At a Tesla Supercharger lot in Kettleman City, cars are using fast chargers. Tesla recently reached agreements with other automakers to give them access to their chargers.
(
Larry Valenzuela
/
CalMatters
)
Topline:
Public chargers must be built at an unprecedented pace to meet the target in less than 7 years, and then doubled to 2 million in 2035. The high cost — $120,000 or more for one fast charger— is just one obstacle.
Why now: A million public chargers are needed in California by the end of 2030, according to the state’s projections — almost 10 times more than the number available to drivers in December. To meet that target, 129,000 new stations — more than seven times the current pace — must be built every year for the next seven years. Then the pace would have to accelerate again to reach a target of 2.1 million chargers in 2035.
Why it matters: A robust network of public chargers — akin to the state’s more than 8,000 gas stations — is essential to ensure that drivers will have the confidence to purchase electric vehicles over the next several years. “It is very unlikely that we will hit our goals, and to be completely frank, the EV goals are a noble aspiration, but unrealistic,” said Stanford professor Bruce Cain, who co-authored a policy briefing detailing California’s electric vehicle charging problems.
The context: Under California’s landmark electric car mandate, a pillar of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s climate change agenda, 68% of all new 2030 model cars sold in the state must be zero emissions, increasing to 100% for 2035, when 15 million electric cars are expected in California. “We’re going to look really silly if we are telling people that they can only buy electric vehicles, and we don’t have the charging infrastructure to support that,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Encino.
California will have to build public charging stations at an unprecedented — and some experts say unrealistic — pace to meet the needs of the 7 million electric cars expected on its roads in less than seven years.
The sheer scale of the buildout has alarmed many experts and lawmakers, who fear that the state won’t be prepared as Californians purchase more electric cars.
A million public chargers are needed in California by the end of 2030, according to the state’s projections — almost 10 times more than the number available to drivers in December. To meet that target, 129,000 new stations — more than seven times the current pace — must be built every year for the next seven years. Then the pace would have to accelerate again to reach a target of 2.1 million chargers in 2035.
A robust network of public chargers — akin to the state’s more than 8,000 gas stations — is essential to ensure that drivers will have the confidence to purchase electric vehicles over the next several years.
“It is very unlikely that we will hit our goals, and to be completely frank, the EV goals are a noble aspiration, but unrealistic,” said Stanford professor Bruce Cain, who co-authored a policy briefing detailing California’s electric vehicle charging problems. “This is a wakeup call that we address potential institutional and policy obstacles more seriously before we commit blindly.”
Under California’s landmark electric car mandate, a pillar of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s climate change agenda, 68% of all new 2030 model cars sold in the state must be zero emissions, increasing to 100% for 2035, when 15 million electric cars are expected in California.
“We’re going to look really silly if we are telling people that they can only buy electric vehicles, and we don’t have the charging infrastructure to support that,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Encino who introduced a package of unsuccessful bills last year aimed at expanding access to car chargers.
“We are way behind where we need to be,” Gabriel told CalMatters.
Big obstacles stand in the way of amping up the pace of new charging stations in public places. California will need billions of dollars in state, federal and private investments, streamlined city and county permitting processes, major power grid upgrades and accelerated efforts by utilities to connect chargers to the grid.
State officials also are tasked with ensuring that charging stations are available statewide, in rural and less-affluent areas where private companies are reluctant to invest, and that they are reliable and functioning whenever drivers pull up.
In Pacific Gas & Electric’s vast service area, home to 40% of all Californians, electric car purchases are moving twice as fast as the buildout of charging stations, said Lydia Krefta, the utility’s director of clean energy transportation. Californians now own more than 1.5 million battery-powered cars.
Patty Monahan, who’s on the Energy Commission, the state agency responsible for funding and guiding the ramp-up, told CalMatters that she is confident that California can build the chargers its residents need in time.
The agency’s estimate of the current chargers is likely an undercount, she said. In addition, fast-charging stations could play a bigger role than initially projected, meaning hundreds of thousands of fewer chargers might be needed. Also, as the ranges and charging speeds on cars improve, there may be less demand for public chargers.
“California has a history of defying the odds,” Monahan said. “We have a history of advancing clean cars, clean energy, writ-large. We have naysayers left and right saying you can’t do it, and then we do it.”
Barriers to private investments: an uncertain marke
On a September day last year, Monahan spoke behind a podium in the parking lot of a Bay Area grocery store. A row of newly constructed car chargers rose behind her.
“Let’s celebrate for a moment,” she said.
California had met its goal of 10,000 fast electric chargers statewide — two years ahead of a target set in 2018.
California Energy Commissioner Patty Monahan speaks during the launch of an EVgo fast charging station in Union City on Sept. 25, 2023.
(
Loren Elliott
/
CalMatters
)
Fast chargers like the new ones at the grocery store are increasingly seen as critical to meeting the needs of drivers. They can power a car to 80% in 20 minutes to an hour, while the typical charger in use today, a slower Level 2, takes from four to 10 hours.
But installing and operating fast chargers is an expensive business — one that doesn’t easily turn a profit.
Nationwide each fast charger can cost up to $117,000, according to a 2023 study. And in California, it could be even more — between $122,000 and $440,000 each, according to a separate study, although the Energy Commission said the range was $110,000 to $125,000 for one of its programs.
Most of America’s publicly traded charger companies have been forced to seek more financing, lay off workers and slow their network build outs, analysts said. EVgo, for instance, has seen its share price crater, as has ChargePoint, which specializes in selling the slower, Level 2 hardware.
California stands apart from other states — it has by far the most chargers and electric car sales, and more incentives and policies encouraging them.
Tesla, America’s top-selling electric car manufacturer, dominates fast-charging in both California and the U.S. — but the company didn’t get into the business to sell charges to drivers; it got into the charger business to sell its electric cars. Initially Tesla Superchargers were exclusive to its drivers, but starting this year other EV drivers can use them after Tesla provided ports to Ford and other automakers.
Tesla’s manufacturing prowess, supply chain dominance and decade-plus of experience with fast chargers have given it an edge over competitors — a coterie of unprofitable, publicly traded startups, as well as private companies that often benefit from public subsidies, according to analysts.
“All the automakers joined forces with their biggest competitor,” said Loren McDonald, chief executive of the consulting firm EVAdoption. “If that doesn’t tell you how bad fast-charging networks and infrastructure were, I don’t know what else does.”
Tesla vehicles charge at a Supercharger lot in Kettleman City on June 23, 2024.
In California, Electrify America, a privately held company, was created by Volkswagen as a settlement for cheating on emissions tests for its gas-powered cars. The company is spending $800 million on California chargers, building a robust network of 260 stations, with more than half in low-income communities, including the state’s worst charging desert, Imperial County.
The problem is Electrify America was ranked dead last in a consumer survey last year, and its chargers have been plagued by reliability problems and customer complaints. The California Air Resources Board in January directed Electrify America to “strive to achieve charger reliability consistent with the state of the industry.” A company spokesperson said the dissatisfaction showed “an industry in its growth trajectory.” There are signs of improvement, based on consumer data from the first three months of this year.
Startups continue to jump into the charging business, with the number of companies offering fast chargers growing from 14 in 2020 to 41 in 2024, EVAdoption said. Seven carmakers formed a $1 billion venture to build a 30,000-charger network in North America. And gas stations such as Circle K are offering more charging because electric car customers spend more time shopping while waiting for their rides to juice up.
But the realization that charging is a costly business has set in on Wall Street, and that doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon. “Can public EV fast-charging stations be profitable in the United States?” the consultancy McKinsey & Company asked.
“The fervor, the excitement from the investor base, has definitely dwindled quite a bit, given the prospects that EV adoption in the U.S. is going to be slower, revenue growth is really slower, the path to profitability is going to be slower, and they might need more capital than everyone originally expected,” said Christopher Dendrinos, a financial analyst who covers electric car charging companies for the investment bank RBC Capital Markets.
The stakes are high for California when it comes to encouraging investments in expensive fast chargers: If 63,000 additional ones were built, California might need 402,000 fewer slower Level 2 chargers in 2030, according to an alternative forecast by the Energy Commission.
Billions of public dollars: Will it be enough?
Nationwide $53 billion to $127 billion in private investments and public funding is needed by 2030 to build chargers for about 33 million electric cars, according to a federal estimate. Of that, about half would be for public chargers.
Congress and the Biden administration have set aside $5 billion for a national network of fast chargers. So far only 33 in eight locations have been built, but more than 14,000 others are in the works, according to the Federal Highway Administration. California’s share of the federal money totals $384 million; about 500 fast chargers will be built with an initial $40.5 million, said Energy Commission spokesperson Lindsay Buckley.
In addition, the state has spent $584 million to build more than 33,000 electric car chargers through its Clean Transportation Program, funded by fees drivers pay when they register cars. The Legislature extended that program for an additional decade last year.
Newsom has committed to spending $1 billion through 2028 on chargers with his “California Climate Commitment,” Buckley said. But this year Newsom and the Legislature trimmed $167 million from the charger budget as the state faces a record deficit. A lobbyist for the Electric Vehicle Charging Association said “the state pullback sends a very challenging message” to the industry.
California’s commitment to charger funding is “solid,” despite the cuts, Buckley said. They have not yet estimated the total investment needed in California to meet the targets.
But Ted Lamm, a UC Berkeley Law researcher who studies electric car infrastructure, said the magnitude of building what California needs in coming years likely dwarfs the public funding available.
State and federal programs will “only fund a fraction,” and the state needs to spend that money on lower-income communities, he said.
Another possible funding source is California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which is expected to be revised in November. The program requires carbon-intensive fuel companies to pay for cleaner-burning transportation. Utilities get credits and use that money to pay for chargers, rebates to car buyers and grid improvements, said Laura Renger, executive director of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, which represents utilities.
“I think with that, we would have enough money,” Renger said. She said the program’s overhaul could help utilities invest “billions” in chargers and other electric car programs over the next two decades.
Backlogged local permits and grid delays
One of the biggest barriers to more chargers isn’t money. It’s that cities and counties are slow to approve plans for the vast number of stations needed.
State officials only have so much political power to compel local jurisdictions to do what they want — a reality made abundantly clear by the housing crisis, for instance. California relies on grants and persuasion to accomplish its goals, and the slow buildout of chargers shows how those strategies can fall short, said Stanford’s Cain.
“The locals cannot be compelled by regulatory agencies to make land and resources available for what the state wants to achieve,” Cain said.
The same obstacles have marked the state’s broader effort to electrify California and switch to clean energy. Local opposition and environmental reviews sometimes hold up large solar projects and transmission projects for years.
California has created a “culture of regulation that emphasizes the need to be extra careful and extra perfect, but this takes an incredible amount of time,” Steve Bohlen, senior director of government affairs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said last month at the inaugural hearing of the state Assembly’s Select Committee on Permitting Reform.
“We’re moving into a period of rapid change, and so perfect can’t be the enemy of the good.”
Workers install a transformer to power electric car chargers in Calexico
(
Adriana Heldiz
/
CalMatters
)
Chargers aren’t as complicated as large-scale solar or offshore wind projects. But most chargers installed in public spaces do need a land-use or encroachment permit, among other approvals. California has passed laws requiring local jurisdictions to streamline permits for chargers. What’s more, the Governor’s Office of Business Development now grades cities and counties using a scorecard and maintains a map displaying who has, or hasn’t, made life easier for car charger builders. But these strategies only go so far.
“It doesn’t matter how many requirements you put on (local governments),” Lamm said. “If they just don’t have the time in the day to do it … it’s going to sit in the backlog, because that’s how it works.”
The delays have consequences. Getting a station permitted in California, on average, takes 26% longer than the national average, Electrify America reported. Designing and constructing a station in California can cost on average 37% more than in other states because of delays in permitting and grid connections. A utility on average takes 17 weeks after work is completed to connect chargers to the grid, Electric America said.
Powering large charging projects often requires grid upgrades, which can take a year or more for approval, said Chanel Parson, a director at Southern California Edison. Supply chain issues also make getting the right equipment a challenge.
Edison, which has a 10-year plan to meet expected demand, has asked the utilities commission for approval to upgrade the grid where it anticipates high charging demand.
“Every EV charging infrastructure project is a major construction project,” Parson said. “There are a number of variables that influence how long it takes to complete the project.”
Impatient with broken chargers, bad service
Inspired to help the nation reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, Zach Schiff-Abrams of Los Angeles bought a Genesis GV60. As a renter, he has relied on public charging, primarily using Electrify America stations — and that’s been his biggest problem about owning an electric car.
Charging speeds have been inconsistent, he said, with half-hour sessions providing only a 15 to 30% charge, and he often encounters broken chargers.
“I believe in electrical, so I’m really actually trying to be a responsible consumer,” Schiff-Abrams said. “I want to report them when they’re down, but the customer service is horrible.”
In January, the California Air Resources Board approved a final $200 million spending plan for Electrify America — but not before board chair Liane Randolph scolded its CEO.
Randolph — arguably one of America’s top climate regulators — told CEO Robert Barrosa about an exchange she had with his company’s customer service line after finding a broken charger at a station along Interstate-5.
“It didn’t work,” Randolph said during the board meeting. “Called the customer service line, waited like 10-ish minutes. …(The charger) was showing operable on the app and the guy goes, ‘oh, my data is showing me that it has not had a successful charge in three days.’”
“These issues are not easy,” Barrosa responded. “Our head is not in the sand,” he told board members earlier. “We are listening to customers.”
But Randolph, addressing journalists at a conference in Philadelphia, pushed back against the idea that because the transition to electric vehicles is happening gradually that it’s a failure. Many people will rely on charging at home or work, and batteries are becoming more efficient.
“The infrastructure is continuing to be rolled out at a rapid pace,” Randolph said. “It doesn’t all have to be perfect instantly. It’s a process. And it’s a process that’s continuing to move.”
Data journalists Erica Yee and Arfa Momin contributed to this report.
Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has won the U.S. Senate election in Michigan, according to a race call by the Associated Press, a crucial victory in his party's quest to win back the Senate majority. One of the most closely watched elections in the U.S., the race in Michigan tested how an antiestablishment candidate on the left would fare in a perennial Midwest battleground.
Why now: Harnessing anger over the cost of living and corruption, El-Sayed galvanized young and infrequent voters by focusing on passing single-payer healthcare and curbing the influence of corporate money in politics. He is not a democratic socialist, unlike several candidates whose insurgent campaigns gained traction in primaries this cycle, though his campaign was backed by some of the biggest stars on the political left.
The backstory: El-Sayed, a Michigan native who ran the health departments in Wayne County and the city of Detroit, first arrived on the political stage in 2018 with an unsuccessful bid for governor.
What's next: Now as Democrats wrestle with their party's identity, El-Sayed has signaled that he intends to be a prominent voice, especially given Michigan's prime position in the presidential nominating process in 2028.
Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has won the U.S. Senate election in Michigan, according to a race call by the Associated Press, a crucial victory in his party's quest to win back the Senate majority.
One of the most closely watched elections in the U.S., the race in Michigan tested how an antiestablishment candidate on the left would fare in a perennial Midwest battleground.
El-Sayed will be the first Muslim American to serve in the Senate.
The 42-year-old former public health official defeated former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers. Rogers lost his first bid for the Senate in 2024.
Loading...
Harnessing anger over the cost of living and corruption, El-Sayed galvanized young and infrequent voters by focusing on passing single-payer healthcare and curbing the influence of corporate money in politics.
He is not a democratic socialist, unlike several candidates whose insurgent campaigns gained traction in primaries this cycle, though his campaign was backed by some of the biggest stars on the political left.
His positions on Israel alienated some Jewish voters, including comments after a truck-ramming attack at a synagogue preschool in metro Detroit — for which he later offered an apology — and campaigning during the primary with controversial left-wing streamer Hasan Piker.
Those were among the dynamics during a heated primary contest that turned into a stand-in for many of the broader debates fueling the direction of the Democratic Party after two years in the political wilderness.
In the primary, El-Sayed narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens by about 1 percentage point, despite Michigan heavyweights like Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and retiring Sen. Gary Peters backing his opponent.
Mike Rogers speaks to supporters during a campaign event at Hoffman Farms Winery on Oct. 9 in Highland Township, Mich.
(
Chip Somodevilla
/
Getty Images
)
In the general election's closing days, Stevens reversed course and announced she was endorsing Rogers, after initially saying she would support the Democratic ticket, underscoring the rocky path to uniting the Democratic coalition in Michigan. After the primary, polls showed a tight race with Rogers, despite Democrats having held the Senate seat since 1979.
During the campaign, El-Sayed criticized his opponent and other Republicans, including President Trump, for targeting him with Islamophobic rhetoric.
Trump early on endorsed Rogers, who has embraced some of the president's false claims about widespread election fraud, despite previously condemning them, including after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. As November neared, Rogers tried to distance himself from some of the president's policies, including the war in Iran.
El-Sayed, a Michigan native who ran the health departments in Wayne County and the city of Detroit, first arrived on the political stage in 2018 with an unsuccessful bid for governor.
Dawn arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Nov. 2, 2026, a day before midterm elections flipped political control of Congress.
(
J. Scott Applewhite
/
AP
)
Topline:
Democrats had an overwhelming comeback on election night, recapturing both the House and Senate and shattering expectations in some longtime GOP strongholds. Democrats also had strong showing in gubernatorial races across the nation.
What's next: President Donald Trump has said he will accept results and blamed GOP candidates for their own losses.
Keep reading... to see the live results.
Democrats had an overwhelming comeback on election night, recapturing both the House and Senate and shattering expectations in some longtime GOP strongholds. Democrats also had strong showing in gubernatorial races across the nation.
President Donald Trump has said he will accept results and blamed GOP candidates for their own losses.
Loading...
House of Representatives
Loading...
Senate
Loading...
Governors
Loading...
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
Gov. Gavin Newsom addresses the media during a press conference unveiling his revised 2025-26 budget proposal at the Capitol Annex Swing Space in Sacramento on May 13, 2025.
(
Fred Greaves
/
CalMatters
)
Topline:
On Tuesday 60% of voters supported Proposition 2, which seeks to shore up the state’s reserves for an economic downturn, with 40% of voters opposing the measure. With 46% of votes counted, The Associated Press declared the measure had passed.
Why it matters: California state leaders will be able to put away more money when its economy is booming. Prop. 2, or the Save for California’s Future Act, aims to shore up the state’s rainy day fund by allowing state leaders to save up to 20% of the state’s general fund tax revenue, up from the current ceiling of 10%. The state will also be required to save more when revenue is growing faster, and allow state lawmakers to use some of it to pay down California’s $20 billion in federal unemployment insurance debt.
California state leaders will be able to put away more money when its economy is booming.
On Tuesday, 60% of voters supported Proposition 2, which seeks to shore up the state’s reserves for an economic downturn, with 40% of voters opposing the measure. With 46% of votes counted, The Associated Press declared the measure had passed.
California’s booming stock market is bringing in billions of dollars in unexpected tax revenue.
Prop. 2, or the Save for California’s Future Act, aims to shore up the state’s rainy day fund by allowing state leaders to save up to 20% of the state’s general fund tax revenue, up from the current ceiling of 10%.
The state will also be required to save more when revenue is growing faster, and allow state lawmakers to use some of it to pay down California’s $20 billion in federal unemployment insurance debt.
Supporters say saving more now would help the state weather a future economic downturn.
California has been stuck in a boom-or-bust state budget cycle because its tax revenue depends heavily on wealthy residents’ stock market earnings. Some economists have warned the current economic boom may not last, and the state could face deeper budget uncertainties due to federal budget cuts and potential tax filing delays triggered by natural disasters.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators spearheaded Prop. 2, which is also endorsed by labor unions, chambers of commerce and a coalition of advocates for healthcare, housing and transit.
“If you don’t have a rainy day fund, then what happens is you get forced to contemplate cuts to core essential services,” said Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel, an Encino Democrat.
But opponents, including most Republican lawmakers, say saving more would only embolden legislators to spend more. The state should refund taxpayers during a good year, not set the money aside, they argue.
“When they say we’re here for fiscal responsibility, it’s like the devil offering a Bible study. Don’t buy it,” said Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a San Diego Republican.
California leaders and voters have historically established reserves several times, but always quickly withdrew all the funds during budget crises. In 2014, voters approved a law that required the state to save more aggressively and made it harder to withdraw money.
The law requires the state to set aside 1.5% of its general fund revenue and any spikes in capital gains tax revenue each year for reserves and paying down debts. State lawmakers are allowed to withdraw up to half the balance from the reserves when the governor declares and the Legislature ratifies a budget emergency, unless they’ve already done that the previous year and the emergency remains. There are no limits on what lawmakers can spend the money on.
Prop. 2 would keep those rules and allow the state to save more. Critics say state leaders have too much leeway in spending the money.
David Crane, a former economic adviser to former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the rules let “governors bake in spending based on optimistic forecasts, knowing they can always dip into reserves if revenue falls short.”
This combination of photos shows, from top left, President Donald Trump on Nov. 1, 2026, with images of GOP candidates who lost to Democrats on Tuesday: U.S. Senate candidate Ken Paxton, bottom left, Sen. Jon Husted of Ohio and Sen. Darline Graham, of South Carolina.
(
AP Photo/
/
AP
)
Topline:
President Donald Trump told Fox News he has congratulated Democrats for their string of victories but maintains that the midterm elections are not a referendum on him.
What he said: “The Democrats did a good job. They fought hard,” he said in a phone interview.
Was it a rebuke? Several Trump-backed candidates lost in places that he won easily in 2024. But he blamed the candidates themselves, not policies of his that voters have looked on unfavorably, like the economy and Iran war. “I don’t view it as a hit on me,” he said. “We’ve had the greatest two years in the history of the presidency.”
Loading...
President Donald Trump has congratulated Democrats for their string of victories but maintains that the midterm elections are not a referendum on him.
“The Democrats did a good job. They fought hard,” he said in a phone interview with Fox News.
Several Trump-backed candidates lost in places that he won easily in 2024. But he blamed the candidates themselves, not policies of his that voters have looked on unfavorably, like the economy and Iran war.
“I don’t view it as a hit on me,” he said. “We’ve had the greatest two years in the history of the presidency.”
What to keep in mind about these numbers
For LAist's charts showing vote counts, we get numbers directly from the L.A. County and Orange County registrars of voters for local races. Totals are updated on our site as soon as possible after the registrars provide new tallies. For statewide races, counts come from the California Secretary of State's Office.
Keep in mind that, in tight races particularly, the winner may not be determined for days or weeks after election day. That's because early voting and mail-in ballots have fundamentally reshaped how votes are counted and when election results are known. The upshot: Ballots can be postmarked up to and including Election Day. They're counted as long as the ballot arrives within seven days of the election and that window contributes to the lag time before results are announced.
In L.A. County, for example, daily updates on the counting are expected to take place at least once a day — usually around 5 p.m. — through Nov. 13. (There will be multiple updates on Nov. 5 and 6.) Then, the once-a-day counts will resume again on Nov. 17, 19, 25 and 27. The office is scheduled to certify election results by Friday, Nov. 27. In Orange County, There will be multiple updates after the polls close, and then daily updates weekdays at 5 p.m. until results are scheduled to be certified on or before Dec. 3.
The California Secretary of State is scheduled to certify the election results on Dec. 11.
Our priority during the vote count will be sharing outcomes and election calls only when they have been thoroughly checked and vetted by journalists. To that end, we will rely on official results and report when candidates concede. Otherwise, we rely on NPR and the Associated Press for race calls. We will not report the calls or projections of other news outlets. You can find more about NPR's and the AP's process for counting votes and calling races here and here.
Ask us a question
What questions do you have about this election?
You ask, and we'll answer: Whether it's about who's funding the campaigns or how to track your ballot, we're here to help you understand the 2026 election.
