States like Washington and Massachusetts plan to join California in largely banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, seeing it as an effective way to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.
[image_caption]State Rep. Jamie Long[/image_caption]
Now, a key DFL lawmaker in the Minnesota House from progressive Minneapolis is also throwing cold water on the idea. State Rep. Jamie Long, who leads the House’s Climate and Energy Finance and Policy Committee said the governor is “taking the right approach” by implementing an earlier and less strict version of California’s auto emissions standards for just one year.
“I think Minnesota is going to go its own path,” Long told MinnPost, saying electric vehicles are less common in Minnesota than other states moving quickly toward EVs. “I think the likelihood that we follow California is probably low.”
Minnesota must decide which auto regulations to follow
Last year, Minnesota adopted what it calls Clean Cars standards. They are identical to California’s auto emission standards, and primarily require auto manufacturers to deliver more electric vehicles for sale in the state starting in 2024.
California is the only state that can set its own auto emission regulations, but other states can either choose to follow California or hew to federal standards.
Most Democrats have supported Clean Cars in Minnesota because they argue it will offer more EV choices, stimulate a lagging industry and slash carbon emissions. But Republicans and auto dealers oppose the regulations, saying they meddle with a free market and force expensive EVs on people.
Then, in August, California made the rules tougher. Starting in vehicle model year 2026, the state will allow auto manufacturers to deliver fewer and fewer cars with internal combustion engines for sale until they are largely phased out in 2035. (People will still be able to buy new gas cars in other states or used ones in California. Some new plug-in hybrids that use gasoline will also still remain available.)
That means Minnesota’s older program will run for one year, until 2025. At that point Minnesota will either have to join California in banning new gas cars or reverting to less stringent federal regulations.
The decision for now is in the hands of Walz and his Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The MPCA can act without new legislative approval because of state laws governing pollution regulation, though lawmakers could always change that authority, and their views likely factor into state decisions on the issue.
MPCA commissioner Katrina Kessler on Friday reiterated the agency is not starting a rulemaking process to ban the sale of new gas cars by 2035 and is focused on implementing less aggressive 2025 regulations.
The MPCA has previously estimated EVs would need to make up between 6.2% to 7.4% of new light-duty vehicles sales of manufacturers in Minnesota to meet the original Clean Cars standards.
“We haven’t gotten to the starting point” of the older rules, Kessler said. “It’s premature to try to ask us what are you going to do in three days when we haven’t decided what we’re going to do tomorrow.”
Key House Democrat not calling for car ban
Long, the Minneapolis DFLer, is a prominent voice on climate and energy policy for his party at the state Capitol and is in the progressive wing of his party on the issue.
On Friday, he spoke, wearing a windmill lapel pin, as the governor unveiled a “Climate Action Framework” that details policy hopes held by Democrats, climate nonprofits and some businesses to reduce carbon emissions across the state.
It calls for 20% of vehicles on Minnesota roads to be EVs by 2030 and for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions from the transportation sector by 2040. It does not include a ban on selling gas cars, even though such a plan would sharply reduce emissions from a transportation sector that accounts for roughly a quarter of Minnesota’s emissions. Currently, the state is not on track to meet a state goal for reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2025, and the transportation sector carries part of the blame.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Walker Orenstein[/image_credit][image_caption]On Friday, Gov. Tim Walz, center, unveiled a “Climate Action Framework” that details policy hopes held by Democrats, climate nonprofits and some businesses to reduce carbon emissions across the state.[/image_caption]
But Long also said Minnesota is different from California and other states. For instance, Long said EVs aren’t as popular here and that the state needs a more robust charging system. Minnesota is the only state in the Midwest to adopt the earlier version of the auto emissions standards.
“I think we need to get to a point first where Minnesotans have the choices to buy electric vehicle options and also that we have the infrastructure to support those choices,” Long said. “I think in the next few years that’s where I want my focus to be, is getting options for Minnesotans for new vehicle purchases.”
Would the reaction from Long, Walz and other Democrats be different if not for this coming midterm election that will decide who is governor and who controls the Legislature?
Politics can’t be ignored in this case. The issue has been controversial, with some Democrats, particularly in rural areas, opposing the original Clean Cars standard.
Republicans lately have criticized Democrats for what they say is a lack of a clear “yes” or “no” answer on adopting California’s gas car ban. “Right now gas vehicles are $15,000 cheaper than electric,” said Rep. Chris Swedzinkski of Ghent, the top Republican on the House’s climate and energy committee. “This would represent a massive shift with expensive consequences for Minnesota families, businesses, and auto dealers, and we aren’t getting a straight answer from Gov. Walz or his agencies.”
What Democrats hope to do instead
In the absence of banning sales of new gas cars, Long said he hopes to pass a bill to offer EV rebates, and he said there should be more state funding for electric vehicle chargers. But he also said there has been federal investment in charging and the Inflation Reduction Act will pay for an EV tax credit, among other provisions aimed at sparking the market. Some auto manufacturers have also set their own goals for stopping or limiting the sale of gas vehicles.
By 2025, when the Clean Cars standard in Minnesota is running its short course, Long said “there’s going to be a lot in motion” from the federal government and by auto manufacturers to advance the industry.
Rather than endorse a ban on selling new gas cars, the climate framework unveiled by Walz and the MPCA at an Ecolab facility in Eagan calls for more money for a statewide pedestrian and bicycle network, more transit, and land use policy that “facilitates multimodal transportation.”
One major policy proposal suggested in the framework for slashing carbon emissions from vehicles is what’s known as a “low carbon fuel standard,” which requires that fuels become less “carbon intensive” over time. That would need to be passed by a Legislature that is currently split between the majority-DFL House and the Republican-led Senate.
A version of the policy has been adopted in states like California, Washington and Oregon.
C’mon, old folks, you’re free to follow the lead of the nation’s greatest state in moving past polluting gas-guzzlers. Your old road is rapidly agin’, as your favorite son sang.
Sure if you have the money to buy one. Many buy used gas cars because they can’t afford newer cars or the extra 15,000( a rebate is retroactive and only pays a portion) or because they have bad credit and buy that 2,000 oldie to get around at all hours. Not everyone is living in Linden Hills, Fulton, etc. and have the same options as others. Another issue is how do they work in very cold weather?
California has just announced brown outs for the foreseeable future. Xcel Energy is controlling customer’s thermostats in Colorado and at some point, here in MN. If you think that’s not intentional, it is. The range of millage in the winter sucks. Can you make it to Fargo to pick your student up at NDSU or Augustana around Christmas time without spending 1-3 hours at some Pilot truck stop or Cracker Barrell while waiting for your car to charge? What happens when it goes dead on I94 during rush hour with kids in the car, in January or on a hot July day? Highway helper, AAA,BP motor club brings you some charging?
Its two problems. 1. EV cars are cool for the middle to upper class virtue signalers getting a latte or vegan meal. They just aren’t practical for much of the state. 2. The public sees what’s happening in Europe and California with energy shortages and its only time before we experience that.
Yeah, it’s -40 every day in the winter in Minnesota, and that cold covers the entire state, so for sure, batteries don’t work in the winter .
The Lucid Air for instance, has an EPA rating of 600 miles per charge – more than enough to get to Fargo, and is far more the mileage you get in whatever you drive.
Oh, and do you have any citation for the California announcing rolling brownouts for the rest of time, or is that just made up in your head?
But it takes me 10 minutes to fill up and get back on the road. How long to charge to get 600 miles?
You also probably believe the EPA estimates on gas mileage they post on cars
Driving from Minneapolis to where I live in NW Montana is about 1100 miles, and I break that drive into 2 days. So, hypothetically the car charges overnight when you stop to sleep. So, no other stops for fuel for the entire trip. In an ICE car, you would stop for fuel 3-4 times or more depending on how fast you drive once you get to Montana. Which one sounds better to you?
Yeah. The cheapest Lucid Air if you can get one is $77,400. How many people do you know buying $80k cars?
The Lucid Air is very affordable for everyone at just over $87,000 for their base model and up to $169,000 for their Dream Edition. That’s a ridiculous thought that the people this will affect the most – lower middle-class and below wage earners – can even get close to affording one of these cars. Also, I can only find that the farthest on one charge is 516 miles. However, at 21 minutes on their fast charger and able to recoup 300 miles of range, is pretty convenient when I can wait 5 minutes for my Camry to refuel and I can recoup nearly 500 miles of range on a full tank.
I am not seeing any upside other than the rich being able to virtue signal and eventually get around without those pesky poors getting in the way. But then again, there’s always public transportation, right?
Never said these cars were affordable to a lot of people, they clearly are not. My point was more about mileage and the gains being made daily on battery technology.
I was relying on memory for the 600 mile range, but given that, is 516 miles per charge bad. 516 miles per charge for a big, very heavy car is pretty good to me. Now granted, if you mash the gas unleashing the delicious 1000hp and glorious 1052 torques, well that changes the dynamic a bit, but the same goes for ICE cars.
The battery technology used by Lucid or the others will flow from the marque models to the entry level models just like their ICE counterparts. There’s no incentive to make EV’s out of reach for the masses. Unfortunately the price of a new car, however it derives its power is really high, out of reach for a lot of people, and therein lies the conundrum, there’s also no incentive for car companies to suddenly lower the price of admission, so there we are.
Minneapolis to Fargo and back in winter? In my Tesla Model Y, 50 minutes of charging total. Not much more time than I spend on bathroom and meal breaks.
Cool for getting a vegan meal or latte? Don’t know; I like eating meat and I like my coffee black. But I have driven many times between Minnesota and the east coast without issue. Just finished a trip to Santa Fe, NM.
Brown outs? Largely due to heavy AC use in the afternoon and early evening. Off peak charging incentives greatly mitigate that. And, by the way, most EVs can drive about 18-20 miles on the electricity it takes to refine 1 gallon of gas. So only about 1 out of every 3 kw used by an EV is additional demand. Charge off peak and you’re actually reducing impact on the grid vis-a-vis gas.
Frankly Andy, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
It must be nice to be privileged enough to purchase a $70k+ vehicle that costs more than a Mercedes or BMW equivalent. 40% of Americans don’t have $400 in savings, let alone the money for a $1000+ per month car payment. Most people can’t afford a BEV.
The average price of a new car sold in the United States is $48k. An F150 can top $90k, and every one of the thousands of Yukon Denalis you see is $70k minimum. A 4-year loan on $48k amount is about $980. With a down payment or trade-in and longer loans, the average car payment is about $700. $70k for a new car, gas or electric, is by no means out of the market mainstream, even if the average American can’t afford one. But then car makers don’t care about creating affordable things. They care about using whatever capacity they have to create the highest margin products.
All the car makers in the world seem to think that there is a big market for expensive cars since that is what they are producing. They have eliminated most of their inexpensive cars in favor of high-end models. In fact, I believe that after the next model year there will be no domestic automaker that sells a car (sedan/hatch) that isn’t electric or a specialty vehicle like the Corvette or Mustang.
I think everyone else has already pointed out that the giant truck fad here belies the whole “it’s tooooooo expensiiiive” argument. Plus, as more and more electric cars become available, they will be less expensive and more capable of long distance driving. The average new car price right now is $48k – there are more than 20 electric car models that are priced lower than that. And, while range is largely directly proportional to price, there are 9 models that get at least 250 miles per charge and the electric Mustangs hit 300. The Hyundai Kona is a steal at less than $30k and over 250 miles on a charge. Plus, new technologies that reduce charge time are on the very near horizon. I choose to plant a garden because I believe in the future – what I have now will be multiplied if I care for the present. If every farmer thought the way you do about electric cars, we’d all starve because we can’t imagine a future that isn’t exactly the same as today.
Toyota, the world’s largest auto manufacture, is not going all in. They see what’s coming.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/13/why-toyota-the-worlds-largest-automaker-isnt-all-in-on-evs.html
You know who is all in:
Ford
Chevrolet
Lucid
Tesla
Rivian
Mercedes
Porsche
BMW
Audi
and on and on. But maybe you know more than all those engineers, seems like you might, so you should call them all and tell them they are going down a rabbit hole on this whole EV thing – might save them some money and headache.
Sounds like the leadership at Toyota is more pragmatic than our leaders in government , climate activists and other car companies.
Their measured approach makes sense for their business , consumers and the environment. Toyota’s goals are realistic and attainable vs state governments trying to mandate a solution that they have little understanding of.
If we “left it up to the market,” we’d soon have to be in the for a new planet!
I live in Montreal, in a Canadian province that has climate zones both warmer–and some colder–than Minnesota. Quebec has traditionally had almost half of the electric vehicles registered in Canada, with under a quarter of the national population. And the area of the province is greater than that of Alaska.
For colder and more isolated areas of Minnesota, the future may hold promise of new fuels that are less detrimental to the climate (eg green hydrogen and bio-fuels). Might this represent an area of opportunity for your state’s researchers, inventors and venture capital sectors ?
Democrats are criticized for not doing enough of We Republicans wouldn’t do at all. The story here is that Democrats may or may not be going far enough to deal with the crisis of climate change. No comparable story can be written about Republicans because they aren’t dealing with the issue at all, and it’s very difficult to write something about nothing.
We can quibble about policy details, or about how much we hate California but the issue on the table is climate change. If Republican control even pone house of Congress, any effort to address issues of climate change will be end, possibly forever. Are we willing to make that bet?
Republicans are the only ones talking nuclear power. The obvious solution and ultimate fossil fuel saver.
They probably plan to store it next to the depleted EV car battery pile.
The batteries from EVs can and are being recycled. Can you do that with the spent fuel from nuclear reactors?
Look up “New generation nuclear reactors” and you’ll find they will burn existing nuclear waste as fuel and are fail-safe. They are the necessary future.
Being ahead of the rest of the Midwest is enough. Our temperatures are colder and that impact charging and the efficiency of batteries. DFLs want real world solutions. Requiring a solution that isn’t one makes no sense. The Republican solution is do nothing or even producing more greenhouse gases. Making things worse is no solution – just dumb!
This reminds me of the folks that claim states should be off coal, gas and nuclear energy, right now. Can’t happen because solar and wind are not capable of producing enough energy as of today. It sounds good to make these statements but it is just your wokeness talking. Outside metropolitan areas, electric cars just are not practical, period.
Hertz announced a couple days ago they will be purchasing 175,000 Bolt EV and EUV starting early next year. THis will add to the 100,000 Tesla’s they order this year. I wonder, are they on to something, or will this just fade away like an ill-conceived business idea.
We don’t have any metropolitan areas in Montana, and yet you can’t go around the block without seeing another Tesla, starting to see Rivian’s in the wild, F150 Lightnings too. Some of those folks are ranchers, towing gear, and I haven’t seen looks of terror in the eyes of those drivers hoping their battery won’t die before they get home.
I know you’re supper excited that you learned a new term, but wokeness isn’t the insult you think it is – maybe use a more adult invective next time.
Have you tried buying an F-150 Lightning? We don’t need more government mandates. There are a lot more people who want to buy EVs than there is production capacity. FORD and everyone else is trying to increase production as fast as they can. However, the same progressives who are pushing for more EV mandates, are also trying to block permits for the necessary mines, transmission lines, and other infrastructure that is necessary to both build and fuel EVs. People need to be more realistic.
Please follow the science regarding the infrastructure that is needed for EV’s and how “green” these vehicles actually are in reality.
The worse thing is Government pushing politics over actual EV’s science.
However – pushing “Junk EV science” is easier than telling the truth.
MN businesses become less competitive.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/german-producer-prices-post-record-jump-august-2022-09-20/
As a lifelong Democrat, I have to say my answer to any question the form of “Should Minnesota embrace California’s X?”, my answer will pretty much always be no. In general, I am opposed to any effort to give extrajurisdicitional to other state’s laws and policies.
Why aren’t Minnesota Democrats embracing California’s ban on new gas cars? Because it’s an election year. The problem with democrats, the reason why I’m no longer a democrat, is because they don’t believe in consumer choice. Name the issue – they either want to ban something or mandate something. Let the market decide. Let the people decide. If you don’t agree with that, you’re an authoritarian who doesn’t appreciate living in a free society and you should at least admit to the voters as to who you are.
You should get out more.
The market and the people are deciding – how, you ask? Unless you put your name on the list a while ago for the new F150 Lightning, your out of luck for a while, that’s how many people want that rig. Same goes for Tesla, Rivian, the MachE, etc, etc.
Ford recently laid off around 4000 people working in the ICE division, they then hired nearly the same number in the EV division – I wonder why they did that, maybe they should have called you first, you could have set them straight.
They probably did it because they want to get ahead of government mandates and take advantage of the government’s (taxpayer) funding of EV car purchases. The only problem is the majority of EV’s available for purchase don’t meet the requirements to qualify for the incentive. Also , the US lags China by an incredibly wide margin for both mineral and battery production.
I doubt the people on the waiting list are low or middle income since the average cost of an EV is $19,000 more than an ICE vehicle. There’s little incentive for an auto company to produce lower priced options if the current market is $69,000 on average.
The best incentive there is are high gas prices …. and we know how that’s working (ie inflation).
Trying to force consumer choice will continue to be a slow go until the value to purchase an EV is a choice that people want to make.
Yeah, the F150 Lightning nicely appointed will run you $80,000 plus, but again, try and get on the list right now to buy one. So, I’m not sure what your point is. People want them. That you can’t afford one is irrelevant.
Your claim most EV’s don’t qualify is wrong too. Many of the used EV’s currently won’t qualify, but new ones, they qualify.
Year to date F Series sales are over 420,000 and the Lightning is close to 7,000.
I understand there is a long wait for the Lightning. That’s irrelevant.
The Inflation Reduction Act requires all battery component and assembly to be US sourced to qualify. Global battery and mineral supply is dominated by China at 79% . The US is 6.2% …. just ahead of Hungary. China is also first in materials while the US is 17th.
Fords most recent EV battery sourcing was with CATL , a China owned company. Currently no manufacturer meets the requirements of the IRA program.
Can the US develop a supply chain including materials and assembly by 2032 (when the program ends) and how will buyers qualify for incentives between now and then ?
Price is not irrelevant. $80,000 disqualifies most buyers ….. and this is before over $5,000 in Minnesota vehicle sales tax. The average EV price of $69,000 is also a barrier for many.
These , along with a host of other EV challenges make the EV sales goals difficult or not impossible to be achieved …. however government mandates seem to be popular with the Democrats.
IF (huge IF) the price of gas (and electricity for that matter) reflected the overall cost we could let the market decide. But the price of gas reflects the cost to manufacture and not the downstream costs of pollution. If effect, we subsidize the price of gasoline by requiring that society pays to clean up the mess it creates.
We don’t live in individual bubbles. What we do effects others. “Personal choice” for you often means you’re making a choice for others – a choice they may not like.
Just follow the trail of money to electric cars. Electric cars are not the do all, end all for saving us from doom. They are actually higher in carbon content in many cases and only catch up after 50-100k miles. It is the current bandwagon many are jumping on.
I can’t imagine what the price of Lithium will be in a few years to try and fund these EV fantasies. I’m just thankful it won’t be my land that will be destroyed to try and mine it all.
Unless you own land in China.
Republicans and journalists who are vulnerable to Republican talking points w, ill often talk about California and it’s supposed influence on Democrats elsewhere. I have spent some time there and I think California is a wonderful place to live and work, but that very real California is not what those Republican and journalists. Instead, their California is a euphemism for a lot of people and things they want to list but can’t because if they were explicit about what they were talking about, they would be seen as racist, anti semitic and last but possibly not least, just plain foolish.
California is different from Minnesota in a number of important ways. Policies that make sense there don’t make sense here and vice versa. People who think about these issues and who favor good and effective government for both states understand that even when from a partisan context. Let’s learn from the experience of others but let’s not let the experience of others dictate what we do here. Surely all parties can agree on that?
So much fear (of the future) being peddled by the conservative commentators here.
I can recall (quite clearly) this same style of comments coming from conservatives twenty or thirty years back regarding hybrids. We bought one (and after waiting, ahem, ten months for delivery,) took possession of it – and never looked back.
Boy the comments back then –
How’s your Rube Goldberg device? (Followed by them laughing at their comment.) Oh, I mean what you call your car.
Is “that”, how do you say it again, really still running?
A dentally challenged person rushing up to me at a gas pump screaming – Ya ‘all ought to pay twice as much for gas.
And then the person whose nephew was a volunteer fireman that swore – The day that thing goes up in flames, and you can bet your boots it WILL, hope no firemen don’t get electrocuted.
Then there were the past EPA mandates to increase mileage on all cars. Other than the weeping, gnashing of teeth, and cries of – It’ll shut down the auto makers! Well, we and the auto makers seem OK.
And reaching waaay back – The seat belt mandate.
These past comments were not all that different from some current conservative comments above.
California market will drive the research and innovation that will create the demand in Minnesota. They will see their neighbors using new and perhaps not invented yet technology and adapt. No need to stir up resistance at this early stage. Same people who fought tooth and nail against unleaded gas will continue to fight against science and technology improvements and cleaner air.
Change is coming. I agree that it’s hard for most people to afford right now but will get more affordable over time. The challenge I see is the waste if everyone prematurely abandoned their driveable gas cars to change to EV. Imagine the landfill. Seems like it would be so much easier if they invented and sold an EV converter for existing gas cars. I have no idea about the science of that, but I’m always amazed by what can be accomplished when the inventors get involved.