Governor Phil Murphy’s plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars in New Jersey by 2035, under the Advanced Clean Cars II rule, is a bold move aimed at combating climate change.
While the intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is commendable, this aggressive mandate is impractical, costly, and overlooks the real-world challenges facing New Jersey residents and businesses. Here are several reasons why this policy is a bad idea for the Garden State.
First, the ban places a significant financial burden on New Jersey’s middle- and working-class families. Electric vehicles (EVs) currently cost $5,000 to $15,000 more than their gas-powered counterparts, a price gap that, despite recent declines, remains a barrier for many residents. Even with state rebates of up to $4,000 for EVs under $45,000, the upfront cost is prohibitive for households already grappling with high taxes and living expenses.
Critics, including the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, argue that this policy could make new cars “virtually unaffordable” for many, effectively pricing out a significant portion of the population from the new car market.
Second, New Jersey’s infrastructure is woefully unprepared for a full transition to EVs by 2035. The state’s electric grid is already strained, and experts like Sen. Paul Sarlo, a prominent Democrat, have questioned its capacity to handle the increased demand from widespread EV adoption.
The lack of sufficient charging stations is another hurdle—while progress has been made, urban areas, where many residents lack private parking, face significant challenges in installing accessible chargers. Without massive federal and state investment, the infrastructure simply cannot support Murphy’s ambitious timeline, risking blackouts and unreliable transportation for residents.
Third, the ban severely limits consumer choice and could harm local businesses. By mandating that 100% of new car sales be zero-emission by 2035, the policy effectively eliminates gas-powered vehicles, which still account for over 95% of vehicle sales in New Jersey.
State Sen. Ed Durr has called this approach “radically disingenuous,” arguing that it’s a forced mandate disguised as consumer freedom. The New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers warns that manufacturers may send fewer vehicles to the state, reducing options and driving up costs, while consumers may flock to neighboring states like Pennsylvania to buy gas-powered cars, hurting New Jersey’s car dealerships. This could devastate an industry that employs thousands across the state.
Moreover, the policy’s long-term feasibility is questionable. Murphy’s governorship ends in 2026, and his successor may not share his vision, as seen with past environmental initiatives like offshore wind turbines that stalled under different administrations.
Polls show that while New Jerseyans are concerned about climate change, only 17% support aggressive EV mandates, with 59% viewing the ban as “unrealistic” and 69% believing it will raise costs. This disconnect suggests the policy is out of touch with the public’s priorities, risking backlash and potential reversal.
Finally, the environmental benefits of the ban are not guaranteed to outweigh its costs. Transportation accounts for nearly half of New Jersey’s greenhouse gas emissions, but EVs still rely on an electric grid powered partly by fossil fuels. Without a parallel push for cleaner energy sources, the emissions reduction may fall short of expectations.
Critics like Jeff Tittel of the New Jersey Sierra Club argue that Murphy’s continued approval of fossil fuel projects undermines his clean energy goals, casting doubt on the coherence of his climate strategy.
A more balanced approach would prioritize hybrid vehicles, which conserve energy without requiring a complete overhaul of infrastructure or consumer behavior. Investing in grid reliability, expanding charging networks, and offering robust incentives for affordable EVs would better align with New Jersey’s needs.
Governor Murphy’s gas car ban, while well-intentioned, is a top-down mandate that ignores practical realities and risks economic hardship for residents.
New Jersey deserves a climate strategy that respects consumer choice, strengthens infrastructure, and avoids undue burdens on its people.Disclaimer: This editorial reflects a critical perspective based on available information and does not endorse any political stance.