I wonder the same thing! A mandate doesn't always have an upfront dollar cost, but it's certainly being paid for somehow. For example, subsidies on EVs. These

I wonder the same thing! A mandate doesn't always have an upfront dollar cost, but it's certainly being paid for somehow. For example, subsidies on EVs. These shifts are tricky since they alter the market, so we have to figure out if it's worth pushing the market ahead. A subsidy on EVs is basically pumping money into the EV market ahead of when it would "organically" be there. So there's a cost to those dollars and interest, kind of like using a credit card to buy something today when you don't have the cash. In some cases it makes a lot of sense, but it's not free money. In the case of EV subsidies in the USA/California, anecdotally it appears really successful. Has anyone seen a study on the "effectiveness" of the EV subsidies in the United States, perhaps just in California? Who paid, did it work, was it worth accelerating? I'm biased towards "yes", but would love to see such a study.