Minnesota’s GOP Lawmakers Revolt Against Biden Electric Vehicle Plan
Earlier this month, Minnesota’s GOP lawmakers voted in favor of blocking President Biden’s ambitious new car pollution rules, which aim to increase the percentage of electric vehicles (EVs) sold in the United States. The regulations propose that EVs account for up to two-thirds of new car purchases by 2032. The lawmakers argue that the rules are an example of government overreach and are based on unproven technology.
Republican Representative Tom Emmer expressed his concerns, labeling the regulations as heavy-handed, carrot-and-stick government intervention. He further criticized the regulations as an egregious use of regulatory power.
The blocked bill, dubbed the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales (CARS) Act, was sponsored by Michigan Republican Representative Tim Walberg. Minnesota Republicans Pete Stauber, Brad Finstad, and Michelle Fischbach all supported the bill, while Democrats opposed it. Despite passing in the U.S. House, the bill is unlikely to be taken up by the U.S. Senate, and President Biden has indicated he would veto it if it reaches his desk.
It is worth noting that Republican Representative Stauber’s position seemingly contradicts his efforts to promote nickel and copper mining in Minnesota, which would be necessary for EV battery production and other clean technologies. During a recent congressional hearing, Stauber raised questions about the sourcing of minerals for EVs, emphasizing the importance of using minerals from his district on the Iron Range.
Stauber’s press secretary, Kelsey Emmer, defended his stance, stating that the congressman supports consumer choice and aims to prevent the Biden administration from imposing EV mandates. She highlighted that many working-class constituents in Stauber’s district prefer vehicles that are affordable and reliable in cold climates. Additionally, Stauber believes it is hypocritical for the government to push EVs when critical minerals, such as those used in EV batteries, are often sourced from countries like China and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where unethical labor practices, including child labor, are reported.
As it stands, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to phase in the proposed tailpipe emission regulations between 2027 and 2032. These regulations could lead to a reduction of nearly 10 billion tons of CO2 emissions by 2055. However, various groups have raised concerns and submitted thousands of public comments opposing or supporting the plan.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing major automakers, has called for significant changes to the regulations. They argue that the proposed timeline is unrealistic and will substantially increase vehicle costs, restrict consumer choice, and place a burden on many Americans who may not afford EVs. The group also questions whether the charging infrastructure can cope with a significant increase in EVs and whether there will be enough critical minerals available for the batteries.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), representing the petroleum industry, has also expressed opposition to the regulations. API claims that the standards will limit individual freedom since an estimated 67% of new cars and 40% of medium-duty pickups and vans would need to be electric by 2032. They suggest that this would place EVs out of reach financially for many Americans.
Concerns have also been raised by the Departments of Transportation in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. These states argue that the shift to EVs will deplete the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is primarily funded through gasoline taxes and supports transportation projects.
Minnesota’s Pollution Control Agency has a different perspective. They see the proposed regulations as an opportunity for climate action, reducing harm from pollutants, and accelerating the transition to EVs within the state.
Environmental groups have largely supported President Biden’s plan, with organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists praising the effort to combat vehicle pollution’s detrimental effects on public health and climate.
Given the current political landscape and the concerns raised by various groups, the future of these regulations remains uncertain. Furthermore, the potential impact on Minnesota, a state with a relatively low number of EV drivers and harsh winter conditions affecting EV efficiency, adds another layer of complexity to the discussion.
As the debate over President Biden’s aggressive climate change policies and the future of EVs unfolds, it is clear that both sides have passionate arguments supporting their positions. Whether these regulations will ultimately come into effect and shape the future of the automobile industry in the United States remains to be seen.
