This summer, millions of drivers spent hours in their car journeying to their vacations. Most people are not concerned with the reliability of their cars’ driving range, given that 84% of consumers own and operate gas-powered vehicles.

But in less than a decade, the driving landscape will see a dramatic change with more than 50% of all vehicles on the road being all-electric because of the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized tailpipe emissions rules. In June, energy companies filed a lawsuit, sounding the alarm on the aggressive nature of the rule and encouraging the administration to take a step back before it’s too late.

Painting this as a left or right issue ignores the reality of the situation: We (and the next generation) will feel the effects of climate change if action isn’t taken. But rather than decrease the availability of affordable vehicles and endanger our national security, the EPA should consider changing its regulations to meet the realities of Americans’ driving habits and America’s security interests.

Chinese companies currently supply almost 60% of the EV battery market. With the EPA’s mandate in effect, several manufacturers are left without the option to develop the facilities themselves to make their own batteries. Instead, they’ll be forced to invest more money into Chinese companies.

At a time when we are investing in American-produced chips, technology and resources, the EPA’s final rule to regulate tailpipe emissions undercuts the hard work and partnership developed in our partisan environment to stimulate our economy. It also bypasses the productive conversations already being held, tending to lean more toward overregulation.

There is a plethora of initiatives that can be taken to mitigate our climate impacts without bypassing Congress. These solutions must include a comprehensive approach that incorporates and considers the risks associated with such drastic changes. They must also account for those from all financial backgrounds. Low-income households should not be expected to purchase a car well outside of their economic means, especially when many sit on the federal poverty line at an income of $14,830. Expecting low-income families to afford the $56,520 that the average electric vehicle costs is impractical in these inflationary times.

Aside from the lack of electric grid infrastructure and increased reliance on China for supplies, the recent decrease in EV sales should also indicate, to both the market and the EPA, that consumers are making a choice that works best for them. The unfortunate reality is that most EVs are significantly more expensive, at least upfront. The average electric vehicle costs about $8,000 more than comparable gas vehicles, and Tesla, the leading EV seller, recently increased the price of its best-selling Model Y by $1,000. Installing a charging station in your home can also tack on an extra $1,150 to $2,750 to a bill you didn’t even ask for.

But the cost of the vehicle isn’t the only thing that poses a challenge for consumers. Many must think about the distances they plan to drive between point A and point B each day. The pace at which charging stations are being built cannot keep up with the rapid influx of EVs, and many stations are simply inaccessible for much of the population.

Of the almost 65,000 charging stations available nationwide, growth is concentrated in just five states, accounting for 46.7% of the country’s total EV charging stations. For the average American, charging stations are either too far or too much of an inconvenience to justify the purchase of an EV. The multiple barriers of entry for cost-efficient options to those across incomes must be sufficiently addressed before decreasing the availability of affordable options. Right now, the most cost-efficient option for many families across the country is a traditional gas-powered vehicle.

During my time of more than a decade as a member of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, I helped to craft the Energy Independence and Security Act with goals to support initiatives for energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy. While the need to decrease our climate impact is critical, the need to do so in a well-thought-out manner is much more important.

The EPA’s current mandate approach is too drastic and impractical. It’s crucial to devise a strategy that’s unified, fair and feasible without overburdening consumers, compromising national security or stressing the electric grid. Bipartisan support is essential for crafting climate policies that are considerate of all stakeholders.

Albert R. Wynn (wynna@gtlaw.com) is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Maryland’s 4th Congressional District.