Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature have opposed Gov. Tim Walz’s effort to adopt California’s auto emissions standards since Walz began pushing for the vehicle rules in 2019.
But while the GOP has stymied most of Walz’s climate change agenda at the Capitol, the governor’s “Clean Cars” regulations are something Republicans haven’t been able to stop. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is pursuing the California standards unilaterally, a power granted to them in anti-pollution law by past Legislatures and affirmed by an administrative law judge.
As legislators hash out a two-year budget, however, the Republican-majority Senate rolled out a new tactic last week: pledging to shut down state funding for Minnesota’s environmental agencies and programs — including state parks — unless Walz drops the emissions rules.
The threat marked a serious escalation for the GOP, throwing a new wrinkle in budget negotiations and signaling the vehicle rules were a significant priority. But while Republicans quickly walked back their demand to drop the rules, they now insist that a two-year delay in implementing them is key to a budget deal.
Opposing ‘Clean Cars’
Under federal clean air laws, states can choose to follow national rules for tailpipe emissions or adopt standards written by California, which has a special waiver to set tougher regulations.
Under the Trump administration, which aimed to roll back the pollution rules, Walz in 2019 announced Minnesota would adopt the California standards. That includes rules for low-emission vehicles (LEV), which require auto manufacturers to create cars that pollute less; and regulations for zero-emission vehicles (ZEV), which make auto manufacturers provide more electric, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen-powered cars for sale.
Washington, D.C., and 14 states outside of California have the LEV standards, while 12 have the ZEV rules. Minnesota would be the first in the Midwest to adopt either.
Walz and many fellow Democrats say the standards are crucial to bringing more electric vehicle options to Minnesota to grow the limited market for EVs. More EVs would also help slash carbon emissions and other pollutants, bringing Minnesota closer to its goals for reduction in greenhouse gases. The transportation sector is currently the top source of carbon emissions in the state.
But Republicans, and a few Democrats, have argued against the vehicle standards, saying electric cars are more expensive to buy, even if they save money in fuel and maintenance costs over time. Opponents of the standards also say the regulations would be costly and difficult for auto dealers and make Minnesota stand out from neighboring states.
A report from Administrative Law Judge Jessica Palmer-Denig last week determining MPCA has authority to move ahead without the Legislature noted broad opposition to the Clean Cars rules in rural areas and among interest groups with ties to Greater Minnesota, where the vast majority of Republican senators come from.
In the ALJ report, associations for wheat farmers, truckers, cattlemen, hemp growers, and the biofuels industry all criticized Walz’s plan. Many were concerned the vehicle standards would be expanded to regulate diesel-powered vehicles. For instance, the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association said any effort to ban or limit diesel-fueled vehicles would “endanger the food supply chain and Minnesota’s ability to feed the world,” the report says. (The rule does not regulate heavy-duty vehicles or ban diesel vehicles, and if California adopts such a standard Minnesota wouldn’t automatically have to follow it.)
The Minnesota Biofuels Association, the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, the Minnesota Corn Growers Association and the Minnesota Farm Bureau all told Palmer-Denig they had concerns the rules don’t properly take biofuels into account, or could eventually set Minnesota on a path that would eliminate the need for biofuels altogether.
Palmer-Denig also noted some in Greater Minnesota support the Clean Cars rules, such as an auto dealer in Roseau County, who said customers have been requesting EV options and he couldn’t wait to sell them.
Still, Senate Republicans have repeatedly called in the MPCA to hearings and asked the agency to kick the decision to the Legislature. The MPCA declined, saying it had power under state law to adopt the standards unless the Legislature voted otherwise. That’s not likely to happen because Democrats hold a majority in the House and Walz can veto legislation.
Republicans pledge to hold up environmental budget
Last week, the GOP escalated the political fight. Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, a Republican from Alexandria who chairs the Senate’s Environment and Natural Resources Finance Committee, said the GOP wouldn’t agree to any environmental budget that doesn’t stop the California emission standards. That would force state parks to shut down after June 30, when the fiscal year ends, as well as a plethora of environmental programs and state agency work, if the DFL didn’t comply.
The regular legislative session is over May 17, but lawmakers are likely to return for a special session in June.
[image_caption]State Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen[/image_caption]
The GOP softened its position quickly, however. That same day, Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-East Gull Lake, made a broad offer on the state budget to DFLers that included only a two-year delay to the cars rules.
Two days later, Ingebrigtsen also offered a two-year moratorium to House DFLers in a joint committee that is negotiating environmental budgets and policy. Ingebrigtsen has stuck to that since, pitching it as a middle-ground compromise.
Democrats have balked at the idea. A two-year delay would mean the MPCA has to start its rulemaking process over again, according to an agency spokesman, meaning the delay would likely be more than two years. And since the existing rules won’t take effect until 2024 (vehicle model year 2025), that would push off the rules until even later.
“That’s a long, essentially, six years where there would be no action on protecting Minnesotans’ air quality and trying to address the crisis of climate change,” said state Rep. Rick Hansen, a South St. Paul DFLer who is Ingebrigtsen’s House counterpart in negotiations.
For Walz and House Democrats, the auto emissions standards are one of the few major environmental initiatives they can accomplish. Republicans have turned down other legislation, such as DFL plans to make the power grid carbon-free by 2050 or earlier.
Hansen called the GOP actions on Clean Cars “hostage-taking” that would shut down not just parks and agency work, but hold up money for the Minnesota Zoo, the Science Museum of Minnesota and potentially lottery money that funds environmental spending.
[image_caption]State Rep. Rick Hansen[/image_caption]
“It really at this point robs us from the opportunity to really look at the plan for bringing folks back and expanding our hours,” he said.
Is the GOP already backing down?
On Wednesday, Gazelka told reporters the California standards are a big issue for the GOP, and compared their actions to Democrats’ insistence on passing new police accountability measures over Republican opposition after a former Brooklyn Center officer shot and killed Daunte Wright last month.
Gazelka also said Ingebrigtsen is “very passionate” about stopping or delaying the California emission standards. But he appeared to distance himself from his colleague’s hard-line stance. “That’s where he was, but in the end we’ve got to figure out how to work our way through,” Gazelka said.
Some top Democrats appeared skeptical the car standards were truly a make-or-break issue for the GOP. House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, told reporters Senate Republicans may be firm in their stance against new taxes but he said he isn’t “sure what issues Senate Republicans would shut down state government over — if they really want to close parks over Clean Cars.”
[image_caption]House Speaker Melissa Hortman[/image_caption]
Ingebrigtsen declined to comment on the issue as he walked off the Senate floor Thursday after an unrelated vote. But in the House and Senate conference committee Thursday, Ingebrigtsen said he hadn’t given up his demands for a two-year delay.
“I think that’s a real reasonable, real cheap way of keeping these functions open for the state,” he said. “There seems to be some confusion out there — whether it’s Facebook land or wherever it is — that the Senate is giving up their proposal for California emissions. There’s nothing further from the truth.”
Gazelka also broached the topic again Thursday, appearing to favor parks funding and disagree with those who would hold up budgets for a specific policy. The majority leader noted courts previously could order essential services to continue during a government shutdown. But that changed after a 2017 state Supreme Court decision.
If there’s a shutdown, “now it’s truly resources aren’t going out to a lot of different people from nursing homes to state parks,” Gazelka said. “We don’t need to” have a shutdown, he continued.
“I think I’ve probably had five or six different groups, both sides of the aisle, say, ‘You should shut down the government if you don’t get this or that,’ and we just can’t do that,” Gazelka said. “We want to open up Minnesota, we don’t want to close it down.”
I think the DFL should run for election on the platform of California “clean car” rules along with past proposals of a $.50 a gallon tax increase tied to inflation.
For some reason these proposal are not placed on DFL campaign literature or highlighted by the partisan media.
“Give us two more years to rake in those pollution profits!”
Republicans nationwide pollute with words, fists, guns, policy, chemicals, indifference to suffering, and on and on.
EVs are great options in some parts of the country. But there is rightful concern that they may not be the best choice for an extremely cold climate. To adopt a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t seem prudent.
Which is why the DFL’s plan is so great – no one is forced to buy an EV.
Except the dealers are going to be forced to carry cars that nobody wants to buy and taking space away from cars people do want to buy.
1. People want to buy EVs. The demand is growing, and the tree-hugging Bolsheviks at Forbes are predicting that EVs will dominate car sales by 2040.
2. Dealers will not be required to sell a certain number of electric vehicles. Manufacturers will be required to offer them.
3. Something tells me that, if a customer wants a gas-powered vehicle, a dealer will find a way to get one to him.
Anything opposed by such a comprehensive lineup of bad-actor organizations almost has to be a good thing.
Yet another subject where all Republicanism has to offer is delay, deflect, defer, deny. Time for the DFL to just ram it through, and then when absolutely nothing in the Republican parade of horribles ever comes to pass, and the controversy is completely forgotten, we’ll all be in a better place.
This is basically the exact same discussion we had over refrigerator efficiency standards, furnace efficiency standards, light bulb efficiency standards, air conditioner efficiency standards, and on and on and on. Nobody even remembers they ever happened any more, but we all have hundreds of extra dollars in our pockets because we have appliances that are an order of magnitude more efficient than they used to be. Sure, the fridge costs an extra 50 or 75 dollars, but it saves that in electricity in about two years.
Agree with Alan Muller. Looking at that list of those opposed is a great indicator you’re heading in the right direction. Also, EVs are a great choice for Minnesota. My little Leaf came through the last cold snap like a trooper. It “started” every morning like clockwork; and while range was down, so was the range on all the ICE cars around it. Never have to worry about water in the gas line freezing, or the condition of the anti-freeze, either.
Republicans continue to passionately believe many things that are not true and demand legislation to block non existent problems. Climate change is real and Minnesota is feeling the effects.
Minnesota has and will continue to be friendly to biofuels. Diesel like coal may not have much of a long term future but is not threatened today. There are enough pressing issues not to make ones up.
Much of the appeal of Minnesota is clean air and water. I would think people in rural Minnesota would understand what happens to agriculture and forestry as well as hunting and fishing if we do not take of the environment, but if your bottom line is maximizing short term business profits, you forget what our state will be like for those born this century.
Much of the appeal of Minnesota is clean air and water. I would think people in rural Minnesota would understand what happens to agriculture and forestry as well as hunting and fishing if we do not take of the environment
They simply don’t care. Their masters have them in a perpetual state of desperation and fear over “boogeymen” that don’t actually exist, or actually threaten them. Expecting rationality from those no longer capable of such thinking is a fool’s errand. As is so often the case, they must be drug along, kicking and screaming, to what’s best for them, like the scared children they’ve chosen to become.
Don’t these people inhale? Or am I confusing that with another issue.
Republicans, once again, enter a “fact-free zone” that’s ideologically driven.
Just by chance, here are a couple items from a recent “Harper’s Index”:
Percentage change in overall car sales last year: –14;
in electric car sales: +43.
Prodding more rural auto dealers to at least carry an EV on the lot along with their dual-wheel 3/4-ton pickups doesn’t strike me as particularly onerous in that context. Consumer demand for EVs is increasing, and manufacturers are taking note of it. That said, however, nothing I’ve read requires Mr. Ingebrigtsen, or a turkey farmer, or any other kind of farmer, to purchase an EV, so the choice remains in the hands of the vehicle buyer. “Passionate” Ingebrigtsen may be, but passion is not always a useful substitute for thought.
While it is certainly true that batteries produce less energy in cold weather than in warm weather, and have limitations in Minnesota that they wouldn’t have in Florida, the disparity will shrink with continued improvements in battery technology. My hope is that, eventually, “range anxiety” will become a thing of the past. Until then, my own personal solution has been a hybrid gas/electric vehicle. It’s not a full-on EV – the electric motor helps the small gasoline engine pull the load when necessary. In warm weather, it gets 50+ miles to the gallon. In cold weather, it gets “only” 35 miles to the gallon. It produces fewer (though not “none”) hydrocarbons and other pollutants, and using less fuel is environmentally-beneficial by itself, not to mention adding to my bank balance at the end of the month. And, because there’s also a gasoline engine, I can use it for my annual road trip to the Rocky Mountains in the summer without having to add several extra nights in motels while the battery recharges – the gasoline engine recharges the battery pack while I’m driving.
As the article explains, much of the opposition against these rules are concerns about things that….aren’t in the rules, such as the regulation of diesel vehicles or farm equipment. No one (except perhaps auto dealers) would be required to purchase electric vehicles. In my experience, the more firsthand experience people have with EVs, the more likely they are to buy one.
One of the main arguments against Clean Cars is that we would be an outlier. I think that is a good thing. There are people in the surrounding states that would likely make a trip across the border to buy an ev. It’s been personally frustrating that there are few options available.
I think Koch Industries doesn’t like the rules. I think gas-guzzler cars are going away and Koch Industries doesn’t like that idea. If Minnesota is a leader in Health care, why can’t it be a leader in clean air? It goes very well with clean water. Republicans really don’t care about the environment nor the people who have to clean it after they are gone. They are very messy politicians. Have you ever noticed the guys in a parade carrying shovels? I suppose you thought it was for the horses.
Republicans should really start caring about people instead of large donors.
Fourteen states have already adopted California’s emission standards accounting for over 1/3 of vehicles sold in the United States. It would be more costly for automakers to offer a “dirty” version of a car for non-“CARB states” so they just build lower emission vehicles for the entire US. EPA has adopted these standards for any cars 2016 and newer. There is very little burden by adding these rules for new cars.
What is allowed is for cars that fail the biennial emissions tests to be sold in other states, like Minnesota. Why do we want other places dumping their dirty, polluting used cars in our state?
The closer we get to “California car standards” the closer we will resemble Californian’s mass exodus from the state. Shouldn’t Minnesota copy a state that is adding residents as opposed a state from where folks are fleeing?
Interestingly, there was an article on the Sunday Tribune’s front page. “Out -of-state buyers fuel home price spike.” In the article it mentions that the number of people moving from other states to Minnesota is significant enough to greatly increase housing prices. We are also seeing the same thing in our rural area. When the detailed census figures are available, it may shed more light on the trend. I don’t think it is related to restricting EVs and emissions. Also strange that the chair of the Senate environment and natural resources committee is so rigid in his thinking about the improving the environment.
I’m curious if you have any data or even anecdotal evidence to support your proposition. 1) are people really moving out of California because of clear car rules? 2) whether or not #1 is true, why do you think Minnesotans would decide this is the last straw, causing a ‘mass exodus’ ?
California’s population decline has been estimated at 182,000 people from 2019 to 2020. Out 0f over 39 million. That’s less than one half of one percent. Some “mass exodus.”