California now has more EV charging ports than gas nozzles
Electric vehicle charging ports now outnumber gas nozzles across the Golden State, a sign of the increasing number of zero-emission vehicles on the road. But the milestone arrives as the federal government has moved to deprioritize the shift away from gasoline-powered cars.
California has steadily amassed its EV charging network with both public and private charging ports over the last few years. In 2024, California boasted 178,500 total EV ports compared to around 120,000 estimated gas nozzles, according to the California Energy Commission.
The number of accessible chargers across California has nearly doubled since 2022. Just since August, the last time these figures were publicly updated, the state has recorded roughly 26,000 additional publicly accessible EV chargers.
Read more: State's first EV-charging roadway planned for UCLA ahead of Olympics
The commission estimates that more than 162,000 chargers are Level 2, which can provide roughly 14 to 35 miles of range per hour of charging, and nearly 17,000 are considered fast chargers — which juice up a vehicle in minutes. Many hybrid vehicles are not equipped to work with fast chargers, however.
More than 700,000 Level 2 chargers are installed across the state in single-family homes, according to state estimates.
All of this expansion is taking place as California aims to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035 — though those plans have come under fire by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans.
Read more: Trump, congressional Republicans seek to block California's 2035 ban on gas-powered vehicles
"The California EV driver experience is getting better by the day,' CEC Chairman David Hochschild said in a statement. 'The state will continue to heavily invest in EV infrastructure, with particular emphasis in hard-to-reach areas, making these vehicles an easy choice for new car buyers.'
Part of the dramatic increase in the statewide tally is due to new data sources that track operational chargers, though there has also been a large increase in new chargers installed, the agency said. Roughly 73,500 chargers were incorporated into the state's data in 2024, but only approximately 38,000 of those were newly installed chargers.
Nationwide, the EV market now has to tangle with a major obstacle: the White House. The Trump administration has signaled fierce opposition and taken steps to reverse policies enacted by former President Biden that were intended to bolster the EV market and phase out gas-powered vehicles — including the goal for EVs to make up half of new cars sold in the U.S. by 2030.
The federal government has paused a $15-million grant to expand Oregon's EV charging network, according to the Portland Business Journal, and the Miami Herald reports a similar pattern for Florida's plans to build more EV charging ports.
Read more: Broken chargers, lax oversight: How California's troubled EV charging stations threaten emission goals
In August, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded 29 states, eight federally recognized tribes and the District of Columbia $521 million to expand the nation's EV charging network. California received nearly $150 million for the construction of more than 9,200 EV charging ports, with $15 million meant to go toward building them in underserved communities in Los Angeles County.
Across the country and Puerto Rico, there are more than 77,300 EV charging stations and roughly 216,400 public ports, according to the latest federal data from the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors see risks for market as Powell walks tightrope at Jackson Hole
By Davide Barbuscia NEW YORK (Reuters) -Investors are bracing for volatility as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell walks a fine line between curbing inflation and supporting the labor market, with thin August trading poised to magnify any market moves from his Jackson Hole speech on Friday. Wall Street largely expects Powell will signal an imminent easing in monetary policy, but concerns that U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs could reignite price pressures may force him to tread carefully. Meanwhile, Powell faces relentless pressure from the Trump administration to cut interest rates, turning his final address as Fed boss at the Jackson Hole economic symposium into a test of Fed independence. "There is a market tightrope here from a macroeconomic perspective between the inflation data and what's happening in the employment market," said Tony Rodriguez, head of fixed income strategy at Nuveen. "And now you combine that with the political tightrope that's not usually there that he has to navigate. It makes for an incredibly difficult, tricky situation," he said. Adding to the drama, Trump on Wednesday urged Fed Governor Lisa Cook to resign over mortgage allegations raised by one of his political allies, intensifying his effort to gain influence over the U.S. central bank. Cook said she had "no intention of being bullied" out of her post. "This (Jackson Hole) would be a good opportunity for Powell to speak about the importance of independence," said Idanna Appio, portfolio manager at First Eagle Investments, noting that the pressure could eventually lead to a more dovish rate-setting Fed board. A soft July jobs report and hefty downward revisions to earlier job figures fueled bets the U.S. central bank would cut interest rates from the current 4.25%-4.5% range later this year. But a surge in wholesale prices in July dimmed investor hopes for a half-point move at the Fed's next rate-setting meeting in September, leaving markets braced for about two 25 basis point cuts for the rest of the year. So far, consumers have been spared a sharp jump in prices despite Trump's escalating import tariffs, but doubts linger over how much of those duties will filter through to households in the months ahead. "I expect that Powell will signal a change in monetary policy that suggests that we'll resume the rate-cutting cycle on September 17, and markets will welcome that news," said Michael Arone, chief investment strategist at State Street Investment Management. "But I think he'll be reluctant to give too much transparency on the future path of rate cuts, because he knows what he doesn't know," Arone said, referring to the inflationary impact of tariffs. 'EXPECT VOLATILITY' Investors see any pushback from Powell against an imminent shift to monetary policy easing as the biggest risk heading into the Jackson Hole, Wyoming, event, with poor liquidity in summer trading expected to exacerbate the market reaction. "It's next to the last week of August, it's Friday, markets might be a little more susceptible to some volatility as a result of a little bit less liquidity ... (this) might lead to something of an unexpected move," said Rodriguez at Nuveen. Powell's speech comes amid market concerns of stagflation, a dreaded mix of sluggish growth and sticky inflation that could limit the Fed's ability to ride to Wall Street's rescue, just as a tech stock selloff this week highlighted long-standing worries over steep stock valuations. "Stagflation is a risk," said James Ragan, co-chief investment officer and director of investment management research at D.A. Davidson. "If Powell pulls back on the expectation for a rate cut in September, I think stocks would fall in that scenario and you obviously would see probably bond yields rise at least at the short end," he said. To be sure, Powell's address may ultimately be underwhelming for markets. Hot producer prices data in July removed the possibility that the Fed could deliver a jumbo-sized cut in September, limiting the scope for resistance from an inflation-focused Powell against those expectations. At the Jackson Hole conference in 2022, Powell echoed late Fed chair Paul Volcker with a hardline vow to crush inflation. This time, with inflation about 1 percentage point above the Fed's 2% target and a softening but still healthy job market, a subtler balance could be in the cards. Still, a balanced message could be perceived as hawkish, sparking price fluctuations in stocks and bonds over the next few weeks, said Shannon Saccocia, chief investment officer for wealth management at Neuberger Berman. "Our advice to clients has been to expect volatility," she said.
American Press
27 minutes ago
- American Press
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
Fast Company
27 minutes ago
- Fast Company
EPA to rule on biofuel waivers, but big oil refiners may need to wait
President Donald Trump 's administration is expected to rule on a growing backlog of requests from small oil refiners seeking relief from U.S. biofuel laws as early as Friday, but will delay a decision on whether larger refiners must compensate by boosting their own biofuel blending, according to two sources familiar with the planning. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday will announce decisions on some of the 195 pending small refinery exemption requests that date back as far as 2016, the sources said. The rulings will not be a sweeping win for small refiners, and will include some partial denials of waivers, according to one of the sources briefed on the decisions. The administration is also expected to issue a supplemental rule as early as next week to seek public comment on whether larger refiners should make up for the exempted gallons in a process known as reallocation, the source said. How the administration deals with exemption requests and the reallocation issues will have consequences for the oil and agricultural industries, and impact the price of commodities from gasoline and renewable diesel to soybeans and corn, along with the companies that produce them. In the past, widespread exemptions without reallocation have sent renewable blending credit prices lower, denting prices for corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biofuel. The EPA and White House did not respond to requests for comment. The U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard requires refiners to blend biofuels like ethanol into the fuel pool or by the tradable credits, known as RINs, from refiners who do. Small refiners can petition the EPA to receive an exemption if they can show financial hardship. The EPA has a mounting backlog of such requests going back years – the result of political indecision and legal wrangling across multiple administrations. Both the agriculture and the oil industries are keen for resolution. Granting exemptions without forcing other refiners to make up the difference increases the supply of credits and puts downward pressure on their prices. Farm and biofuel groups have lobbied the EPA to limit the number of exemptions and to force other refiners to make up for exempted gallons. The oil industry is strongly opposed to reallocation, arguing it creates an uneven playing field and imposes burdensome regulatory costs. The EPA said earlier this year that it would force larger refiners to make up for future exempted gallons, but was silent on how it would treat exempt gallons from the dozens of backlogged requests. The supplemental rule will include various options in a bid to test how the market may respond, the sources said. —Jarrett Renshaw, Reuters
