.  Copyright ed.
·SAE International,  2020.  J2807:  “Performance  Requirements  for Determining  Tow-
Vehicle  Gross  Combination  Weight  Rating  and Trailer  Weight  Rating,”  as revised  by 
SAE International  in February,  2020.  Copyrighted.
The following  documents  are incorporated  by reference  in the “California  Evaporative  
Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  For 2026  And Subsequent  Model  Year Passenger  
Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  Medium -Duty  Vehicles,  And Heavy -Duty  Vehicles ”: 
· “California  2026  And Subsequent  Model  Criteria  Pollutan t Exhaust  Emission  Standards  
and Test Procedures  for Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  And Medium -Duty  
Vehicles ”, dated  [INSERT  DATE],  Appendix  B-2 to the Initial  Statement  of Reason  
(ISOR)
The following  documents  are incorporated  by reference  in the “California  Refueling  Emission  
Standards  and Test Procedures  For 2001  And Subsequent  Model  Motor  Vehicles ”: 
·“California  2026  And Subsequent  Model  Criteria  Pollutant  Exhaust  Emission  Standards  
and Test Procedures  for Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  And Medi um-Duty  
Vehicles ”, dated  [INSERT  DATE] , Appendix  B-2 to the Initial  Statement  of Reason  
(ISOR)
·“California  Test Procedures  for 2026  and Subsequent  Model  Zero-Emission  Vehicles  
and Plug-In Hybrid  Electric  Vehicles,  in the Passenger  Car, Light -Duty  Truck  and 
Medium -Duty  Vehicle  Classes ”, dated  [INSERT  DATE] , Appendix  B-9 to the Initial  
Statement  of Reason (ISOR)
·“California  Evaporative  Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  For 2026  And 
Subsequent  Model  Year Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  Medium -Duty  Vehicles,  
And Heavy -Duty  Vehicles ”, dated  [INSERT  DATE],  Appendix  B-4 to the Initial  
Statement  of Reason  (ISOR)
The following  documents  are incorporated  by reference  in the “California  Non-Methane  
Organic  Gas Test Procedures  For 2017  And Subsequent  Model  Year Vehicles ”: 
· “California  2026  And Subsequent  Model  Criteria  Pollutant  Exhaust  Emission  Standards  
and Test Procedures  for Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  And Medium -Duty  
Vehicles ”, dated  [INSERT  DATE] , Appendix  B-2 to the Initial  Statement  of Reason  
(ISOR)
The following  documents  are incorporated  by reference  in the “California  Test Procedures  
For Evaluating  Substitute  Fuels  And New Clean  Fuels  In 2015  And Subsequent  Years ”:· “California  2026  And Subsequent  Model  Criteria  Pollutant  Exhaust  Emission  Standards  
and Test Procedures  for Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  And Medium -Duty  
Vehicles ”, dated  [INSERT  DATE] , Appendix  B-2 to the Initial  Statement  of Reason  
(ISOR)
The following  documents  are incorporated  by reference  in the “California  Test Procedures  
for 2026  and Subsequent  Model  Zero-Emission  Vehicles  and Plug-In Hybrid  Electric  Vehicles,  
in the Passenger  Car, Light -Duty  Truck  and Medium -Duty  Vehicle  Classes”
·“California  2026  and Subsequent  Model  Criteria  Pollutant  Exhaust  Emission  Standards  
and Test Procedures  for Passenger  Cars,  Light -Duty  Trucks,  and Medium -Duty  
Vehicles ”, dated [INSERT  DATE],  Appendix  B-2 to the Initial  Statement  of Reason  
(ISOR)
·“California  Evaporative  Emission  Standards  and Test Procedures  for 2001  and 
Subsequent  Model  Motor  Vehicles” , amended  [INSERT  DATE],  Appendix  B-4 to the 
ISOR
·SAE International,  2021 . SAE J1634. “Battery  Electric  Vehicle  Energy  Consumption  
and Range  Test Procedure,”  April  2021
·SAE International , 2010.  SAE J1711 . “Recommended  Practice  for Measuring  the 
Exhaust  Emissions  and Fuel Economy  of Hybrid -Electric  Vehicles,  Including  Plug-in 
Hybrid  Vehicles,”  June  2010
·SAE International , 2014.  SAE J2572.  “Recommended  Practice  for Measuring  Fuel 
Consumption  and Range  of Fuel Cell and Hybrid  Fuel Cell Vehicles  Fueled  by 
Compressed  Gaseous  Hydrogen ” October  2014.
Background  and Effect  of the Proposed  Regulatory  Action:
ACC  II is critical  to meeting  California’s  public  health  and climate  goals  and meeting  State  
and federal  air quality  standards.  Mobile  sources  are the greatest  contributor  to emissions  of 
criteria  pollutants  and greenhouse  gases  (GHG)  in California,  accounting  for about  80-
percent  of ozone  precursor  emissions  and approximately  50-percent  of statewide  GHG  
emissions,  when  accounting  for transportation  fuel production  and delivery.2The emission 
reductions  from  the ACC  II proposal  are critical  to achieving  multiple  State  programs  and 
policies  for reducing  emissions  and stabilizing  the climate.  The reductions  are necessary  to 
reach  carbon  neutrality  by 2045  according  to the draft  2022  Scoping  Plan Update,  which  is 
set to be heard  by the Board  later in June  2022.3  The 2022  State  Strategy  for the State  
Implementation  Plan (SIP) Strategy  also relies  on reducing  criteria  pollutant  emissions  to 
attain  the federal  ambient  ozone  standards , including  oxides  of nitrogen  (NOx)  from
2 CARB  2021a.  California  Air Resources  Board.  2021.  “2020  Mobile  Source  Strategy.”  Released  September  28, 
2021.  Accessed  January  31, 2022.  https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021 -
09/Proposed_2020_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf .
3 For more  information,  see CARB  Scoping  Plan Website:  https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our -work/programs/ab -32-
climate -change -scoping -plan passenger  vehicles  necessary  to attain  the smog  standard  for ozone  by 2037  in the South  
Coast  air basin .4  
The ACC II regulatory proposal will drive the sales of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) and the 
cleanest -possible plug -in hybrid -electric vehicles (PHEV) to 100 -percent in California by the 
2035 model year, all while reducing smog -forming emissions from new ICEVs in the fourth 
iteration of the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulation. Additionally, the proposed ZEV 
assurance measures, which include proposals to set minimum warranty and durability 
requirements, increase vehicle serviceability, and streamline charging and batt ery labeling, 
will help ensure consumers can successfully replace their ICEVs within California households 
with new or used vehicles that meet their needs for transportation with far fewer harmful 
emissions , thereby protect ing the emission benefits of the program.  
Objectives  and Benefits  of the Proposed  Regulatory  Action:
The primary goals of the Proposed Regulation are to transition the new light -duty vehicle 
fleet to ZEVs  and PHEVs and clean -up Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs)  to reduce 
emissi ons of criteria, toxic, and greenhouse gas pollutants . Emissions from motor vehicle 
engines hurt public health, welfare, the environment, and the climate in multiple interrelated 
ways. Reducing emissions of one kind of pollutant supports reducing emissions  of others and 
contributes to decreasing the severity of their impacts.5In addition, the Proposed Regulation 
would make the ZEVs  more reliable by requiring minimum technical requirement and 
establishing ZEV assurance measures . 
Following the Board’s direction in 2017  after hearing an update on industry’s success 
meeting the existing Advanced Clean Cars standards ,6staff developed the proposed ACC II 
regulations. The proposals go beyond the existing state and federal GHG emission 
standards, wh ich have been adopted by CARB and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), respectively, and which will remain in effect7. Staff’s proposal aims to further curb 
criteria, toxic, and GHG emissions through increased LEV program stringency, requirements 
to ensure emissions are reduced under real -world operating conditions  that are not 
adequately addressed by existing test procedures , and by accelerating the transition to ZEVs 
beginning with the 2026 model year  through both increased stringency of ZEV sales  
requirements and associated requirements  to support wide -scale adoption and use.  The 
proposed amendments do not encompass substantive updates to CARB’s existing 
greenhouse gas emission standards that are part of the existing ACC program in Section 
1961.3 of title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. 
4 CARB  2022a.  California  Air Resources  Board.  2022.  “Draft  2022  State  Strategy  for the State  Implementation  
Plan.”  Released  January  31, 2022.  Accessed  February  1, 2022.  https://ww2. arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022 -
01/Draft_2022_State_SIP_Strategy.pdf .
5 See ISOR,  Section  II.A., Need  for Emission  Reductions,  discussing  the “climate  penalty.”
6 CARB  2017a.  California  Air Resources  Board.  2017.  “Advanced  Clean  Cars Midterm  Review:  Resolution  17-3.” 
March  24, 2017.  Accessed  March  4, 2022.  https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020 -
02/acc_mtr_resolution_17_3_ac.pd f. 
7 CARB  will continue  to work  closely  with its federal  agency  partners  as it considers  whether  to revise  its GHG  
exhau st emission  standards  in a future  proposal .Staff’s  proposal  builds  upon  many  decades  of CARB  regulations  seeking  to reduce  emissions  
from  light-duty passenger  cars and trucks.  Transitioning  to zero-emission  technology  for 
every  on- and off-road mobile  sector  is essential  for meeting  near- and long-term  emission  
reduction  goals  mandated  by statute,  with regard  to both  ambient  air quality  and climate  
requirements.8This has been  affirmed  by every  planning  document  released  by CARB  in the 
last 10 years . Not only is zero-emission  technology  needed  to reduce  smog -forming  
emissions  from  mobile  sources,  it is also the key strategy  for reducing  greenhouse  gases. 
The proposed  ACC  II program  would  increase  new vehicle  sales  of battery  electric  vehicles  
(BEVs ), plug-in hybrid  electric  vehicles  (PHEVs ), and fuel-cell electric  vehicles  (FCEVs ) and 
reduce  emissions  from  the remaining  new ICEVs  sold.  Increased  use of ZEVs penetrating  the 
California  fleet will reduce  emissions  from  every  stage  of the use of conventional  combustion  
fuels  for transportation.  These  are upstream  emissions  from  petroleum  extraction,  
transportation,  refining,  and distribution , called  well-to-tank (WTT),  and downstream,  or tank-
to-wheel  (TTW)  vehicle  emissions  from  tailpipe s and evaporative  emissions  from  fuel systems.  
Together,  these  emissions  are called  well-to-wheel,  or WTW.  
The proposed  regulations  will decrease  every  category  of emissions:  GHGs; criteria  
pollutants  like hydrocarbons  (HC), oxides  of nitrogen  (NOx ), and fine particulate  matter  
(PM2.5) ; and toxic  emissions.  Through  the proposed  regulation,  California ns will breathe  air 
that will have  undergone  a cumulative  reduction  over the period of 2026  to 2040 of 30.1 tons 
NO X, 2.0 tons PM 2.5 and 57.1 MMT  of CO 2 emissions  (well-to-wheel  emissions  accounting  for 
fuel production).  The proposal  will lead to an estimated  1,272  fewer  cardiopulmonary  deaths;  
208 fewer  hospital  admissions  for cardiovascular  illness;  249 fewer  hospital  admissions  for 
respiratory  illness;  and 639 fewer  emergency  room  visits  for asthma.
Comparable  Federal  Regulations:
The proposed  regulations  address  two aspects  of motor  vehicle  emissions,  one for exhaust  
and evaporative  emissions  from  conventional  vehicles  and another  for zero-emission  vehicles.  
There are no comparable  federal  zero-emission  vehicle  regulations,  and the regulations  for 
conventional  vehicles  do not duplicate  or conflic t with federal  regulations  that address  the 
same  issues . To the extent  they are different  from  existing  federal  regulations  they are 
authorized  by law and are justified  by their substantial  additional  benefits  to human  health,  
public  welfare,  and the envir onment  described  throughout  this Notice,  the Initial  Statement  
of Reasons,  and other  supporting  material . 
Currently,  California’s  LEV III and U.S. EPA’s  Tier 3 vehicle  emission  standards  and other  
emission -related  requirements  for conventional  vehicles  have largely  been  harmonized,  to 
enable  the regulated  industry  to design  and produce  a single  product  line of vehicles  that 
can be certified  to both  U.S. EPA and CARB  emission  standards  and sold in all 50 states.
However,  as discussed  in Chapter  IV of the Staff Report : Initial  Statement  of Reasons  (ISOR ), 
the LEV III and Tier 3 vehicle  emission  standards  do not adequately  reduce  excess  emissions  
that occur  during  real-world  driving  conditions  or prevent  backsliding  of emissions  from  
ICEVs  as the fleet transit ions to ZEVs . The proposed  LEV IV regulations  focus  on achieving
8 CARB  2021a. additional  control  of emissions  from  light- and medium -duty vehicles  under  real-world  driving  
conditions  by ensuring  the test procedures  and standards  address  such conditions .
The proposed  LEV IV regulations  control  emissions  of criteria  pollutants  from  the exhaust  and 
fuel systems  of conventional  motor  vehicles.  They  would  apply  to vehicles  produced  and 
delivered  for sale in California  beginning  with the 2026  model  year. They  are more  stringe nt 
than the existing  federal  Tier 3 standards  for the same  pollutants  from  motor  vehicles  for the 
2025  and subsequent  model  years  that were  set by the U.S. EPA.9Thus,  vehicles  that comply  
with CARB’s  proposed  standards  will comply  with federal  emission  standards . This does  not 
present  a conflict  with federal  regulations  because  CARB’s  standards  may be more  stringent  
than federal  standards,  under  a provision  in the Clean  Air Act that direct  U.S. EPA to waive  
federal  preemption  of California’s  motor  vehicle  emission  standards  except  under  limited  
circumstances  not present  here.10Moreover,  under  that provision  vehicles  that comply  with 
CARB’s  standards  are deemed  to comply  with federal  standards  for the same  pollutants.11
The proposed  ZEV regulations  would  require  manufacturers  to deliver  for sale increasing  
percentages  of ZEVs  and PHEVs  as a portion  of their overall  product  deliveries  between  
model  years  2026  and 2034  and reach  100-percent  ZEVs  in 2035  (and after).  There  are no 
comparable  federal  standards  for sales  of zero-emission  vehicles.  Federal  and state  
regulations  for greenhouse  gas emissions  from  manufacturers’  fleets  of motor  vehicles  allow  
manufacturers  to get credit  for the lack of exhaust  emissions  from  ZEVs  when  determining  
compliance.12  The ZEV regulation  will facilitate  compliance  with federal  and state  
greenhouse  gas emission  standard s because  emissions  from  ZEVs  and PHEVs  are considered  
in determining  compliance  with those  standards . 
To the extent  that California’s  proposed  LEV IV regulations  differ  from  current  federal  Tier 3 
regulations  for the same  pollutants  and sources,  or that the proposed  ZEV regulations  differ  
from  either  the current  federal  Tier 3 regulations  or greenhouse  gas emission  standards,  
CARB  has authority  under  state  and federal  law to set California’s  own standards  to reduce  
emissions  from  motor  vehicles  to meet  federal  and state  ambient  air quality  standards  and 
climate  change  requirements  and goals.  It also has authority  to require  additional  and 
separate  reporting  than required  under  federal  law. California  has plenary  authority  under  
the state  and federal  consti tutions  to protect  public  health  and welfare.  The California  Health  
and Safety  Code  directs  CARB  to exercise  this authority  to reduce  and eliminate  harmful  
emissions  from  motor  vehicles.  These  statutory  obligations  are identified  in the authority  
citations  for the proposed  regulations.  The federal  Clean  Air Act directs  the Administrator  of 
the U.S. EPA to waive  federal  preemption  of California’s  motor  vehicle  emission  standards  
when  they meet  the listed  criteria,  which  have  been  met here.13
As shown  in this notice  and accompanying  ISOR  and analyses,  the cost of the state  
regulations  is justified  by the benefit  to human  health,  public  welfare,  and the environment.  
The proposed  regulations  will provide  significant  benefits  for all these  factors.  They  will
9 Cf. Control  of Air Pollution  From  Motor  Vehicles:  Tier 3 Motor  Vehicle  Emission  and Fuel Standards , 79 Fed. 
Reg. 23,414,  23,417,  April  28, 2014  [federal  Tier 3 standards  are harmonized  with CARB’s  current  LEV III 
standards  through  model  year 2025];  40 C.F.R.  § 86.1811 -17.
10 Clean  Air Act, § 209(b),  42 U.S.C.  § 7543(b).
11 Clean  Air Act, § 209(b)(3),  42 U.S.C.  § 7543(b)(3).
12 Cal. Code  Regs.,  tit. 13, § 1961.3;  40 C.F.R.  §§ 86.1818 -12 [emission  stand ards];  86.1866 -12 [value  for ZEVs].
13 Clean  Air Act, § 209(b),  42 U.S.C.  § 7543(b).reduce emissions  harmful  to human  health  and the environment.  The value  of the benefits  
outweighs  the costs , and the regulations  will reduce  overall  costs  for transportation.  These  
improvements  and savings  will improve  the public  welfare . 
An Evaluation  of Inconsistency  or Incompatibility  with Existing  State  
Regulations  (Gov.  Code,  § 11346.5,  subd.  (a)(3)(D)):
During  the process  of developing  the proposed  regulatory  action,  CARB  conducted  a search  
of any similar  regulations  on this topic  and concluded  these  regulations  are neither  
inconsistent  nor incompatible  with existing  state  regulations.  They  build  upon , amend,  and 
further  existing  state  regulations  of the same  emission  sources  to reduce  emissions  beyond  
existing  regulations.  
Disclosure Regarding the Prop osed Regulation
Fiscal  Impact/Local  Mandate  Determination  Regarding  the Proposed  
Action  (Gov.  Code,  § 11346.5,  subds.  (a)(5)&(6)):
The determinations  of the Board's  Executive  Officer  concerning  the costs  or savings  incurred  
by public  agencies  and private  persons  and businesses  in reasonable  compliance  with the 
proposed  regulatory  action  are presented  below.
Under  Government  Code  sections  11346.5,  subdivision  (a)(5)  and 11346.5,  subdivision  (a)(6),  
the Executive  Officer  has determined  that the proposed  regul atory  action , through  the 
purchase  of new vehicles  meeting  the proposed  standards,  would  create  costs  and savings  
to any State  agency  (although  not in the current  fiscal  year) , would  not create  costs  or 
savings  in federal  funding  to the State,  and would  create  costs  and savings  to any local 
agency  or school  district  (although  not in the current  fiscal  year) , whether  or not reimbursable  
by the State  under  Government  Code,  title 2, division  4, part 7 (commencing  with section  
17500),  or other  nondiscre tionary  cost or savings  to State  or local agencies.
Cost to any Local  Agency  or School  District  Requiring  Reimbursement  under  section  
17500  et seq.:
The costs  of the regulation,  as passed  through  to local government  through  the purchase  of 
new vehicles,  are not reimbursable  by the State  pursuant  to Government  Code,  title 2, 
division  4, part 7 (commencing  with section  17500)  for several  reasons . Foremost,  they do 
not impose  costs  because  they result  in next savings  from  the total cost of ownershi p of 
vehicles.14To the extent  they impose  costs  at the time of purchase,  the proposed  regulations  
apply  generally  to private  and public  entities,  so they do not impose  unique  new 
requirements  on the state  and local agencies  and are not a reimbursable  mand ate.15Further,  
they do not mandate  a new program  or a higher  level of service  of an existing  program  on 
local agencies  or school  districts.  Public  agencies  are not required  by the regulation  to 
purchase  vehicles.  They  do so at their own option.  Therefore,  the regulation  does  not impose
14 State  Administrative  Manual,  § 6606.
15 County  of Los Angeles  v. State  of California , 43 Cal. 3d 46 (1987).“costs  mandated  by the state”  under  section  17514  of the California  Government  Code.16
Costs  are also not reimbursable  when  they may be fully financed  by local agencies  raising  
their own fees.17Local  government  may raise  fees, if needed,  to address  the costs  of this 
regulation.  Therefore,  this is not a reimbursable  mandate.
The State,  counties,  and cities  could  see some  changes  to revenue  due to the Proposed  
Regulation . Many  cities  and counties  in California  levy a Utility  Users Tax on electricity . By 
increasing  the amount  of electricity  used,  there  will be an increase  in the amount  of utility  
user tax revenue  collected.  Fuel taxes  on gasoline  fund transportation  improvements  at the 
State,  county,  and local levels . Displacing  gasoline  fuel with electricity  will decrease  the 
amount  of gasoline  dispensed  in the State,  resulting  in a reduction  in fuel tax revenue .
Cost or Savings  for State  Agencies:
From  2026  to 2040,  the net impact  of the Proposed  Regulation  to State  Agencies  is a cost of 
$940.4  million . This consists  of $14.9  billion  in decreased  gasoline  tax revenue,  but this is 
partially  offset  by $132  million  in increased  energy  resources  fee revenue  and $12.1  billion  in 
registration  and license  fee revenue .18This foregone  revenue,  which  supports  important  
government  programs,  may eventually  be replaced  by revenue  from  other  sources,  in which  
case these  negative  impacts  to local governments  would  be diminished.  
Other  Non-Discretionary  Costs  or Savings  on Local  Agen cies:
From  2026  to 2040,  the net impact  of the Proposed  Regulation  on local government  is an 
approximate  cost of $12.2  billion.  This is primarily  driven  by a decrease  in gasoline  sales  and 
excise  tax revenue  of $19.5  billion,  but this is partially  offset  by an increase  in utility  user fee 
revenue  of $4.9 billion . This foregone  revenue,  which  supports  important  government  
programs,  may eventually  be replaced  by revenue  from  other  sources,  in which  case these  
negative  impacts  to local governments  would  be diminished.
Housing  Costs  (Gov.  Code,  § 11346.5,  subd.  (a)(12)):The  Executive  Officer  has also made  the 
initial  determination  that the proposed  regulatory  action  will not have  a significant  effect  on 
housing  costs.  The only reasonably  foreseeable  impact  on housing  is an indirect  cost for a 
vehicle  owner  that decides  to installing  electric  vehicle  supply  equipment  (EVSE,  or a 
charger).  This contributes  to the net benefit  in total cost of ownership  for ZEVs  and arguably  
increases  the value  of the property  by adding a tangible  improvement.  The regulations  do 
not impose  any building  standards,  which  are defined  under  Health  and Safety  Code  section  
18909.
16 County  of Contra  Costa  vs. State  of California , 177 Cal App 3d 62.79  (1986) .
17 See, e.g., Clovis Unified School Dist. v. Chiang  (2010) 188 Cal App. 4th 794,  812; Connell v. Superior Court  
(1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 382, 397 -403; County of Fresno v. State of California  (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 482, 487 -88; 
Gov. Code, § 1 7556, subd. (d).
18 Additional  revenues  in this category  result  from  the Zero-Emission  Registration  Fee and the Vehicle  License  
Fees,  due to the vehicles  becoming  more  costly  at time of purchase.Significant  Statewide  Adverse  Economic  Impact  Directly  Affecting  
Business,  Including  the Ability  to Compete  (Gov. Code,  §§ 11346.3,  
subd.  (a), 11346.5,  subd.  (a)(7),  11346.5,  subd.  (a)(8)):
The Executive  Officer  has made  an initial  determination  that the proposed  regulatory  action  
would  not have  a significant  statewide  adverse  economic  impact  directly  affecting  
businesses,  including  the ability  of California  businesses  to compete  with businesses  in other  
states,  or on representative  private  persons.  Both  California  and out-of-state  vehicle  
manufacturers  will face the same  requirements  if they are to sell vehicles  in California.  
Therefore,  there  is no resulting  competitive  disadvantage.  The proposed  regulations  are not 
anticipated  to affect  the ability  of California  businesses  that purchase  ZEVs  to compete  with 
other  states.  Although  there  are estimated  to be increased  purchase  costs  for ZEVs  in the 
early  model  years,  there  are substantial  cost savings  for operating  BEVs.  The proposed  
regulations  are also not anticipated  to result  in a competitive  disadvantage  to service,  repair,  
and refueling  businesses.  These  business es typically  serve  local markets  and do not compete  
with businesses  in other  states.
Major  Regulation:  Statement  of the Results  of the Standardized  
Regulatory  Impact  Analysis  (Gov.  Code,  § 11346.3,  subd.  (c)): 
In January  2022, CARB  submitted  a Standardized  Regulatory  Impact  Analysis  (SRIA)  to 
the Department  of Finance  (DOF)  for its review.  CARB  has updated  the SRIA  since  the 
original  submittal.  The revisions  are discussed  below  and in the ISOR,  Section  X.
(A) The creation  or elimination  of jobs within the state.
The Proposed  Amendments  are estimated  to result  in an initial  decrease  in employment  
growth  that is less than 0.2 percent  of baseline  employment  and begins  to diminish  towards  
the end of the regulatory  horizon.  In 2040,  the proposed  regulatio ns are estimated  to result  
in job gains  of 24,926  positions , primarily  in the services,  manufacturing  and constructions  
sectors  and 64,730  jobs foregone  predominantly  in the retail  and government  sectors.  The 
net job impact  of the proposed  regulations  in 2040 is estimated  to 39,804  jobs foregone.
(B) The creation  of new businesses  or the elimination  of existing  businesses  within  the 
state.
The trend  of increasing  demand  for electricity  in the electric  power  sector  similarly  sees large  
increases  in sales,  but its services  are provided  primarily  by existing  utilities.  New utilities  are 
not expected  to be created  to meet  this increased  demand.  The decreasing  trend  in demand  
for gasoline  has the potential  to result  in the elimination  of businesses  in this industry  and 
downstream  industries,  such as gasoline  stations  and vehicle  repair  businesses,  if sustained  
over time.  The vehicle  repair  and maintenance  service  industry  is estimated  to see negative  
impacts,  including  dealerships  that have  service  departments,  as ZEVs  become  a greater  
portion  of the fleet.  This trend  would  suggest  that the number  of businesses  providing  the 
services  may decrease  along with the reduced  demand.  (C) The competitive  advantages  or disadvantages  for businesses  currently  doing  
business  within  the state.
While  CARB  is not aware  of any evidence  of the extent  to which  this is occurring  under  
existing  requirements,  automakers  that are already  producing  ZEVs  may have  an advantage  
in growing  market  share  under  more  stringent  ZEV requirements  over manufacturers  that 
have  not yet come  to market  with a widely  available  product.  Though  some  consumers  may 
be holding  out for a specific  manufacturer’s  product,  many  consumers  will purchase  products  
that have  wide  distribution  networks . As the requirements  increase  towards  100-percent  
ZEVs , this advantage  may decline  as every  automaker  invests  in ZEV technology  and products  
at a wide  scale .
(D) The increase  or decrease  of investment  in the state.
Private domestic investment consists of purchases of residential and nonresidential structures 
and of equipment and software by private businesses and nonprofit institutions. It is used as 
a proxy for im pacts on investments in California because it provides an indicator of the future 
productive capacity of the economy.
The relative  changes  to growth  in private  investment  for the proposed  regulation s show  a 
decrease  of private  investment  of about  $689  million in 2030,  which  trends  positive  resulting  
in an increase  of about  $4.88  billion  by 2040.  Overall , there  is a cumulative  increase  of $10.9  
billion  from  2026 -2040.
(E) The incentives  for innovation  in products,  materials,  or processes.
The manufacturer sales requirement for ZEVs as part of ACC  II provides flexibilities, giving 
manufacturers the incentive to innovate and identify lower cost strategies for achieving the 
zero-emission requirement. For example, manufacturers are allowed to comply by selling 
ZEVs a cross multiple vehicle classifications, allowing each manufacturer to focus on products 
and areas of the market where they typically compete. Innovations leading to lower cost ZEV 
models likely will result in increased sales within the mass market. Additio nally, manufacturers 
are incentiv ized to innovate and bring ZEV models to secure their place in popular or 
growing vehicle segments, responding to the requirement for the entire market to reach 100-
percent in 2035.
(F) The benefits  of the regulations,  includin g, but not limited  to, benefits  to the health,  
safety,  and welfare  of California  residents,  worker  safety,  and the state's  environment  
and quality  of life, among  any other  benefits  identified  by the agency.
The proposed  regulation  would  increase  new vehicle  sales  of BEVs,  PHEVs  and FCEVs  
through  and after  2035  and reduce  emissions  from  the remaining  new ICEVs.  Increased  use 
of ZEVs  penetrating  the California  fleet will reduce  tailpipe  and evaporative  as well as 
upstream  fuel production  GHG,  criteria  (HC, NOx,  PM2.5),  and toxic  emissions.  Through  the 
proposed  regulation,  California  will see a cumulative  reduction  over the period  of 2026  to 
2040  of 30.1 tons NO X, 2.0 tons PM 2.5 and 57.1 MMT  of CO 2 emissions  (well-to-wheel  
emissions  accounting  for fuel production).  The proposal  will lead to 1,272  fewer  
cardiopulmonary  deaths;  208 fewer  hospital  admissions  for cardiovascular  illness;  249 fewer  
hospital  admissions  for respiratory  illness;  and 639 fewer  emergency  room visits  for asthma  
statewide.(G) Department  of Finance  Comments  on the SRIA  and CARB’s  Responses.
CARB responds as follows to the comments of DOF on the SRIA prepared for the proposed 
regulations , as required by Government Code section 11346.5, subdivision ( a)(10) .
DOF Comment:  The SRIA assumes that, without the regulations, ZEVs make up a constant 12 
percent of new vehicle sales starting in 2030, after increasing from 10.7 percent in 2026. 
However, this is inconsistent with current market trends and existing state regulations and 
manufacturers’ commitment towards electrification. The share of ZEVs in California increased 
from 0.5 percent in 2011 to 12.4 percent in 2021 (based on the California Energy 
Commission’s (CEC) New ZEV Sales dashboard). The ba seline should continue to reflect an 
increasing share of ZEV sales beyond 2030 or the SRIA should provide a justification for 
assuming a constant share, as the current approach likely overestimates costs and benefits.  
Staff response:  Traditionally, CARB staff estimate baseline projections of varying electric and 
other zero -emission vehicle technologies from what is expected as minimum compliance by 
automakers with California’s ZEV regulation . The most recent version of CARB’s vehicle f leet 
inventory used in the SRIA analysis, EMFAC2021, includes ZEV and PHEV sales from historic 
Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) records for 2010 through 2019, and then projections for 
future years . The sales trends in EMFAC2021 show a growth in sales that  can largely be 
attributed to the ZEV Regulation and automaker compliance, along with estimates from 
consumer -choice modeling of how buyers will respond to new vehicle market prices up to 
2030 . Although in recent years sales of ZEVs and PHEVs annually are higher than what is 
minimally required by the industry in each particular year, automakers rely on banked 
compliance credits for future year flexibility as ZEV Regulation requirements become 
stronger. In short, higher ZEV sales are a form of compliance but  for use in a future model 
year.  
However, for the revised analysis in this staff proposal, as described in Chapter X.A.2  of the 
accompanying ISOR , staff updated the ZEV technology fractions in the California baseline 
fleet based on new nationwide ZEV sa les projections presented in the U.S. EPA Final Rule to 
Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks 
Through Model Year 2026.19With th is rulemaking, the U.S. EPA implemented new, more 
stringent GHG vehicle emission standards and estimated higher nationwide ZEV penetration 
rates in the future light -duty vehicle fleet to comply with them . CARB staff then adjusted the 
nationwide sales to refl ect California’s higher -than-average ZEV penetration rates . The result 
is a ZEV baseline projection that exceeds what is seen in today’s California market, as well as 
the projections in EMFAC2021 . CARB staff flatline this projection from 2026 model year 
onwards, consistent with adopted regulations that reach maximum stringency in 2026  and 
flatline . 
DOF Comment:  The SRIA assumes that private sector adoption of charging infrastructure will 
occur at a voluntary rate commensurate with the regulated new ZEV s ales volume. Slower 
adoption may hinder consumers’ willingness to purchase ZEVs and faster adoption may 
accelerate the rate at which benefits are realized. The SRIA should include a sensitivity 
19 86 Fed. Reg. 74,434,  Dec. 30, 2021.analysis to show how impacts may vary under different infrastr ucture adoption scenarios or 
justify the current adoption rate assumption.  
Staff response:  Alternative  1 in the ACC  II SRIA  was chosen  in part to reflect  potential  slower  
ZEV sales  as a result  of consumer  barriers  such as ZEV fueling  infrastructure.  This alternative  is 
based  on survey  data that showed  30 percent  of survey  respondents  rejected  considering  
electric  vehicle  technology  and showed  hesitation  in purchasing  ZEVs  or PHEVs.20Although  
this is a survey  of vehicle  buyers  in early  2015,  an important  reason  in survey  response  
hesitation  was limited  access  to fueling  infrastructure.  
CARB  staff do not have  methods  to estimate  specific  ZEV sales  as a function  of available  ZEV 
fueling  infrastructure.  Therefore,  staff believe  the Alternative  1 in the SRIA  is sufficient  to 
document  a sensitivity  of ZEV sales  that could  occur  if charging  and hydrogen  infrastructure  
challenges  arise.  However,  as described  earlier  in the main  report,  staff are encouraged  by 
the substantial  public  infrastructure  invest ments  proposed  with Federal  and State  funds  and 
believe  that supports  the feasibility  of the main  proposal.
Separate from this alternative, staff did evaluate varying fueling costs for BEV owners with 
and without home charging access, which represents di fferent cost impacts from alternative 
uses of fueling infrastructure. This was described in the appendix of the SRIA, and example 
results of select BEV owners are shown in Section 3.5 of the SRIA . Specifically, when 
accounting for higher public fueling cos ts for a BEV owner without access to cheaper home 
electricity, the ten -year overall savings was projected to be $5,109 for a 2035 model year 
BEV, while the BEV driver with home refueling saved $6,683 over the same time period. This 
shows that varying use o f charging infrastructure, and the corresponding varying prices for 
electricity, affect driver savings, but that BEV ownership is advantageous in both bounding 
cases.  
DOF Comment:  The SRIA should disclose assumptions regarding the potential for refiners  to 
increase gasoline exports as a result of domestic demand for gasoline decreasing, as this 
would lead to smaller benefits from reduced upstream emissions.  
Staff response:  In Section 2.1.4 of the SRIA, staff described the emission impacts from the production 
and delivery of fuel (upstream emission impacts) . As DOF notes, CARB staff assumed oil well and 
gasoline refinery production would decline proportionately to gasoline demand in -state as a result of 
the regulation. However, in Figure 3 of that se ction in the SRIA, the portion of upstream emission 
impacts associated with each fuel type is itemized. By looking at the “liquid fuels” data in this figure, 
the reader can see the level of in -state emissions that would not be reduced if oil and refinery a ctivity 
were to continue under baseline conditions, instead of declining (a bounding condition relative to 
CARB staff’s assumption).  
Although staff cannot predict fuel provider operation decisions in future years, several recent 
California refinery chan ges provide indications of what fuel providers may do as gasoline 
demand declines. As gasoline and diesel demand dropped during the early period of the 
20 Kurani  et al 2016.  Kurani,  Kenneth,  Nicolette  Caperello,  and Jennifer  Tyree  Hapegeman.  2016.  “New  Car 
Buyers’  Valuation  of Zero-Emission  Vehicles:  California.”  Accessed  October  18, 2021.  
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020 -04/12_332_ac.pdf .  Covid -19 pandemic, the Marathon California refinery completely shut down instead of 
exporting fuel to ot her markets.  Marathon is not restarting the refinery as the demand rises 
again, and instead is starting the permit process to entirely change the facility to produce 
renewable diesel (RD).21 Similarly, the SF Rodeo refinery in California is planning to sh ut 
down and is planning to shift to RD or possibly renewable jet fuel.   It is not planning to 
export excess capacity.22
DOF Comment:  The SRIA should discuss why the “mid -demand” scenario from the CEC’s 
gasoline price projections is most representative despite significant anticipated reductions in 
gasoline demand, and the price trajectory of gasoline is assumed to be the same under the 
baseline and with the regulations.  
Staff response:  The “mid -demand” scenario was chosen as a reasonable scenario for this 
assessment because ex -ante we don’t have any knowledge of which of the three scenarios is 
more likely. Therefore, staff chose the mi d-scenario, to avoid being overly pessimistic or 
overly optimistic. Based on CEC’s presentation of IEPR Transportation Energy Forecast23and 
on staff -level discussions between CARB and CEC, we understand that the difference in the 
gasoline price forecast a cross the three different scenarios is exogenous to the level 
electricity demand. This is why, counter -intuitively, the gasoline prices are higher in the “high 
[electricity] -demand” scenario, even though there is less gasoline demand relative to the mid -
demand scenario. The “high -demand” scenario therefore, represents a gasoline price 
forecast that is most favorable to ZEV users, but not one that is most likely.  
Staff does recognize that the significant reduction in gasoline demand has the potential to 
affect the price trajectory of gasoline in the future. However, trying to predict this effect is 
complex, and not something staff are able to do quantitatively. Gasoline prices will depend 
on the behavior of the world oil market, decisions of California ref ineries, and many other 
factors. To help better understand how much vehicle purchase behavior depends on 
increased vehicle prices and fuel cost -savings, staff has added an additional sensitivity 
analysis in Appendix D. This analysis suggests that even in a  situation where ZEV buyers 
completely exclude any consideration of fuel savings, there is still a minimal change in ZEV 
purchases even with the increased vehicle cost.24This bounding exercise suggests that even 
in the eventuality that there is a decrease d price trend for gasoline, it is not expected to have 
a significant impact on overall ZEV sales.  
DOF Comment:  Comprehensive estimates of disparate impacts must be included . 
a. Other groups of small businesses disproportionately impacted . 
Staff response:  CARB staff do not have specific information on how the purchase and 
ownership of ZEVs will create disproportionate impacts on small businesses. The change in 
21 Marathon  2021.  Marathon  Petroleum.  https://www.marathonpetroleum.com/Newsroom/Company -
News/Marathon -Petroleum -to-Proceed -with-Conversion -of-Martinez -Refinery -to-Renewable -Fuels -Facility/  
22 Fallas  2021.  https://www.phillips66.com/newsroom/rodeo -renewed -right -project -at-the-right -time 
23 CEC 2021.  California  Energy  Commission.  https://www.energy.ca.gov/event/workshop/2021 -12/session -2-
iepr-commissioner -workshop -electricity -and-natural -gas-demand  
24 Appendix  D, Table  10 shows  that the reduction  in vehicle  sales,  without  considering  ZEV skepticism,  is only 
reduced  by as much  as 0.8%  in 2034.costs for company fleets are directly proportional to the number of vehicles each compan y 
owns. Although there are increased purchase costs in the early model years, for BEVs, there 
are substantial cost savings for operating BEVs. It is possible that some small businesses may 
lack sufficient access to capital to cover the increased purchase c ost regardless of vehicle 
operating savings that occur at later times, but CARB does not have data to evaluate these 
unique business cases. Further, it is possible some businesses (large or small) cannot rely on 
BEVs given the nature of fleet operations an d the use of their vehicles, and instead will need 
to rely on PHEVs that provide a gasoline fuel option. PHEVs are not projected to have vehicle 
ownership cost savings over a ten -year period, and also are projected to have higher 
incremental purchase costs . However, CARB staff believe BEV technology is evolving rapidly , 
will serve the vast majority of company fleet needs  in the earlier years, and ultimately meet all 
fleet needs . 
Separately, CARB is aware of potential impacts to independent transportation -related 
business that currently provide retail services or repairs for conventional vehicles. In addition 
to what was described in Section 2.2 of the SRIA (“Benefits to Typical Businesses” such as 
Tier 1 suppliers and ZEV fueling providers),  and Section 5.3.1 of the SRIA (“California 
Employment Impacts” including gasoline station retail operations), the proposed regulation 
has a provision intended to benefit independent vehicle repair services (as compared to 
franchise auto dealer repair shop s). Moreover, businesses may adapt to market demands, 
such as gasoline stations becoming ZEV charging facilities and expanding related retail 
services to generate revenue, consistent with the current practice of many gasoline stations 
of selling retail and  convenience products as a dominant profit center.25The ZEV Assurance 
provision that will require automakers to disclose service information is intended to make it 
easier for independent service businesses to transition to servicing ZEVs by reducing 
information barriers, such as data access and costs for employee training.  
b. Some state and local government entities may be disproportionately impacted.  
Staff response:  CARB staff are not able to precisely predict how the purchase and ownership 
of ZEVs may disproportionate ly impact state government agencies. State law (SB 498) 
already requires that no later than fiscal year 2024 -205 the Department of General Services 
ensure 50 -percent  of light -duty vehicles purchased by state agencies are zero -emissions.  
Agencies for which ZEV purchases accelerate due to the proposed regulation may initially 
have increased purchase costs in the early model years, but there are also substantial cost 
savings for operating BEVs, which should ultimately benefit California res idents by reducing 
state government vehicle costs. The State departments that own the greatest number of 
light-duty vehicles include the California Highway Patrol, Corrections and Rehabilitation, Fish 
and Wildlife, General Services, and Transportation. In 2019, these departments each owned 
over 10 percent of the non -disposed and non -confidential LDVs within the California State
25 Cockett  2021.  Cockett,  Z., Why most  gas stations  don’t  make  money  from  selling  gas, 
https://thehustle.co/the -economics -of-gas-stations/  Sept.  12, 2021Vehicle Fleet.26Overall, the State government is estimated to have net savings in total cost of 
ownership (TCO) from ZEVs of $230. 7 million from 2026 -2040).27
CARB staff do not have specific information on how the purchase and ownership of ZEVs will 
create disproportionate impacts on local government agencies. The change in costs for local 
government fleets are directly proportiona l to the number of vehicles each county, city, or 
district owns. Although there are increased purchase costs in the early model years, for BEVs, 
there are substantial cost savings for operating BEVs, which is a benefit to residents of these 
localities . 
c. Potential for disproportionate impacts on lower income individuals.  
Staff response:  As described in Chapter IX of th e ISOR , ZEVs can be cheaper to own and 
maintain than conventional vehicles, reducing transportation costs that comprise a 
disproportionat e share of spending for lower -income Californians. Proposed ZEV assurance 
and technical requirements enhance the likelihood that ZEVs will be more affordable, making 
them more likely to be used in place of conventional vehicles and thus reducing emissions.  
This includes a required convenience cord from automakers that can reduce the cost for 
home charging access, as well as a standardized fast charge port that will make charging 
infrastructure investments more efficient, which may lead to lower public charg ing costs . 
Annual costs of ownership for BEVs specifically can be low, resulting in substantial savings, 
depending on the size of the BEV (vehicle class and battery size). A BEV passenger car  with a 
range of 300-miles is less expensive than the comparable conventional vehicle in all ten years 
of ownership studied, and for the range of model years evaluated. Specifically, for both the 
2026 model year and 2035 model year 300 -mile BEV, the annual fuel and maintenance 
savings offset the annual loan costs of the vehicle purchase, even when accounting for higher 
electricity prices with a driver that solely relies on public charging prices.28These savings 
from ZEVs relative to income are significantly higher for low -income ho useholds, Black, 
Indigenous, and People of Color, and households in areas with higher levels of pollution.29
Furthermore, cost reductions in new ZEVs could also lead to decreased used ZEV prices and 
cost parity for low -income households, where the higher r ates of depreciation for first owners 
26 DGS 2021. California  Department  of General  Services.  California  State  Fleet,  2015 -2019.  
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/california -state -fleet January  6, 2021.  Accessed  March  28, 2022.   
27 Based  on $129.1 million  in vehicle  cost and $359.8  million  in operational  savings  (see Form  399 
Attachment,  Table  39).
28 Note  these  trends  are not observed  with the PHEV  and FCEV  passenger  vehicles  evaluated.
29 ICCT  2021 a. Bauer,  G., Hsu, C., Lutsey,  N. The International  Council  on Climate  and Transportation.  When  
might  lower -income  drivers  benefit  from  electric  vehicles?  Quantifying  the economic  equity  implications  of 
electric  vehicle  adoption.  https://theicct.org/publications/EV -equity -feb2021  February  2021.  Accessed  January  
31, 2022.will lead to larger benefits for second owners.3031For details of the costs in these examples, 
refer to the BEV300 “without a home charger” in total cost of ownership tables, and the 
figures in Chapter IX  of the ISOR . 
Knowing the potential of ZEVs for positive distributional impacts, CARB’s light -duty vehicle 
funding programs will likely shift to a further focus on harder to reach consumer segments 
and used vehicles, providing more benefit to communities with environmental justice 
concerns.32Additionally, the regulation seeks to work in tandem with incentives and other 
programs to advance access to ZEVs for lower -income Californians. Staff are proposing 
regulatory incentives for automakers that take action to help improve environmental justice 
and equity outcomes as described in section III.C.5. Optional environmental justice vehicle 
values offered under the proposed ZEV regulation of the ACC II program are aimed at 
complementing CARB’s equity incentive program s. These actions include providing ZEVs and 
PHEVs at a discount to community clean mobility programs; retaining used ZEVs after leases 
in the California market for low -income vehicle purchasing and finance assistance programs; 
and offering lower -priced new  ZEVs to the market. These optional provisions will help 
increase affordable access to ZEVs, particularly in communities with environmental justice 
concerns in California . 
Business  Report ing is Necessary  for the Health,  Safety,  and Welfare  
(Gov.  Code,  §§ 11346.5,  subd.  (a)(11);  11346.3,  subd.  (d)): 
In accordance  with Government  Code  sections  11346.5,  subdivisions  (a)(11)  and 11346.3,  
subdivision  (d), the Executive  Officer  finds  the reporting  requirements  of the proposed  
regulatory  action  which apply  to businesses  are necessary  for the health,  safety,  and welfare  
of the people  of the State  of California.  The various  reports  required  by the proposed  
regulations  ensure  that CARB  has the information  it needs  about  the emissions  performance  
of the vehicles  produced  and delivered  for sale in California  to verify  compliance  with the 
regulations.  In this way, CARB  will be able to confirm  that emissions  are reduced  as intended.  
Cost Impacts  on Representative  Private  Persons  or Businesses  (Gov.  
Code,  § 11346.5,  subd.  (a)(9)):
In developing  this regulatory  proposal,  CARB  staff evaluated  the potential  economic  impacts  
on representative  private  persons  or businesses.  These  impacts  are described  more  fully in 
the accompanying  Economic  and Fiscal  Impact  Statement,  Form  399, for the proposed  
regulations.
30 Busch  2021.  Busch,  C. Energy  Innovation  Policy  & Technology  LLC. Used  Electric  Vehicles  Deliver  Consumer  
Savings  Over  Gas Cars:  Policy  Implications  and Total  Ownership  Cost Analysis  for Non-Luxury  Used  Cars 
Available  To California  Consumers  Today.  https://energyinnovation.org/wp -content/uploads/2021/06/Used -
Electric -Vehicles -Deliver -Consumer -Savings -Over -Gas-Cars.pdf   June  2021.  Accessed  January  31, 2022.
31 ICCT  2021b.  Tankou,  A., Lutsey,  N., & Hall, D. The International  Council  on Climate  and Transportation.  
Understanding  and Supporting  the Used  Zero-Emission  Vehicle  Market.  https://theicct.org/wp -
content/uploads/2021/12/ZEVA -used -EVs-white -paper -v2.pdf  December  2021.  Accessed  January  31, 2022.
32 CARB  2021.  California  Air Resources  Board.  Proposed  Fiscal  Year 2021 -22 Funding  Plan for Clean  
Transportation  Incentives.  https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021 -10/fy21 -22_fundingplan.pdf  Released  
October  2021.  Accessed  January  31, 2022.The primary  businesses  affected  by the Proposed  Regulation  are manufacturers  that sell on-
road light-duty vehicles  in the State  of California.  At this time,  there  are 26 companies  that 
would  be subject  to this regulation.  All major  manufacturers  are based  outside  of California  
except  Tesla,  and none  are small  businesses.  The cost to manufacturers  will be high per 
vehicle  in the early  years,  but significantly  decrease  over time by 2035.  
CARB  is not aware  of any cost impacts  that a representative  private  person  or business  would  
necessarily  incur  in reasonable  compliance  with the proposed  action.  Indirectly  affected  are 
California  consumers  that buy new vehicles  and eventua lly used  vehicles.  Between  2026  and 
2040,  the Proposed  Regulation  is estimated  to result  in additional  costs  to businesses  of 
$30.2  billion,  or $2.0 billion  on average  per year.  For a representative  individual  or business  
buying  a vehicle  subject  to the proposed  regulations  once  they are fully implemented,  the 
average  initial  cost increase  (vehicle  cost plus sales  tax) is estimated  to be about  $1,460 . The 
ongoing  operating  costs  (electricity,  hydrogen  fuel, insurance,  and registration  are estimated  
to be $399  per year and once  accounting  for cost-savings  (gasoline,  maintenance  & repair,  
and vehicle -to-grid services),  results  in a net savings  of $298  per year.
The total cost of ownership  (TCO)  is also estimated  for individuals  and entities  purchasing  
these  vehicles.  Such  entities  will incur  increased  vehicle  costs  as summarized  above  but will 
generate  vehicle  operational  cost savings  that outweigh  the costs . For a ZEV in 2035,  the 
initial  savings  are nearly  immediate  and cumulative  savings  over ten years  exceed  $7,500.  
Overall,  between  2026  and 2040,  the TCO  is estimated  to be a net cost savings , statewide,  
of $81.8  billion,  or $5.9 billion  on average  per year.  
Effect  on Small  Business  (Cal. Code  Regs.,  tit. 1, § 4, subds.  (a) and (b)):
For the reasons explained  in the accompanying  Economic  and Fiscal  Impact  Statement,  the 
Executive  Officer  has also determined  under  California  Code  of Regulations,  title 1, section  4, 
that the proposed  regulatory  action  would  not affect  small  businesses . The proposed  LEV 
regulations  do not apply  directly  to small  businesses . Staff is proposing  changes  to the 
California  Service  Information  Regulation,  California  Code  of Regulations,  section  1969 , that 
are expected  to increase  participation  of small  independent  repair  shops in servicing  ZEVs  
through  the transition  to ZEV technologies.
Consideration  of Alternatives  (Gov.  Code,  § 11346.5,  subd.  (a)(13)):
Before  taking  final action  on the proposed  regulatory  action,  the Board  must  determine  that 
no reasonable  alternative  considered  by the Board,  or that has otherwise  been  identified  and 
brought  to the attention  of the Board  would  be more  effective  in carrying  out the purpose  
for which  the action  is proposed,  would  be as effective  and less burdensome  to affected  
private  person s than the proposed  action,  or would  be more  cost-effective  to affected  
private  persons  and equally  effective  in implementing  the statutory  policy  or other  provisions  
of law. As explained  in the accompanying  ISOR,  the proposed  regulations  are the most  
effective  and least  burdensome  means  of achieving  the purposes  of the proposal.
State Implementation Plan Revision 
If adopted  by CARB,  CARB  plans  to submit  the proposed  regulatory  action  to the U.S. EPA 
for approval  as a revision  to the California  State  Implementation  Plan (SIP) required  by thefederal  Clean  Air Act (CAA).  The adopted  regulatory  action  would  be submitt ed as a SIP 
revision  because  it amends  regulations  intended  to reduce  emissions  of air pollutants  in 
order  to attain  and maintain  the National  Ambient  Air Quality  Standards  promulgated  by U.S. 
EPA pursuant  to the CAA.
Environmental Analysis
CARB,  as the lead agency  for the proposed  regulations,  has prepared  a draft  environmental  
analysis  (EA) under  its certified  regulatory  program33to comply  with the requirements  of the 
California  Environmental  Quality  Act (CEQA ).34The draft  EA assesses  the potential  for 
significant  adverse  and beneficial  environmental  impacts  associated  with the proposed  
actions  and provides  a programmatic  environ mental  analysis  of the reasonably  foreseeable  
compliance  responses  that could  result  from  implementation  of the proposed  regulations .
The EA concluded  implementation  of the proposed  regulations  could  result  in: beneficial  
impacts  to air quality  (long -term  operational)  and greenhouse  gas emissions;  less than 
significant  impacts,  or no impacts,  to energy  demand,  land use, mineral  resources,  
population  and housing,  public  services,  recreation,  and wildfire;  and potentially  significant  
adverse  impacts  to aesthe tics, agricultural  and forest  resources,  air quality  (short -term  
construction  related),  biological  resources,  cultural  resources,  geology  and soils,  hazards  and 
hazardous  materials,  hydrology  and water  quality,  noise  and vibration,  transportation,  tribal  
cultural  resources,  and utilities  and service  systems.  
The draft  EA, included  as Appendix  E to the ISOR,  is entitled  Draft  Environmental  Analysis  
for the Proposed  Advanced  Clean  Car II Program . Written  comments  on the draft  EA will be 
accepted  during  a 45-day public  review  period  starting  on April  15, 2022  and ending  on May 
31, 2022.
Special Accommodation Request
Consistent  with California  Government  Code  section  7296.2,  special  accommodation  or 
language  needs  may be provided  for any of the following:
·An interpreter  to be available  at the hearing;
·Documents  made  available  in an alternate  format  or another  language;  and
·A disability -related  reasonable  accommodation.
To request  these  special  accommodations  or language  needs,  please  contact  the Clerks’  
Office  at cotb@arb.ca.gov  or (916)  322-5594  as soon  as possible,  but no later than ten 
business  days before  the scheduled  Board  hearing.  TTY/TDD/Speech  to Speech  users  may 
dial 711 for the California  Relay  Service.
Consecuente  con la sección  7296.2  del Código  de Gobierno  de California,  una acomodación  
especial  o necesidades  lingüísticas  pueden  ser suministradas  para cualquiera  de los 
siguientes:
33 California  Code  of Regulations,  title 17, sections  60000  through  60008.
34 See Public  Resources  Code  § 21080.5.·Un intérprete  que esté disponible  en la audiencia;
·Documentos  disponibles  en un formato  alterno  u otro idioma;  y
·Una acomodación  razonable  relacionados  con una incapacidad.
Para solicitar  estas  comodidades  especiales  o necesidades  de otro idioma,  por favor  llame  a 
la oficina  del Consejo  al cotb@arb.ca.gov  o (916)  322-5594  lo más pronto  posible,  pero no 
menos  de 10 días de trabajo  antes  del día programado  para la audiencia  del Consejo.  
TTY/TDD/Personas  que necesiten  este servicio  pueden  marcar  el 711 para el Servicio  de 
Retransmisión  de Mensajes  de California.
Agency Contact Persons
Inquiries  concer ning the substance  of the proposed  regulatory  action  may be directed  to the 
agency  representative  Anna  Wong,  Manager , ZEV Market  Advancement  Section,  at (279)  
208-7203  or (designated  back -up contact)  Shobna  Sahni,  Chief , New Vehicle/Engines  
Program  Branch , at (951) 542-3369.
Availability of Documents
CARB  staff has prepared  a ISOR  as required  under  the Administrative  Procedure  Act for the 
proposed  regulatory  action,  which  includes  a summary  of the economic  and environmental  
impacts  of the proposal.  The repo rt is entitled:  Public  Hearing  to Consider  Proposed  
Advanced  Clean  Cars II Regulations .
Copies  of the ISOR  and the full text of the proposed  regulatory  language,  may be accessed  
on CARB’s  website  listed  below,  on Tuesday,  April  12, 2022 . Please  contact  Bradley  
Bechtold , Regulations  Coordinator,  at bradley.bechtold@arb.ca.gov  or (279)  208-7266  if you 
need  physical  copies  of the documents.  
Because  of current  travel,  facility,  and staffing  restrictions,  the California  Air Resources  
Board’s  offices  have  limited  public  access.  Pursuant  to Government  Code  section  11346.5,  
subdivision  (b), upon  reque st to the aforementioned  Regulations  Coordinator,  physical  
copies  would  be obtained  from  the Public  Information  Office,  California  Air Resources  Board,  
1001  I Street,  Visitors  and Environmental  Services  Center,  First Floor,  Sacramento,  California,  
95814.
Further,  the agency  representative  to whom  non-substantive  inquiries  concerning  the 
proposed  administrative  action  may be directed  is Bradley  Bechtold , Regulations  
Coordinator,  (279)  208-7266 . The Board  staff has compiled  a record  for this rulemaking  
action , which  includes  all the information  upon  which  the proposal  is based.  This material  is 
available  for inspection  upon  request  to the contact  persons.
Hearing Procedures
The public  hearing  will be conducted  in accordance  with the California  Administrative  
Procedure  Act, Government  Code,  title 2, division  3, part 1, chapter  3.5 (commencing  with 
section  11340).
Following  the public  hearing,  the Board  may vote on a resolution  directing  the Executive  
Officer  to: make  any proposed  modified  regulatory  language  that is sufficiently  related  to theoriginally  proposed  text that the public  was adequately  placed  on notice  and that the 
regulatory  language  as modified  could  result  from  the proposed  regulatory  action , and any 
additional  supporting  documents  and information , available  to the public  for a period  of at 
least  15 days;  consider  written  comments  submitted  during  this period;  and make  any further  
modifications  as may be appropriate  in light of the comments  received  available  for further  
public  comment.  The Board  may also direct  the Executive  Officer  to: evaluate  all comments  
received  during  the public  comment  periods,  including  comments  regarding  the Draft  
Environmental  Analysis,  and prepare  written  responses  to those  comments;  and present  to 
the Board,  at a subseq uently  scheduled  public  hearing,  the final proposed  regulatory  
language,  staff’s  written  responses  to comments  on the Draft  Environmental  Analysis,  along  
with the Final  Environmental  Analysis  for action ; or adopt  final regulatory  language,  staff’s  
response s to the Draft  Environmental  Analysis,  and the Final  Environmental  Analysis  for the 
proposed  regulations .
Final Statement of Reasons Availability
Upon  its completion,  the Final  Statement  of Reasons  (FSOR)  will be available,  and copies  may 
be requested  from  the agency  contact  persons  in this notice,  or may be accessed  on CARB’s  
website  listed  below.
Internet Access
This notice,  the ISOR  and all subsequent  regulatory  documents,  including  the FSOR,  when  
completed,  are available  on CARB’s  website  for this rulem aking  at 
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2022/advanced -clean -cars-ii
California  Air Resources  Board
_________________________________
Richard  W. Corey
Executive  Officer
Date:  March  29, 2022