Electric vehicles make up a tiny fraction of cars in Minnesota. But that is going to change.
Auto manufacturers are increasingly focused on EVs over gas-powered cars, while state and federal lawmakers across the U.S. are promoting EVs as part of a push to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector.
In Minnesota, lawmakers are debating a host of changes to state law to prepare for the rise of electric vehicles. But so far in 2021, Republicans who control the Minnesota Senate and Democrats who have a majority in the House have found little common ground on how the state should react to the burgeoning industry.
The GOP has focused on making EV owners pay a substitute fee in place of Minnesota’s gas tax, which pays for road construction; they also want to remove Gov. Tim Walz’s power to set new auto emission standards. DFLers have proposed rebates for electric cars, and hope to prod state government to buy more EVs, fund the purchase of electric buses in the Twin Cities and to put charging stations in state parks.
“I think we all understand that EV transportation is on its way,” said Sen. Dave Senjem, a Rochester Republican who chairs the Senate’s Energy and Utilities Finance and Policy Committee. “It’s the new way, and it will be with us sooner than we think.”
A rising EV industry
There has long been speculation that electric vehicles would eventually compete with gas-fueled counterparts, but those predictions have only lately become closer to a reality in the U.S.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]State Sen. David Senjem[/image_caption]
Minnesota leaders say the state isn’t going to take similar action anytime soon. But Walz is working to implement tougher new auto emission rules that would require manufacturers to provide more cars for sale in the state.
The transportation sector is Minnesota’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, outpacing a power grid that has transitioned away from fossil fuels faster than cars and trucks have. In September, there were just 14,484 electric or plug-in hybrid cars in Minnesota and EVs had only a 1.14 percent market share of new sales in 2018 compared to nation-leading California (7.84 percent) and Washington state (4.28 percent), according to the electric car research website EVAdoption.
DFL wants to government to boost EVs
Democrats, who control Minnesota’s House, see electric vehicles as key to slashing carbon emissions and reducing airborne pollutants that cause asthma and other health problems.
DFL leaders hope that encouraging more people — and governments — to buy electric vehicles will speed up a shift away from gas-powered cars. They also hope to spark a more robust market for electric vehicles in Minnesota, which lags behind other states in EV options for sale, particularly outside of the Twin Cities metro area.
“I think government has a role with getting new technology to be adopted and brought down to scale,” said Rep. Jamie Long, a Minneapolis DFLer who chairs the House’s Climate and Energy Finance and Policy Committee. “We’ve seen that work with wind power for instance, where government steps in early and helps with subsidies, bringing the cost down. Right now (wind) can stand on its own, and it’s the cheapest power we have.”
[image_caption]State Rep. Jamie Long[/image_caption]
In 2020, the 23 cabinet-level Minnesota agencies and the Met Council owned 37 electric vehicles, 116 plug-in hybrids and 1,148 hybrids in its light vehicle fleet, according to the Minnesota Department of Administration. That’s up from 13 EVs, 18 plug-in hybrids and 491 hybrids in 2017. The light fleet has 5,402 vehicles, most of which are hybrids or run on E85.
Stephenson’s bill would also require car dealerships selling EVs to have one employee who has completed a training course on selling electric vehicles. It would also create a grant program to help the dealers pay for the training. The Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association, which has opposed Walz’s auto emissions rules, supports this measure.
The bill would also make utility companies serving large cities promote electric vehicles and help residents adopt them.
[image_caption]State Rep. Zack Stephenson[/image_caption]
In the House committee hearing, Republicans argued the rebates would amount to a tax break for wealthy people who can more easily afford to buy electric vehicles, which tend to cost more than gas cars, at least initially. (Electric vehicles have fewer maintenance and fuel costs over the life of the car.) Democrats said the income-related rebates, used-car rebates and vehicle price limits make the program fairer, while also incentivizing people to buy EVs.
Dean Taylor, who is on an advisory council for the EV advocacy group Plug In America, testified during a separate hearing in the House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee that Minnesota ranks No. 19 on his organization’s list of states that best support EVs through public policy. Legislation such as Stephenson’s could help the state jump higher on the list, Taylor said, though Minnesota has more EV-friendly policy than its neighboring states.
Long’s climate committee also heard legislation sponsored by Rep. Fue Lee, DFL-Minneapolis, that would spend $4.1 million to help Metro Transit buy electric buses, as well as a bill from Rep. Robert Bierman, DFL-Apple Valley, to spend $4.1 million on putting electric vehicle charging stations in state parks. The money for Lee and Bierman’s bills would come from fees paid by Xcel Energy for storing nuclear waste in Minnesota. Rep. Athena Hollins, DFL-St. Paul, proposed a bill that would allow utility companies to help school districts buy and deploy electric school buses and pass on the costs on customer power bills.
Lee testified that his bill would not only cut carbon emissions, it would reduce airborne pollution, often concentrated where people of color live, that leads to public health problems such as asthma (though the Star Tribune reported Wednesday Metro Transit has had some logistical challenges using electric buses and has proposed buying 143 new biodiesel buses).
An effort to replace lost gas tax revenue
Many Republicans expect electric vehicles to become far more common in Minnesota, too, though they often say the industry can be fostered the same as any other in a competitive market and shouldn’t be boosted through government mandates.
The Senate GOP has advanced a bill to remove the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s power to enact Walz’s auto emissions rules unless they get approval from the Legislature, arguing it will effectively make auto dealers sell, and customers buy, electric cars instead of more popular, and cheaper, gas vehicles. (Though the rules do not require anyone to buy or sell an EV.) Electric vehicle range, particularly in cold weather and rural areas, is also a concern.
[image_caption]State Sen. Mark Johnson[/image_caption]
Sen. Jeff Howe, R-Rockville, also proposed a bill that would make owners of electric vehicles pay a higher yearly fee to replace the state’s motor fuel tax, which is included in the price of gasoline. The state’s Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, which pays to build and maintain roads, is funded in part by the gas tax.
In a late February hearing in the Senate’s Transportation Policy and Finance Committee, Howe said he’d prefer to tax users directly based on how much electricity they use at charging stations, but if that technology isn’t widely available yet, a flat fee is the best way to recoup lost revenue. (On Monday, Howe also introduced a new bill to tax drivers based on electricity used at public and private charging stations.)
Bentley Graves, director of health care and transportation policy at the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, testified at the committee that it’s important to find a way to replace lost gas tax money while there are few electric vehicles on the road so it’s not a bigger change for drivers down the road.
Owners of all-electric vehicles currently pay a $75 surcharge in place of a gas tax. Under Howe’s bill, all-electric vehicles would have an annual fee of $229, while plug-in hybrid vehicles, which don’t pay a surcharge now, would have a $114.50 tax. Electric and plug-in hybrid motorcycles would pay a $46 and $23 fee, respectively.
Howe said he calculated the fees on electric vehicles by doing a rough estimate on how much money the average driver of a gas car pays in the fuel tax per year. As of 2019, 28 other states had a registration fee surcharge on electric vehicles, and 14 also have a fee for plug-in hybrids, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most of those states have higher surcharges than Minnesota does. Republicans presented Howe’s bill as not just a way to raise money, but also a way to level the playing field for drivers of gas cars who pay a tax EV drivers do not.
[image_caption]State Sen. Jeff Howe[/image_caption]
A letter sent to the committee by the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, says EV drivers pay more money into the highway fund in sales tax and registration fees because they are more expensive to buy than comparable gas-powered cars.
Sen. Ann Johnson Stewart, DFL-Wayzata, tried to amend Howe’s bill to have the annual EV fee pay for charging stations. But Howe said “this money needs to go to roads and bridges to maintain the roads they’re on.”
“Changing that is a mistake,” Howe said.
Negotiations to come
For now, House and Senate leaders are busy passing their own priorities. But Minnesota’s politically divided Legislature means lawmakers will have to negotiate a compromise for anything to actually become law. That means sweeping legislation on the topic is unlikely.
Long, the House DFLer, said there may be some areas legislators can strike an agreement around. He said he’s not interested in raising fees on electric vehicles, and implored Republicans to give up their quest to strip Walz of his power to implement new auto emissions standards.
But Long said Senjem, his counterpart in the Republican Senate, supported EV charging infrastructure in the last bonding bill, a package of publicly financed construction projects. Stephenson’s bill also includes a measure to make drivers pay to charge EVs at the Capitol, which is a GOP priority. “I’m really optimistic that we can make some progress on EV policy this session,” Long said.
[cms_ad:x104]On Thursday, Senjem actually introduced a copy of Stephenson’s bill in the Senate. But in an interview, he said it was to spark conversation and debate, rather than a full endorsement of the policy. He said there could be a hearing on the measures, but it might come after the legislative session, or after Republicans have passed bills they are more united on, such as Howe’s gas tax replacement bill. Hashing out legislation on complicated subjects has been difficult during the pandemic as lawmakers operate remotely, he noted.
Senjem said the renewable development account funded by Xcel nuclear fees could be used to boost EVs in some way. But he also said Republicans have their own coming proposal for that money, which he said has some parallels to a Minnesota tax credit for investors in high-tech startups.
Still, Senjem also said he wants to have a broader conversation about the government’s role in EV policy to root out the best ideas. “No great big urgency, but in my opinion at least I think we need to certainly more seriously begin this conversation,” Senjem said.
This is an interesting article to read but both Democrats & Republicans are silent on the need for more electrical power generation as EVs become 25%, 50% and 75% of the automobile & truck market. Additionally, they’ll need to ensure reliability of our electrical power grid after what Texas experienced last month.
Transportation Secretary Buttigieg has been discussing this in recent interviews. He’s talked about how part of the upcoming Biden infrastructure package (which can also pass via reconciliation if necessary) will include funding to create more charging stations to make electric vehicles a more attractive choice for those interested in them.
Let’s get Polymet up and running to produce the nickel needed for all the new car batteries. While we are at it let’s get a new pipeline to move natural gas to power plants so we can charge those batteries off the grid in our garage. Remember used batteries are considered hazardous waste due to lead, mercury, cadmium, sulfuric acid and a few other toxic substances, so new disposal sites will be needed.
The State should have no say whatsoever on the type of cars, trucks, SUV or motorcycle the people drive. They should take a real look at the “ green electric cars” and decide if they want to up power plant usage, mine the rare earth to make batteries and how they are going to dispose of the used batteries. Not really so “green” upon inspection.
Raise the gas tax 10 cents a year every year for the next 15 years. We absolutely shouldn’t be “leveling the playing field” for gas cars. We should be incentivizing the transition away from fossil fuels.
Mr. Smith’s first two ideas (Polymet & new pipeline) are among the worst possible ways to approach energy supplies a generation down the road. The pipeline would still be moving a fossil fuel, and we’re trying (I hope) to wean ourselves from those and the pollutants they generate. Polymet ruining water supplies for the next 10,000 years in all the areas fed by the aquifers affected by the operation and the disposal of its waste hardly seems like a good idea, unless Smith’s idea of a nice in-state holiday trip is to drive to the areas where people can’t live anymore without having their water imported, not to mention the potential of affecting one of the biggest tourist draws in the state in the form of the Boundary Waters.
On the other hand, Smith’s point about used battery disposal and toxic waste is well-taken, and not enough attention is being paid to that issue – which won’t go away just because it’s inconvenient for folks who’d like to see us move toward electric vehicles. Slapping extra fees onto people who drive electric cars that pollute less seems counterproductive. I’m inclined to agree that the state should not be in the business of telling people what kind of vehicle they should have and/or drive, but what I’d much prefer to random fees and a gas tax is a formula to replace those funding sources with one based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). That wouldn’t be a perfect system, either, but seems more fair to me than additional fees for electric vehicles, since VMT doesn’t care what the vehicle’s source of power might be, only how many miles it’s been driven. Frankly, I’d be OK with a hefty increase in the gas tax – an incentive for people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, and an incentive to get gas-guzzlers off the roads – but it’s also true that electric vehicles are more expensive up-front than gasoline-powered ones.
More importantly, we simply don’t have the infrastructure in place to make a state-wide electric vehicle population viable, and available battery technology not only doesn’t quite know what to do with worn-out batteries, it’s not yet to the point where battery range is on a par with a gasoline-powered vehicle. Electric vehicles seem quite viable for short-distance use, and the state’s “light duty” vehicle fleet could make the switch to electric vehicles fairly painlessly. Few of those vehicles are used for more than 250 miles a day. Longer trips, however, remain out of practical reach for electric vehicle drivers, so battery technology has to improve fairly dramatically before the EV is truly a competitor in the marketplace with its gas-powered competitor.
Ray, how are you going to get nickel for the batteries? How are you going to bring the needed energy to the power plants ( we are years and years away from perfecting solar/wind to power big cities)? This green deal is not that green when you look at it!
Electric vehicles are poorly suited for extremely cold climates. Perhaps technology will evolve to make them better but right now, they are risky in cold, sparse areas which is why there is so much pushback from people who live in cold sparse areas. They might make sense in places like southern California or southern New York, but they don’t make as much sense here.
I asked my neighbor how his Tesla ran during that last cold snap. It ran just fine. My gas powered car wouldn’t start one morning, however.
Can we dispense with the lie about electric vehicles not working in the cold.
So your one experience with a neighbor’s heresay evidence is supposed to suffice and mean all electric vehicles always work in all cold environments? Why don’t you listen to others who live in really cold climates like Northern Minnesota who have serious concerns over range anxiety. There are reports from real users that show the range in very cold weather is less than half of what it normally is. How is that going to work in far northern Minnesota? That’s what really happens. Ask your neighbor to take their Tesla and drive from International Falls to Duluth when its 40-degrees below zero. It seems highly doubtful, based on real world experience, that electric vehicles are going to work well in places like northern Minnesota. A one size fits all state policy doesn’t seem to be the best approach in this area.
First off, you’ve likely never seen -40 (that temp is pretty rare, even though folks like to use it like its common), so why use it as the benchmark? Will they run better at -39, or is it just -40 that stops EV’s in their tracks.
I wonder if any of the EV car companies are exploring how to make the range further, probably not. No more innovation, just staying static right. Got range anxiety, then don’t buy one; pretty simple solution.
I’ve been in -40 and it is not fun. I used that number because that was the real temperature in northern Minnesota the week before this article was written. It is rare but I used it because it really was -40. But let’s use -20 which is more realistic. Batteries still don’t work well in -20 either and the range of electric vehicles is dramatically reduced in temperatures like -20.
Yeah, batteries don’t work well in the cold. Spoken in a state with thousands of fisherman drilling holes through frozen lakes with battery powered augers, all winter long. This while thousands of construction crews complete thousands of projects, outside in the cold of winter, with battery powered tools. All the while they all talk to each other and everyone else, on battery powered phones.
First of all, as an attorney, one of my pet peeves is when people misuse legal terms like hearsay. And for the record, in addition to asking him about his car, I watched him drive it during the cold snap. While my gas powered car sat in the driveway unable to start.
From your follow-up comment, the perceived problem now seems to be the range of the vehicles, not the function in cold weather. Electric cars work just fine , but don’t go as far in the cold. Which makes them just like gas powered vehicles, which get worse mileage in cold weather. I’d say that driving any significant distance in minus 40 weather is a really bad idea.
I think he meant “anecdotal evidence as opposed to some rigorous study with, like, statistical significance and stuff.” He has a point there, but I think the science has already been done, and it’s up to him to go to the trouble of looking it up.
I got myself in trouble using an anecdote, which I often criticize others for doing. But yeah, the range of both gas and electric vehicles is less in the winter but the claim (which got revised between comments) that electric vehicles don’t work in the winter is nonsense.
Geotab.com did an analysis of EV range. They used real world results from 4200 vehicles that took 5.2-million trips. At 5 degrees F, EVs got only 54% of their stated range. Sure, gas vehicles get lower MPG in winter cold but not THAT much less. If an EV has a 250-mile range per charge, they will only get 125 miles. In city driving, no big deal right. But that doesn’t work well in rural areas. This is not a heresay anecdote from a neighbor. This is real world analysis. Again, these cars are not reliable enough yet in cold weather in rural areas, which accounts for much of Minnesota. One size fits all is not smart in this case.
You at least admitted in this post your vehicle was parked in the driveway. I will assume you conveniently left out where your neighbors Tesla had been parked. Perhaps in his heated garage?
Garage, but not heated. We have stand alone garages in St. Paul.
I know you are an attorney and that’s exactly why I used ‘heresay’ as a term. You used your neighbor’s situation as proof that electric vehicles work in the cold. And my point stands….your anecdote about your neighbor is irrelevant in the debate. We differ on the word ‘work.’ I use that to say that in very cold weather electric vehicles won’t work reliably for long distance use. In the city, perhaps it will be okay but in places like Northern Minnesota where many miles have to be covered, they won’t. And my point is that we should not take away options for people in very cold and very remote areas. This one size fits all approach doesn’t work for electric vehicles in Minnesota.
Your gas powered gas car starts with an electric battery. So based on your anecdotal evidence 50% of the batteries worked the other morning.
There could be any number of reasons why my car didn’t start. I didn’t really have to go anywhere so I went back to bed. My neighbor drove his Tesla to work.
Pat, look at the average temp they test the batteries at. The batteries are tested at 60 degrees and from that reading they give you an estimated performance level. Cold temps destroy those estimations. I’ve had solar and wind since 1984, battery performance in -30 is 1/2 the time of 60 degrees, if your batteries are not in a heated space. BTW, with the gases given off by the batteries, they recommend not storing your battery banks in your house.
Mr. Smith’s points about used batteries is also off-base. There are well-established ways to either recycle or repurpose them.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-afterlife-of-electric-vehicles-battery-recycling-and-repurposing/
One party supports growing industries, while the other wants to stifle innovation and prop up dying ones. Par for the course for a party whose last president was a trust-fund kid who squandered his father’s fortune running business after business into the ground. Republicans used to have at least some understanding of economics. Clearly not anymore.
Are you talking about the President that made America energy independent? Do you actually want to be dependent on Mid East oil? Watch gas prices start to soar along with heating costs. Not drilling on public land is absolutely idiotic!
Donald Trump set this country backwards on energy independence. More fossil fuel use puts this country even further behind the rest of the world. And more drilling on public land is economic suicide. Just more Republican economic illiteracy.
Joe, why do you hate existing American oil drillers? You understand their profits go down and their workers get laid off when oil prices go down right?
Matt, would you rather have lower prices on gas/oil and have it produced here in America, creating millions of good paying jobs, or get it from the Mid East ? You seem to be suggesting that with fewer operators working in America and importing foreign oil, the price of oil goes up and that’s a good thing. Would you rather have 2 million workers making 115k in the oil/gas drilling /refinery businesses in America or have 1 million workers make 125k and get or oil/gas from Mid East?
Your whole line of questioning is completely out of date. The idea of shifting from imported fossil fuels to domestic ones is irrelevant. Much of the world is transitioning away from fossil fuels, and the United States fell behind during the Trump administration.
Trump is the weakest president this country has ever had. Every day he was in office, this country got weaker. His backwards thinking was just rolling over and ceding power to China.
There are far more jobs in renewable energy, which is growing, than in shrinking fossil fuels. But Republicans don’t seem to like jobs or understand economics.
Speaking of China, the recent two five-year plans show that China is going to be dramatically increasing its carbon emissions for at least the next 15 years. We are going to be spending a lot of money to curb carbon but how much of that spending will be negated by China’s emissions increases? Would it be wiser to spend our money on something else like resiliency and adaptation?
No, absolutely not. The fact that not everyone and not every aspect of every country is not doing this isn’t a reason not to. The costs of reducing emissions are an absolute bargain when compares to the costs that will come with adapting to climate change.
No Joe, I’m saying that the technology limits the profitability of drilling oil in many of the places you folk champion when the price per barrel drops below about 50 bucks or so. You don’t understand the economics of oil consumption, and as usual think cheaper is best. You would literally kill 10 fold more jobs by dropping the per barrel cost of oil by even 20 dollars than any cancellation of a stupid pipeline, or whatever the conservative talking point is today.
I’m betting you ignore the data showing that carbon emissions are hugely contributing to global warming and rising sea levels , super Hurricanes, drought ect. I’m also betting your a Republican.
Do owners of gasoline fueled cars pay a flat fee? No, the pay based on use. Pretty simple to add a fee through income tax charging a fee per mile traveled in EVs That way those who drive more and put more wear and tear on our roads pay more, those who try to reduce their annual mileage pay less.
How do we track VMT? I’m not sure I want a tracking device on my car for the government or my insurance company to know where I’ve been traveling (and at what speed, how often and hard I hit the brakes, etc.).
Cars are required to have an odometer. It would be simple to read it when the vehicle is sold or scrapped. Another option is to just charge a vehicle up-front based on the average miles driven over the lifetime of the car. If we are really concerned about wear and tear on the roads basing on just miles traveled is not sufficient. The weight of the vehicle is also important.
The nice thing about a gas tax is people who don’t live in Minnesota pay some amount for their usage of Minnesota roads. That doesn’t happen when we charge only cars registered in Minnesota. Charging on vehicle miles would have the unintended consequence that even more MN automobiles would be registered out of state.
Of course we all know that the real wear and tear on the roads in our climate comes from the freeze/thaw cycle and happens whether or not anyone drives on the road. Minnesota has chosen to have more road miles per capita than most states despite our higher maintenance costs per mile of road. That leads to a very expensive road system.
I support this. Mileage taxes should be used because a flat tax doesn’t take into account the wear and tear on the roads. Yes, we should be switching to more EV’s, but we still need to maintain the roads base on usage. I would recommend that mileage used each year be reported and recorded through your auto insurance. They might not like doing it, but knowing your mileage benefits them on setting their premiums and benefits the rest of us by making it harder to cheat. The gas tax should remain in place to supplement the environmental costs of using gas.
Metro transit decided against buying electric buses.
Although FedEx said last week that they are going to pony up $2 billion to replace their 148,000 vehicle fleet with EV’s. Guess they should have called you first, so you could give them the real skinny on EV’s and how they don’t work.
Several people have expressed concerns about “all these electric vehicles” putting a strain on our electrical grid. As eager as I am to see more plug-in cars on the road, we are still a long way off from worrying about their straining the grid. Our electricity is cleaner and more dependable than Texas, which largely depended on one, isolated deregulated network. Roughly a quarter of our power comes from nuclear, and 20 percent from wind, the amount of coal we use decreases every year, without any brownouts or power worries. We are part of MISO, a multistate network that is used to blizzards, ice storms, heat waves and long spells bellow zero. Generally speaking, we do quite well.
“Electric vehicles are coming to Minnesota”
As mandated by the state government by the way.
I know you are disappointed because Republicans hate innovation and job creation. It will take some time to recover from the failures of our game show host president.
Not disappointed at all, just pointing out the facts.
So, we finally found a way to get a Republican to support a new tax. Go figure.
I’m not going to read the article, but I’ll a wild stab at a guess… Republicans are agin it?
Two comments.
Republicans don’t like paying, raising or adding new taxes. Flat fees are better as they take a smaller percentage of income from the rich than poor. They also enjoy others paying taxes they avoid. An EV flat fee is perfect – liberals are more likely to pay and wealthy people who buy an EV won’t be burdened.
Some question EVs in really cold weather. Do they know the following? Norway, a petroleum exporting country, leads the world in EV. Volvo has committed to being all EV by 2030. And if Europe is too different, consider that our neighbor to the North is also committed to moving that direction. Norway, Sweden and Canada do not deny the harm climate change is doing to the world. We need to join them.