California’s electric vehicle (EV) voucher program, designed to accelerate the adoption of zero-emission trucks and buses by subsidizing up to 90% of vehicle costs, is facing significant challenges related to manufacturer instability, vehicle performance, and program oversight.

Since its launch in 2009 as the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, the program has distributed funding to transit agencies, businesses, and other fleet operators to encourage the purchase of cleaner vehicles. However, numerous participants have reported frequent breakdowns, unreliable maintenance, and issues stemming from the collapse or pivot of smaller EV manufacturers. For example, the city of Porterville halted its electric bus purchases after a battery fire and the bankruptcy of one supplier left several shuttle vans without service support. Similarly, a senior living facility in the San Francisco area sold a large EV shuttle bus after a mechanical failure caused it to roll backward and damage parked cars.

The struggles are not limited to small operators. Independent trucker Bill Hall of Berkeley purchased a hydrogen-powered big rig subsidized by the state but has been unable to use it following the bankruptcy of the manufacturer, Nikola Corp., which faced fraud allegations and safety recalls. Hall has sought compensation from state officials, noting that although much of the vehicle’s cost was covered by subsidies, he still incurred significant losses.

Public transit agencies in Los Angeles also report underuse of their EV fleets purchased through the program. At L.A. Metro, 93 electric buses funded by $15.7 million of state vouchers are driven 36% less on average than diesel models. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s 155 electric vehicles, acquired with $20.2 million in vouchers, similarly log only half the mileage of conventional vehicles. Some vehicles, including a $630,000 bus delivered in mid-2024, remain largely unused due to insufficient charging infrastructure.

Program administrators face criticism over oversight and accountability. Of the 57 automakers that have participated, 15 have ceased operations or exited the zero-emission market. At least five companies involved have been accused of fraud, with some admitting wrongdoing or settling without admission. Several manufacturers have been suspended from the program for inflating prices, providing false information, or failing to deliver vehicles. Notably, Cenntro Automotive was suspended after applying for more than 1,200 vouchers totaling $145 million, many of which were rescinded due to fraudulent submissions.

California Air Resources Board (CARB), which oversees the program, has been criticized by former officials and observers for slow or inadequate responses to red flags. CARB is considering new measures, including inspecting every vehicle model eligible for vouchers to verify battery range and other specifications, though these proposals have not yet been implemented.

Despite these challenges, state officials maintain the program has contributed to emission reductions, estimating a decrease of 1.5 million metric tons of CO2, equivalent to shutting down four natural gas power plants. However, independent analysis highlights significant gaps in data tracking. CARB requires manufacturers to report quarterly mileage for three years on every vehicle, yet 64% of vehicles since 2020 lack any submitted mileage data. This absence hampers efforts to verify usage and actual emission reductions. Available data shows many program vehicles fall well short of state mileage benchmarks, with 55% of trucks, shuttles, and vans driven less than 12,000 miles annually, and 80% of zero-emission vehicles operating below expected levels.

Rising vehicle costs pose an additional concern. Although lithium-ion battery prices have dropped dramatically over the past decade, the average retail price of zero-emission heavy-duty trucks has increased, a trend some officials describe as potentially driven by manufacturers leveraging subsidies to inflate prices. Former CARB board member Hector De La Torre has called for a thorough investigation into this pricing anomaly. In response, state lawmakers including Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes have introduced legislation requiring manufacturers to publish recommended base prices for subsidized vehicles, aiming to ensure affordability for fleets and small businesses while supporting California’s clean air goals.

Officials within the program acknowledge the early-stage nature of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle technology has contributed to these issues but emphasize that the evolving marketplace is attracting larger, more stable manufacturers. As California continues to refine its approach, the voucher program remains a key element in the state’s strategy to reduce transportation emissions despite ongoing operational and oversight challenges.