I strongly endorse this rule change. Transportation is becoming the number one source of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Our windows to solve these problems are closing very rapidly. We need these rules in order to ensure a livable future for our children and their children after. Without these rules almost every dealer I've contacted in the state does not carry electric vehicles. We've considered flying to California in order to purchase a car and road trip it back to Minnesota.

1. I believe forcing dealers to carry ZEV’s will have little impact on demand.
2. Demand is not constrained by the supply of ZEV’s; demand is constrained by the lack of robust charging infrastructure in the state.
3. Where there is charging infrastructure, consumer demand for vehicles follows, even for expensive vehicles – TESLA has proven this to be true.
4. The government would be better served to invest in charging infrastructure for ZEV’s to make them a more viable choice for consumers.
5. Forcing dealers to carry inventory for which there is insufficient demand is a waste of resources focused on enforcing a law that won’t have the intended effect. Here is a thought experiment to illustrate why I believe incentives rather than coercion would best achieve Clean Cars Minnesota’s goals of more Low and Zero-Emission Vehicles. Governor Walz, who strongly supports the goals of Clean Cars Minnesota, decides to lead by example. He wants to trade in his gas-powered car and drive a Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) for both personal and government transportation needs, and so he looks at the 2020 Chevy Bolt. The Bolt is smooth and powerful. It is dependable, requires almost no expensive maintenance, has tons of sophisticated safety features, costs about the same as the average car sold in the US, has a range of 259 miles and has a US automaker name plate. The Bolt is an excellent car, and it is available in Minnesota now. Will Governor Walz buy the Bolt? The short answer is “No”. He hasn’t bought a Bolt, and he won’t buy one! And why won’t he buy it? Because Governor Walz occasionally has to drive 200 miles or so one way to the far reaches of Minnesota. The Bolt has the range to get him straight to essentially anywhere in the state except the extreme NW, but, because he cannot count on finding a dependable battery charger, fast or slow, in most parts of the state, he can’t count on the Bolt’s getting him back home. If Governor Walz, a strong supporter of Clean Cars Minnesota, wouldn’t buy a Bolt to replace his gas-powered car, the average Minnesotan also won’t buy one, and for the same reason – lack of available, dependable charging opportunities. It isn’t the lack of availability of ZEVs that make them unsuitable for Governor Walz. It is the lack of dependable charging that badly limits the usability of ZEVs in Minnesota. One manufacturer of very expensive electric cars is able to sell every car it stocks in Minnesota and even has a waiting list. Currently available, more modestly priced but very capable electric cars should be selling like hotcakes, but they aren’t. Availability of vehicles is not the reason for the difference here. The difference here is the existence of dependable charging opportunities. The expensive cars are supported by an extensive, dependable charging network. The moderately priced electric cars are not. The Clean Cars Minnesota rule is going at the issue backward. The state needs a comprehensive network of strategically placed, dependable chargers. Electric cars will sell themselves. Consumer demand will provide the incentive car dealers need to demand more Low-Emission and Zero-Emission Vehicles from the manufacturers, and this will meet the goals of Clean Cars Minnesota.

Having owned two Electric Vehicles EVs (both Nissan LEAF) and driven them around the metro Twin Cities area it is clear to me that these vehicles are very economical, fun to drive, and very difficult to buy. Dealers are not interested in selling or leasing EVs. Choice of manufacturers and models is very limited. The dealer that we leased our first LEAF from had one person on staff that understood the car. All the other sales people were unaware of the product and uninterested in selling the car. We charge the car at home using a "level 2" charging system installed in our garage. We use if for local travel including work, shopping, child delivery to pre-school, and a host of other tasks. We have used remote charging stations occasionally. These are hard to locate and difficult to use as each one seems to have a unique mode of operation.

I believe the State of Minnesota has a public interest in promoting the use of EVs for the following reasons:

EVs reduce overall carbon emissions. EVs can be powered by locally produced renewable energy. EVs provide the same functional transportation while reducing local air pollution (emissions) as fuel burning vehicles which reduces adverse health impacts on our communities.

Promoting the health and welfare of citizens is the most important mission of government. The promotion of the sale or leasing of EVs, support for a public charging infrastructure, and public encouragement of use of EVs will support this mission.

I'm in favor of the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative. My family has already saved $20,000 in fuel by driving our all-electric cars over 250,000 miles. Making sure electric vehicles are available to test drive on dealership lots is important to selling them & preventing the air pollution originating from the gas cars currently dominating the transportation sector.

I am in favor of this rule change. I have been leasing an EV for over 3 years and support the idea of EVs because they improve air quality, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and are cheaper to operate than gas powered vehicles. I am hoping that in the future there will be more EVs available in greater quantities here in Minnesota.

I am in favor of the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative -- we need to move our state forward in terms of greenhouse gas reduction and not wait for others to lead.

I was recently at a local dealership in NE MN getting an oil change for my 2003 Camry -- a vehicle I bought in college and is still going strong and is in great shape. However, it will come to the end of its life at some point and so as I waited for my car, I walked around the showroom to see what was available. Three things I was shocked by:

1. There were no -- zero -- all-electric vehicles in the showroom
2. Out of the 8 or so in the showroom, maybe two were hybrids
3. The fuel efficiency of a 2021 Camry was the same as my 2003 Camry

I'll address the last point first. Gas-powered vehicles are not improving -- they are "as good" as they are going to get in terms of efficiency and yet we are paying more and more for them. This is not smart economically or environmentally and frankly, as consumers, I'm shocked people think this is acceptable and as a citizen of the planet, I wish there were better options. Oh wait, THERE ARE!

To go back to the first two points -- I asked one of the salespeople -- "Do you have any of the all-electric Toyotas somewhere?" He almost laughed at my question -- gave a vague answer about lack of infrastructure -- and said maybe we (MN) would get some in a few years. I was not satisfied with this answer -- one, because 90% of EV charging is done at home, so the need for infrastructure is less important if your primary driving is a local commute (which for most of us, it is) and two, our local utility, MN Power, even offers incentives for people who charge EVs at home to make it more economical than it already is!

So, I followed up with another person on the sales team and she explained that supply was limited and that MN was not a high priority on the list to get all-electric vehicles from Toyota, even though demand was high. She also mentioned that they had taken down payments on some new EVs and had to return people's money because they couldn't get the vehicles from Toyota.

There is something goofy in the chain here -- in terms of demand, we've got it in spades and as noted by other commenters, people are willing to go to other states to get these vehicles. So what the heck is going on with supply and why can't we get the vehicles? Obviously, we need a rule passed like some of these other states to put us higher on the list of who gets these vehicles which are in high demand but low supply -- and which may also give these car manufacturers the extra nudge to shift more production to EVs to meet the demand and move away from the "safety" of combustion engines as their bread and butter product.

I support this initiative. Electric vehicles need to be available and accessible. They are proven to be better for the environment and safer for the occupants if involved in a collision. Please listen to the Minnesotans that are commenting on here and know they represent a larger constituency

Electric cars are better vehicles and we should do everything we can to offer everyone in Minnesota an opportunity to choose an EV. Right now, the EV availability is poor at dealers and we need to change that. I tried to find an EV car in Sept of 2019 and there just were none available that I might be interested in. We need more plug-in stations across the State and nation. We need to do everything possible to allow greater production of these vehicles to make them less costly to purchase for the average buyer.

I live on a very heavily travelled rural highway where older cars and trucks have noticeable exhaust pollution at my farm building site. I thought we had solved the pollution issues with catalytic converters. But they either wear out or are modified to let a higher level of pollutants out of the exhaust. So, I'm convinced that the only way to solve our increasing air pollution and our extensive use of carbon fuels that are rapidly warming our planet is to eliminate gasoline and diesel engines. There are competing technologies that can provide all the fuel needed for transportation and off-road vehicles such as battery vehicles and hydrogen vehicles.
If our society adds in the external costs of air pollution from increasing health care costs and the infrastructure damage from more intense storms and total precipitation, the annual cost of a ZEV is basically the same as for carbon fuel vehicles which are subsidized by current laws. The transition may seem daunting, but with current technology is feasible and necessary. We must make decisions that will positively affect our children and grandchildren. We cannot continually take more from our earthly home than what we put back. Now is the time to make this tough decision and move our society forward in a manner that guarantees a bright future. Thank you!!

I support the proposed Clean Car rules. We need ZEVs to reduce Co2 emissions and other forms of pollution. I would like to buy reasonably priced electric SUV. I am tall (6' 4") and the mid priced ZEVs available in MN are not comfortable for me.. The cars that I am interested in buying are not currently available in MN. The proposed rule will make ZEVs more available.

I agree with the proposed regulation. I visited every dealer in St. Cloud when I was looking for an EV last year. Only one could possibly get one, but the dealership carried none in stock. At the Chevrolet dealer, salespeople had no information on the Bolt, thought that it might not be sold in Minnesota. In short, no local auto dealer had an EV, let alone an EV with at least 300 mile range in early 2020.

Tesla was my only feasible solution, requiring a trip to Eden Prairie. Tesla has an excellent network of fast charging stations mostly near interstates. I easily drove my Tesla to Oregon and back this summer. Unfortunately, the same can not be said about planning a trip to the Canadian border.

For in-town use, EV batteries can be charged by a standard 30 amp garage circuit. For trips to the cities or Rochester, Superchargers (Tesla only) along the way provide a quick boost. Off this beaten path, chargers can be found by an app, but they are usually much slower than the Tesla superchargers. Minnesota definitely needs more fast chargers that can get you back on the road in 30 minutes. And the Biden administration is committed to installing EV chargers. Minnesota should work with the Biden team ASAP.

Over the next year, every major manufacturer will be offering EVs, including sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks, some with range as good or better than my Tesla. If manufacturers are required to stock EVs outstate, they will have an incentive to develop charging stations outstate. The state should collaborate with manufacturers to assure both wide coverage, brand-independent capabilities, and fast charging.

Dealers are reluctant to offer EVs because the lack of maintenance revenue changes their business model. Dealers need time to make the transition in their business model. The requirement as proposed will permit them time to do this.

Minnesotans deserve choice - without going to the Twin Cities to test drive a vehicle.

Recent statistics show that Americans are keeping their vehicles between 8 and 12 years. Thus a new car purchased in 2021 may very well be still on the road in 2030. The state has an interest in assuring that the majority of those vehicles in 2035 are EVs. We need to start now.

Norway has made EV purchase a priority, with incentives - including tax breaks, HOV lane access, discounted parking and ferry passage - to encourage EV purchases. In September 2020, 61.5% of new car sales in Norway were plug-in EVs. Including hybrids, the percentage moves to 89%. Minnesota needs to encourage EV purchases now if vehicles on the road in 2035 are to be fossil fuel free.

And it isn’t just Norway. Curbside chargers in Rotterdam - for folks without garages - and EVs are plentiful. We can do this in Minnesota, but need a push from the state.

As an EV owner for the past 4+ years, my EV has over 136K miles, and I am a huge outdoors advocate it is time to move this forward. We can not continue to utilize fossil fuels, a stand must be made in a direction that will lower our overall use of fossil fuels.

I'm also disappointed that the dealers associations aren't embracing true clean auto advances in the vehicles they can and should be offering. It certainly seems that it's all about the profits for the dealers - they don't make a ton on the current ICE vehicles however they make a ton on service and, as we all know, service is significantly less for EV's. It's all about the profit margins.

Let's not let climate change continue to screwup our nature and the wonderful outdoor life that we enjoy here in Minnesota.

I am excited about the possibility of bringing more choice in EVs to Minnesota. My partner and I have been considering buying an EV, but the options are limited mainly to very expensive options like a Tesla, or lower-range options like the Leaf. There are some great options out there available in states like California that combine a good range, practical size, and affordable cost. We will totally take the plunge and buy an EV once these more affordable but practical options become available. Sadly, the car companies seem to need a push to provide these cars to states like ours.

Private vehicles make a large percentage of greenhouse gas emissions in our state. We are not going to meet goals for reducing emissions unless see a much bigger adoption of EVs. Providing better options for drivers will help that to happen, and as more people are driving them the charging infrastructure will also become more in demand and will encourage more development on that front. It is a process that will be self reinforcing, and will make it easier each year for others to make the switch. Thank you, MPCA for taking this tangible step toward addressing climate change, an issue that I see as a huge threat. We need to act to head off the worst impacts while we still can.

I support Clean Cars Minnesota. Clean car standards aren’t new. They’re an established and credible way that states can work to clean up pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, from transportation. Fourteen other states and the District of Columbia have already adopted clean car standards which are a common-sense way to encourage automakers to increase the supply of these vehicles. As an electric vehicle driver for over 5 years, I can confirm that they are superior to internal combustion vehicles for a large majority of Minnesota driver uses and will save Minnesotans money. We need this rule to make more electric vehicles available to Minnesotans so all can benefit.

I fully support the “Proposed Permanent Rules Relating to Clean Cars” currently proposed by the MPCA, including and especially 7023.0300 zero-emission vehicle standards.

This issue hits close to home, as this fall I started a search for a new car. After doing a good deal of research, I had a strong preference for a Hyundai Ioniq plug-in hybrid. Off to the dealer I go, only to find out these cars are not available in Minnesota. Why not? I was told because they are only available in states with California emissions laws.

Ridiculous.

The talking points from the car industry is that people don’t want ZEVs, that they only want trucks and SUVs. Well, here I am, so I know that’s not true. More likely the car companies are one part stuck in the past and one part resentful for ever being told what to do. Both terrible reasons to shape policy.

Meanwhile, I’m holding off on a new car, until I can either drive to California and buy one, or Hyundai wises up.

I support the MN Clean Cars rule proposed by the MPCA. My family wants to own and drive 'clean' cars to support the lessening of global warming emissions. However, when we recently purchased a new vehicle, the type of plug-in/hybrid SUV that we wanted to buy was not sold in MN. We had to compromise with a non-plug-in hybrid because that was all that was available. We want more 'cleaner' options in MN. The MN Automobile Dealers Association may like to pretend that Minnesotans mostly want to drive non-ZEV full-size pickups and SUVs, but they are not speaking for us.

I oppose this rule. Electric production is often times more harmful to the environment, in by-products emissions and waste and is not yet near carbon neutral. This will make private transportation far more costly for the average Minnesota and put reliable winter transportation out of reach for many.

I don't think MN should adopt this policy. I think the costs of what this will do to the citizens of this state will be to great for the average person to overcome. Vehicles are already overpriced as it is. If you mandate that ev and lev are to be sold at a cost to the dealer, the dealer will suffer and then past that suffering on to the consumer, who will then suffer. They will pay the price at cost of sale and at the gas pump. This will be taking more money out of working peoples hands. Also if this is mandated for heavy duty vehicles, the owners and businesses that operate these heavy duty vehicles will raise their rates. This is a cost that will be passed onto the consumer also. Prices where goods need to be delivered will be raised, prices for all services that require heavy duty vehicles will go up. Also this should be put to a vote for the citizens to decide. I've never even heard about this mandate until I saw this post. Which is a reason it should be voted on. I'm sure there are alot of citizens that don't know this is happening. When Tim Walz was campaigning for office he ran on saying he was going to raise the gas tax, which is why I did not vote for him. Citizens should not be told what vehicles they have to drive.

I strongly recommend that you do not adopt this policy. The people of MN cannot afford to adopt these policies. The staggering cost to the average Minnesota would be overwhelming especially for a person of color as myself. The overwhelming tax burden we already have is causing extreme hardship especially during this time of Covid-19 when many Minnesotans are struggling from losing jobs and homes, and paying hospital bills. Minnesota already is in line with the Paris Climate regulations, so there is no need to burden Minnesotans with un needed regulations. Thank You for your time and have a blessed day!

This proposal is ridiculous and just another way to hurt lower income and rural living families with unsubstantiated excessive regulation. This governor must be stopped. This is nothing less than an abuse of power and a way to take more money out of hard working Minnesotans pockets.

I strongly disagree with the green act. Minnesotans can’t afford this. This is by far the last thing that needs to be addressed. Hurts anyone that does Motorsports. Which is a family event. I believe people would move if they had to. Electric vehicles are Harding on towing companies and more dangerous to take care of if they need assistance. The batteries are very expensive. It’s all around more expensive in the end.

I strongly OPPOSE adopting this rule as it could have future consequences that will negatively impact small dealerships, and will only increase the costs of owning a car. Even if a rule like this were to actually reduce emissions, the difference would be so minuscule it would be hard to actually measure and pinpoint how that's being done. To adopt a rule like this is insanity. Minnesota is not California and never will be. Our lifestyle is completely different up here, and so is our cold climate. Below I will give many reasons as to why this is not a good rule to adopt.

1. Do not force people, or dealerships to purchase something that won't sell. If you want Minnesotans to buy electric vehicles you need to do it as an incentive. Incentives will sell themselves if they are truly everything they say they are. For example, if the government truly cares about electric cars they could start by providing rebates for those who buy electric cars, or providing grants to those who buy electric cars and purchase charging equipment. Incentives are a better way to measure how many people are on board, without actually harming others in the process. Especially in Minnesota, you will probably find that many people who want electric cars are in the metro area. So, dealerships in the metro area are the only ones who are likely to benefit as the charging structure is most readily available in the metro area.
2. About 55% of Minnesota's population lives in the twin cities metro area. This is the area in which would probably mostly support adopting this rule. However, the rest of Minnesota that lives beyond the metro area would be negatively affected by this rule. Many people that do NOT live in the metro area can often travel hours each day for work, appointments, and other errands. As a small business owner, I often travel hundreds of miles to provide a service. Often going to remote locations, and often times needing four-wheel drive and stopping to fuel up at least once. Having to rely on an electric vehicle would be very concerning in my circumstance, and for many other people that live in northern Minnesota.

3. The charging infrastructure is not here. If you have no way to charge your electric vehicles, they will not sell, nor will you be able to travel. This will only hurt dealerships, especially the dealerships not in the metro area. Electric vehicles will end up sitting on lots and not being sold. AND even the people that do buy electric vehicles will have a very difficult time finding a place to charge them. Adding more charging infrastructure is only going to cost Minnesotans more, and provides no guarantee to actually helping reduce emissions. To set up and build these charging structures would be costly and would require the use of emissions and fuel for initial set up. AND would come at taxpayers expense. How much money is needed to do that? How much fuel and emissions are created in setting up charging infrastructure?

4. People often forget that just because an electric car doesn't produce emissions right in front of you, that doesn't mean that emissions aren't produced in order to "run them". Minnesota currently gets 30% of their energy from coal, 30% of their energy from nuclear, 20% of their energy from wind, and 20% of their energy from natural gas. If people think that electric cars are going to actually stop greenhouse gas emissions, they're crazy. Your electricity needs to come from somewhere, and using an electric car will still make emissions because in order for the car to receive electricity, that electricity needs to be made by other sources. AND even though there's still a push to move to solar and wind energy sources, they are often unreliable and not as "green" as they claim to be. For example, wind turbine blades will often end up in landfills after being used, or when they are no longer deemed fit. There are only certain landfills in the midwest that are willing to accept them. To transport and create these blades takes A LOT of fuel. To actually make an entire wind turbine, many parts have to be hauled individually by semi trucks. Many people push for wind energy but they dont realize the costs and greenhouse gas emissions that go into creating these ginormous structures that are not very efficient in terms of length of life. Same goes for solar panels. They don't last very long, and are very expensive. After years of use, they end up in landfills contributing to the pollution problem too.

5. Even if more charging structures were created around the state, many people would have to resort to charging their electric vehicle at home. The average vehicle takes about 6 to 12 hours to reach a full charge. Faster chargers are available, but are more costly and can be harder on the battery. This is similar to any lithium ion battery. So in terms of getting the most out of your electric vehicle, fast chargers are not the best. People also forget that electricity companies have on peak and off peak times. People who charge their vehicle when electricity is in high demand, are going to be charged more. On peak hours are typically 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. in Minnesota. Electricity costs in Minnesota are increasing. And if we look at Xcel's future plans for creating electricity in Minnesota, the costs are going up substantially. And when it does, many people are going to feel the heat of an increasing electricity bill, making electric cars even less desirable.

6. Lithium ion batteries do not perform well in cold weather. This is true with any electronic device that uses lithium ion batteries. And over time these batteries will eventually stop holding a full charge. Minnesota has some of the coldest winters, which makes electric vehicles a big gamble for a Minnesota driver. For anyone that would try to travel more than 150 MI, in Minnesota, when we have Sub-Zero temperatures, could lose battery power quickly and to have to stop and charge. This could add hours onto a trip. And in an emergency situation, there is no way to quickly charge an electric vehicle with a dead battery. Since lithium ion batteries don't last forever, and can perform worse and worse over time, they don't last long. This also creates a recycling problem. Where will these batteries go? Have we thought that far ahead? If these batteries are the sole purpose in making these engines work, but they cannot survive that long, how does that actually make them a more "green" choice? Lithium ion batteries also do not do well in extreme heat, this can actually harm the battery permanently. Minnesota does not have an ideal climate for lithium ion batteries. Oftentimes we are in extreme cold, or extreme heat. People often forget too, that gas powered engines produce heat, and when they produce heat that heat gets used more efficiently in the winter. Most of that heat is blown up into the cab, especially during the winter months. However, in an electric vehicle, not much heat is made while running. Therefore an electric vehicle would have to work even harder to heat the cab area during colder spells. This would result in much battery usage.

7. The other part that's concerning about this rule, is that we would have to follow the exact rules that California makes. This is very concerning. If Minnesotans truly cared about the state of Minnesota, why aren't we making rules specific to our state. Like mentioned above, we have a very different climate. And what works in California will not always work in Minnesota. There's a much better way to go about this than adopting another state's rules. This could have grave future consequences depending on what California decides to do in the future. Who knows what that'll be and how much that'll cost. Does California actually take into consideration Sub-Zero temperatures? Does California consider where will all these batteries go once these cars are deemed useless? Does California consider the needs of people that have absolutely no use for an electric car? Does California realize how costly these vehicles are, especially to low income families? Does California realize that electricity costs are only going to continue to increase? If we continue to add rules and regulations like this, how many other rules is MN looking at to add? What happens if regulations like this are put on farm equipment? How much will that raise the costs of food and the prices of simple essentials? Will rules like this lead to something like CARB in California? Have Minnesotans thought about that? Do they know all the rules and regulations that go along with CARB? Do they realize rules and regulations like this will cause the cost of living to increase exponentially, especially as more rules get added? I hope Minnesota is asking these questions.

8. The cost of owning a vehicle today is expensive. Adopting rules like this will only hurt low-income families that are trying to get a vehicle. If dealerships would be required to have electric vehicles in their fleet, but they don't sell, those costs will just get passed on to the consumer. Therefore it's making the cost of owning a car go up substantially. Not only would dealerships pass these costs onto their consumers, but it would create more paperwork for them. Many people rely on small dealerships outside of the metro area for services. Increasing costs and demands on already struggling dealerships could cause many dealerships to close. This would do a huge disservice to many people outside of the metro area. Families in Minnesota are simply looking for an affordable and reliable car. They want something that can carry everyone, while being practical. An electric vehicle for a family that travels frequently whether the car is used for work travel as well, is simply not practical at all. An electric vehicle for Minnesotans would then become a luxury item. Partly because many Minnesotans would not drive their electric vehicles in the winter because they are unreliable in cold weather. The battery drains fast making them difficult to use. People won't be buying a vehicle to only use for half the year. Families that are trying to find a reliable vehicle will not choose electric vehicles. They are going to save money for other essentials. They also want a dependable vehicle for emergency situations. Having to get some where with a dead battery is impossible. Having to get somewhere in a pinch is possible with a quick stop at a gas station. What happens when we have a widespread power outage? For multiple days? Weeks? Relying on electric cars won't work. So, the people that will be buying an electric vehicle are people that have extra money to spend. Therefore, again this is only doing a disservice to low income and middle class families.

9. Dealerships will have to equip themselves with being able to service and fix on electric vehicles. Right now many dealerships do not have all the equipment, nor do they have the technicians that are trained to correctly service them. This would cost more money for the dealerships, which in return would be passed on to the customers. The training process and the amount of equipment needed to fix on electric cars would be time consuming and costly.

10. It's very frustrating this rule is being swept under the rug and avoiding MN legislation. Many people have no idea this is occurring or even being discussed. I haven't seen any coverage about this in our local news. I haven't seen any press releases about the rule or rule making process in any local newspapers. Nothing. Not. A. Word. How are people supposed to voice their opinion on this if the coverage of this issue is practically hidden? Our legislators don't get an opportunity to debate on the issue, so even some of them are in the dark. This is a rule that would affect ALL Minnesotans. So, why isn't there more coverage of this? This rule should be abandoned simply because of the lack of coverage and lack of input from across the state.

11. We can spend time putting together graphs and saying how this will be such a great rule. We can look at other states and say we'll hop on the bandwagon. We can fall for the green lingo that's often pushed so hard. OR we can take a step back and analyze what's really the best thing for Minnesota. If people really, truly want to help the environment, an electric car is not going to do much of anything in the long run. This would just create more rules and regulations without any lasting benefits to our state. The best thing to do in this circumstance would be to drop the rule completely, and leave Minnesota dealerships alone. Let them decide which types of cars are best suited for their fleets. I've already spoken with our workers at local dealerships and they are worried about what this could do for the cost of owning a car for the average consumer. If people truly want an electric car, many dealerships are happy to work with you on getting one to their shop. Often times dealerships have access to dealerships around the state and other surrounding areas, and many vehicles can be shipped to your desired location for pickup. The ability to get electric vehicles is already here. Minnesota dealerships just aren't ordering them in because they know they will not sell, especially because of our climate. If electric vehicles are really that great they will start to sell themselves, and dealerships will catch on, and react appropriately. Let the dealerships do what they need to do, and leave them alone. And, leave Minnesota vehicle owners alone too.

I strongly appose adopting this rule. It should go through the legislature not a back door sneak because its unpopular! The people of Minnesota can not afford this especially low income and rural. This will hurt everyone!!!

I strongly support changes to reduce vehicle carbon emissions, but as noted by others, two obstacles currently exist: lack of charging infrastructure and insufficient availability of LEV and ZEV. In my last vehicle purchase, I had fully intended to buy an EV but the choices in Minnesota were extremely limited. My job also requires travel to all four corners of the state but charging stations outside of metropolitan areas are few and far between. It is past time to change this.

I think those who oppose the push for EVs are short-sighted. If you build it, they will come. Let's build it.

I stronly support the rule change. I am only concerned that it sets the required EV percentage of cars sold too low. MN is not reaching even its existing GHG goals. It is well past time to take stronger action.

I'm in favor of the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative. There is a definite need to improve the availability of electric vehicles, especially the most popular types : SUVs and trucks. In March we purchased a new 2020 Bolt crossover from Marthaler Chevy in Glenwood for $28,000 and really like it. Simple and easy to drive (I especially like the “L” drive, one pedal driving mode), almost no maintenance, incredibly quick acceleration at any speed, quiet, and zero emissions (no carbon-monoxide poisoning concerns inside the garage or anywhere), and we are using some of the excess electricity produced by our own 10kW solar array. I purchased a level 2 charger on-line and installed it in our garage myself. So far almost all of our charging has been at home since, due to the corona virus pandemic, we have not been doing as much long distance travel, but are looking forward to it. I would like to replace my diesel farm truck with an electric one and hope more models and competitive options are available in the near future.

Another positive step the state of Minnesota could take : install electric vehicle charging stations at DNR and MNDOT stations, parks, and offices across Minnesota for DNR, MNDOT, other state agencies, and public use. It would be a logical, tremendous boost to the state’s charging network, especially in more remote areas.

I am against the legislation to require electric vehicles. For all those who think this will cut back on emissions don't understand what is involved to gather the materials needed to develop batteries for electric cars and also don't consider how much more electricity usage people will have, which the number one source of electricity is burning coal.

We are not California, we need to stop trying to follow the lead of those baffoons.

In 2020 when I bought my first EV I was not able to test drive much less purchase a Hyundai Kona EV because they are not available in Minnesota.
I eventually settled on a Chevy Bolt but even those were in limited supply. While dealers would need to have cars available to see and test they could sell from a regional pool of vehicles shared by multiple dealers. The dealers decide how much inventory they want to carry.

With respect to charging, I think that home (e.g. overnight) charging is much more important than public (especially long distance) charging for several reasons:

• Even the most capable EV will only fast charge to 80% capacity to maximize battery life (the last 20% charges much slower). On a long trip charging for 30 to 60 minutes every 200 to 300 miles will take too much time for many people.

• Average daily travel is 40 miles (before you ask see https://www.bts.gov/statistical-products/surveys/national-household-travel-survey-daily-travel-quick-facts), allowing for charging every 3 to 5 days depending on the car and weather.

• For families with multiple cars, replacing one car with an EV and using the second car for long trips would be a good compromise. In my case I swap cars with my kids when I need to.

So for charging it would make sense to incentivize home charging, especially for multiple family dwellings like apartments. Additionally home charging can be done at night when there is more unused grid capacity available.

I strongly support this rule change. You have to start somewhere, and between wind and solar (and nuclear, hydro, etc) we already have the technology to decarbonize the electric supply (with wind and solar on track to be most econonical).
And we have the technology to decarbonize automobiles.

And as Gov Walz has said, you can buy any car you want - this rule change is not forcing anyone to buy an EV, only making it easier.

This proposed ruling is dangerous. Minnesotans will be giving up control to California for deciding how environment and vehicles should be legislated. We won't be able to have any say in what our state should be doing, California will, and we can only follow along.

The claim that you can be any car you want is unrealistic when non-EVs are forced to be either more expensive or limited in availability. Sure, I can buy a Tesla, but realistically is it affordable?

My wife and have driven a hybrid vehicle for over 16 years, but our 2nd vehicle is not. Why? Simply because the 2nd vehicle was more affordable than another hybrid. This type of choice goes away when costs and restrictions are pushed.

I'm tired of government continually shoving more expensive solutions at a climate change problem that is only a problem when the climate change enthusiast's models don't match up to reality. There will always be variations in weather patterns and to harm the well-being of Minnesotans based on inaccurate models and limited, directly observed weather data of 160 years or so is dangerous. We love to say things like last year was the 2nd hottest year recorded, but we ignore that a few years back we had a 14 year stretch where temperatures were stagnate and not climbing.

We need smart, realistic practices for reasonable pollution control. This ruling is far from it. Control goes to bureaucrats in California, vehicles are made more expensive, consumer choice is forced elsewhere by fiscal and availability constraints. We are told electrical vehicles will help control pollution, but meanwhile electrical production continues to pollute. Not just coal, but wind and solar, too. How much pollution is generated to make wind turbines and solar cells? Plenty!

I oppose the MPCA proposal to adopt the California Air Resources Board LEV and ZEV standards through the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative. I also do not agree with our current Governor and his administration taking back door methods to get unpopular agendas into law. This proposal should have been debated in our Legislative branches so the representatives we elect can be the voice of the communities they serve. I feel many Minnesotans are not even aware of this proposal or the economic and tax impact that could occur in their communities. Electric and Low emission vehicles may be great for California but what about rural Minnesota? Many rural Minnesotans travel farther distances to work, they may drive their kids to school and practices daily, may be traversing on county roads where 4WD or AWD is a necessity, and typically drive greater distances for services and appointments than metro area residents. The demand is gas/diesel powered pickups or SUVs in these areas because they are safe, reliable and the cost to purchase and maintain them is lower than an electric car. To purchase a comparable electric vehicle, it would be unaffordable to most. This proposal will make it more expensive for low-income households to purchase private transportation. In northern Minnesota winter, it is common to see single digits and below zero weather for days and weeks at a time. There is reduced reliability for any electric vehicle in these climate conditions. When lithium-ion batteries are used to operate the heater and vehicle at these temps the reliability of the vehicle will be compromised and it will be necessary to charge frequently. The batteries will not perform well when in these conditions. There is no infrastructure in Minnesota to maintain battery life other than your residence. What happens when your daily commute and trips are farther than your charge allows? The proposal should address the investment in the infrastructure which may actually create a demand for electric vehicles but that will likely mean higher taxes which is unpopular with most Minnesotans. Minnesota car dealers will for forced to maintain inventory they may not sell due to little or no demand which will increase the prices of other autos or Minnesotans will travel to other states to purchase autos they want at lower prices. This will not stimulate our economy which has already taken such a hit from covid lockdowns and executive mandates. Minnesota cars are already clean, this proposal will do little to improve air quality, nor will it create a demand for electric autos in our State. Minnesota would have to adopt the California policy and if California decides to change these standards in the future, they will likely only become stricter. It will be cars now but what will next? More regulation for our Powersports and Boat manufacturers? The rules that are implemented now would have a direct impact in many greater Minnesota communities now and in the future.

I stongly oppose the proposal to adopt the ludicrous California Air Resources Board LEV and ZEV standards through the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative. Most especially when our current governor and his administration continue to abuse their power and seem to have completely forgotten that we do not have Oligarchs here. This proposal should be debated in our Legislative branches rather that put forth by a dictatorial oligarch. Our elected representatives are our voices. Additionally, Minnesota is not California. Nor should we continue to follow in the economically and environmentally destructive path of California. This proposal, like so many others, is a cake made of poo and covered in frosting. It low income households and anyone living outsite of Hennepin County. Where will all of the electricity to power these lithium-batteried cars come from? What will be done to protect the CHILDREN that work in lithium mines? The damage done to the earth to mine lithium? What kind of energy is going to power these "clean" (LOL) electric vehicles? The environmental impacts and costs are far greater than good old fossil fuels. This push is purely another attempt for democrats to "feel good" about themselved by pushing another false narrative, false do-gooder agenda. Gas-fueled vehicles are far cleaner than they were even just 20 years ago and get better gas mileage. The infrastructure is already in place to support them. A push for electric vehicles requires a huge investment in NEW infrastructure. We have billions of dollars in clean up already on the taxpayers backs for the riots and destruction that our elected leaders allowed to happen for 9 months in 2020. Our politicians need to STOP burdening us with more and more of their pet projects and focus more on the current infrastructure.
Stop the insanity.

I stongly oppose the proposal to adopt the California Air Resources Board LEV and ZEV standards through the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative also! Not all Minnesotans can afford an electric car nor do they even want one. How can our state afford such a thing after you have had us locked down? So many families and small businesses are struggling just to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. I do not believe our state has a problem with pollution. It is a state of rocks and cows....right? If this goes forward, this will only hurt those who are poor.

I am strongly opposed to the bill. While my personal opinion is that we are a long way from even talking about going away from fossil fuel cars, I am open to the possibility that EV's are an alternate choice, but it's not the government's job to suggest how or what we buy for our cars.. and what happens to the non ev options? I'm sure they will all of a sudden have higher tax fees because they are not the "green" choice? Also in my opinion california is not a state to model after.

I oppose the MPCA proposal to adopt the California Air Resources Board LEV and ZEV standards through the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative. I also do not agree with our Governor and his administration taking back door methods to get unpopular agendas put into law. This proposal should have been debated in our Legislative branches so the representatives we elect can be the voice of the communities they serve. Many Minnesotans are not even aware of this proposal or the economic and tax impact that would occur in their communities. Minnesotans should not expect to follow the rules and regulations that are dicated by California's toxic and irresponsible economic enviroment. Many rural Minnesotans travel farther distances to work, they drive their kids to school daily, travel on county roads where 4WD or AWD is a NECESSITY, and typically drive greater distances for services and appointments than metro area residents. The demand for rural Minnesota is gas/diesel powered pickups or SUVs that are safe, reliable and the cost to purchase and maintain them is lower than an electric car. To purchase a comparable electric vehicle would be unaffordable to most Minnesotans. This proposal will make it more expensive for low-income households to purchase private transportation. Winters in northern Minnesota commonly see single digit and below zero temperatures for days and weeks at a time. There is reduced reliability for any electric vehicle in these climate conditions. When lithium-ion batteries are used to operate the heater and vehicle at these tempuratures the reliability of the vehicle will be compromised and it will be necessary to charge frequently. Lithium-ion batteries simply will not perform well in these conditions. Additionally, there is no infrastructure for greater Minnesota to maintain battery life other than your residence. What happens when your daily commute and trips are farther than your charge allows? The proposal should address the investment in the infrastructure which may actually create a demand for electric vehicles but that will likely mean higher taxes which is very unpopular with Minnesotans given the already high income taxes in our state. Minnesota car dealers will be forced to maintain inventory they may not sell due to little or no demand. Minnesotans will travel to other states to purchase vehicles they can afford at lower prices. This proposal will ultimately put Minnesota auto dealerships out of business. This will not stimulate our economy which has already taken such a hit from COVID-19 lockdowns and executive mandates. The fact that our Governer is not taking this proposal in front of our State Legislature, is yet again, another abuse of power and completely unacceptable to the people of Minnnesota.

I approve of this proposal. As an out of state Minnesotan I would like to opportunity to drive an all electric vehicle for my 60 mile round trip work commute. Most of the cars available in Minnesota today either do not have a reasonable all electric mileage or are out of my price range. I believe this policy chance will allow me to have more opportunities to go electric in Minnesota while still allowing neighbors to purchase the types of vehicles that they want even if they are traditional ICE vehicles. Because I will do most of my charging at home, like most electric vehicle owners, I don't believe the current lack of charging infrastructure to be that big of a hindrance, knowing that improvements are coming.

Thank you for letting me be a part of the policy process.

I strongly oppose this.Proposal. You need to do this the right way. You're going at this backwards IMHO. Infrastructure is not ready.and most cant afford them. More taxes will just push people further in the hole. Please stop and truly think. There's always more than one path to achieve a goal.

I oppose the MPCA proposal to adopt the California Air Resources Board LEV and ZEV standards through the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative. I also do not agree with our current Governor and his administration taking back door methods to get unpopular agendas into law. This proposal should have been debated in our Legislative branches so the representatives we elect can be the voice of the communities they serve. I feel many Minnesotans are not even aware of this proposal or the economic and tax impact that could occur in their communities. Electric and Low emission vehicles may be great for California but what about rural Minnesota? Many rural Minnesotans travel farther distances to work, they may drive their kids to school and practices daily, may be traversing on county roads where 4WD or AWD is a necessity, and typically drive greater distances for services and appointments than metro area residents. The demand is gas/diesel powered pickups or SUVs in these areas because they are safe, reliable and the cost to purchase and maintain them is lower than an electric car. To purchase a comparable electric vehicle, it would be unaffordable to most. This proposal will make it more expensive for low-income households to purchase private transportation. When lithium-ion batteries are used to operate the heater and vehicle at these cold temps the reliability of the vehicle will be compromised and it will be necessary to charge frequently. The batteries will not perform well when in these conditions. Minnesotans will travel to other states to purchase autos they want at lower prices. This will not stimulate our economy which has already taken such a hit from covid lockdowns and executive mandates. Minnesota cars are already clean, this proposal will do little to improve air quality, nor will it create a demand for electric autos in our State. Minnesota would have to adopt the California policy and if California decides to change these standards in the future, they will likely only become stricter. Majority of Minnesotans do not want California dictating our lives. It will be cars now but what will next? The rules that are implemented now would have a direct impact in many greater Minnesota communities now and in the future.

I strongly oppose this rule. Adopting a rule like this will only make it more costly for low-income families to own a vehicle. These LEV and ZEV standards are likely to get more strict each year, especially if we have to follow California's rules. Minnesota then has NO flexibility. AND that is a very dangerous path to take in regards to the welfare of Minnesota citizens. We have NO IDEA how strict these California standards will be. A rule like this will increase the costs of all vehicles, thus making it harder for low-income and working-class families to earn a living. If low-income families will be harmed, who will benefit? The wealthy? Why is Minnesota not standing up for its low-income families? After MN has remained in lockdowns for the previous year, adopting a rule like this will only hurt the MN economy and MN families. According to a press release by the Walz administration, the CA car regulations would reduce annual CO2 emissions by 2 million tons a year. That may sound like a lot, BUT it's only about 1.3 percent of total state emissions of 2016, according to the MPCA's website. These reductions would reduce future global temps by 0.000052 degrees Celsius by 2100 (Orr, 2020). That's practically impossible to measure, and not a measurement that's worth stressing our MN citizens about. Lithium ion batteries also have safety concerns and a poor length of life. What's going to happen to all these batteries? How will these batteries hold up in cold weather climates? These batteries will perform poorly in a MN climate, especially for those that travel long distances in the winter. Even though these electric cars produce little emissions right in front of us, the ripple effect goes back to the electricity source. Our electricity still needs to come from somewhere, and right now the costs of electricity are increasing. So, again, this would be a very costly rule for MN adopt, and would only bring more economic harm to our citizens. I would recommend tossing this rule out completely. If dealerships in the metro area want to stock up on some EV or ZEV's that's fine. Maybe they can get a rebate or an incentive in terms of stocking electric vehicles. BUT, leave the rest of MN alone and DO NOT adopt this rule.

I strongly oppose the proposal to adopt the California Air Resources Board LEV and ZEV standards through the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative. This could lead to a future of more restrictions and rules for MN drivers and vehicle owners. Forcing a rule like this onto dealerships is a poor approach to achieve the desired results. After a year of lockdowns, many dealerships are already on a tight budget. Dealerships stock their fleets according to what will sell. And electric vehicles will not sell well in MN. This will only raise the costs of owning a vehicle for all Minnesotans. Many dealerships are not equipped to service electric vehicles currently. If a dealership sells a vehicle, they are required to service it. Many small dealerships simply don't have the qualified technicians or servicing equipment to accommodate electric vehicles. Many people are simply looking for an affordable and reliable vehicle. That reasoning alone, rules out an electric vehicle. Many people cannot justify buying a brand new vehicle with all the expenses. And many people need something that is reliable in sub zero temps for long drives - therefore electric vehicles are not a good choice. I do not support MN adopting any policy that would force businesses to purchase something against their will. I do not support adopting any rule that would come from California, especially when it comes down to emission standards. Please abandon this rule.

I commend the MPCA for its “Statement of Need and Reasonableness”, which lays out a strong, fact-based rationale for these rules and an implementation plan. It addresses many of the criticisms presented in this forum:

• No free lunch, e.g., electric vehicles (EVs) also have greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is true and, yes, materials to build EVs damage the environment. Manufacturing and running internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles do too. GHG emissions generated by EVs are, however, substantially less than an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle (page 21). With ICE vehicles 100% of the energy to run them is from fossil fuels. Whereas with EVs an ever-decreasing proportion of the electricity is from fossil fuels. This is illustrated in Figure 6 (page 21) and underscored by recent reports that Xcel Energy plans to “end all coal use in the upper Midwest” (https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/media_room/news_releases/xcel_energy_to_end_all_coal_use_in_the_upper_midwest), as does Minnesota Power (https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-power-shutting-converting-final-two-coal-plants-by-2035/600009603/). Moving towards EVs will reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector, largest GHG contributor in the state (Figure 2, page 16).

• Not suitable for Minnesota, e.g., our weather is different. Fourteen states in addition to California and the District of Columbia have adopted California’s standards, including states with weather that is similar to our own like Vermont and Maine (see Table 1, page 22). All wheel drive (AWD) EVs are available as well, e.g., Subaru Crosstrek and Mini Cooper Countryman.

• No market for EVs, e.g., dealers will be stuck with EVs on their lot. The burden for meeting the goals is on the manufacturers, not the dealers (page 12). A credit system is proposed for manufacturers to address market imbalances (page 12-14) by enabling them to buy/sell credits. As it turns out, manufacturers have a surplus of credits banked for all states, page 23. This indicates that manufacturers are not having issues selling EVs.

• Range anxiety, e.g., the EV charging network is not as robust as the ICE fuel stations. For one type of EV, plug-in electric hybrids (PHEV), range anxiety is non-existent. These vehicles run on regular gas when the battery is discharged, re-charging the battery as you drive. For other EVs, the network of charging stations is being built out, page 45.

• Not equitable, e.g., EVs are expensive. The proposed rule does not require purchase of EVs. If EVs aren’t appropriate for a person’s circumstances, they need not buy one. Instead, the purpose is to improve EVs availability for purchase in Minnesota, something that is hindered today (page 48). An estimate is presented that admits that some costs are higher, but goes on to show, when amortized over the life of the EV, the benefits substantially outweigh the costs. Plus, those benefits accrue to both the car purchaser (e.g., fuel and maintenance savings, page 9) and to all Minnesotans, whether or not they have an EV (e.g., health benefits of lower pollution, page 17). From an equity perspective, a detailed analysis (page 86-90) concluded that communities that are disproportionately burdened with air pollution are anticipated to benefit most from this proposed rule, notably the Black, Indigenous, and people of color communities.

The “Statement of Need and Reasonableness” covers much more that should allay concerns. MPCA has given careful consideration for steps to implement these rules, while addressing the needs of the diverse groups of stakeholders. Given these plans and rationale, I support implementation of the Clean Cars Minnesota rules.

I strongly endorse OAH Docket No. 71-9003-36416.

Climate change is one of the greatest threats to humanity that exist today, and deserves our concerted efforts to minimize its impacts. Since transportation is one of the largest inputs to the greenhouse gases behind climate change, allowing Minnesota to adopt the LEV and ZEV standards is a good first step to reducing the impacts of the transportation sector. Providing Minnesotans with access to a broader range of electric and hybrid vehicles, and making those vehicles more affordable to purchase, is another good step. I completely support the rule-making proposed by the MPCA to update our clean car fleet and provide options for a climate-friendly transportation sector.

I am in favor of the Clean Cars Minnesota proposed rule. With almost not time left to minimize the most serious effects of climate change, we must move quickly and with resolve to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation is the #1 source of greenhouse gas emission in Minnesota. Pollution from tail pipes is also a significant factor in the increase of asthma and other respiratory illness among children, seniors and people of color. Zero emission cars are also cheaper to run and maintain than fossil fuel burning vehicles. I would like to have more ZEV opportunities and choices to make my next car purchase and approve of requiring car dealers to make those options available.

I would like to voice my support for adopting both parts of the Clean Cars Minnesota proposal, the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) rules as well as the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) rules. Adopting the ZEV mandate will improve consumer choice by increasing the number of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles available to consumers in Minnesota. I would suggest adopting more stringent ZEV requirements than the proposed rule, the early-action credits and one-time credit allotment combined with a significant number of new EV models becoming available over the next few years, including many long range trucks and SUVs, will make more ambitious goals achievable.
I have owned two electric vehicles since 2014, both of which were purchased used after being shipped from California. The Clean Cars Minnesota proposal will give consumers more choice when shopping for a new vehicle, increased sales of new EVs will have the added benefit of increasing the supply of used EVs in the local market over time.

I don’t support the Proposed Rules Adopting Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards—Clean Cars Minnesota, Minnesota Rules, chapter 7023; Revisor’s ID Number 04626. I’m strongly opposed to our government continuing to work on this topic. We are locked down due to Covid. This is not an urgent matter unlike dealing with the Covid pandemic.

Please support this rule. We are going to buy an EV for our next car. As a consumer, I want more options available. I feel getting an EV would absolutely help air quality as car emissions are one of the top air polluters. We owe it to our next generations to do the best we can to leave a clean air legacy.

I strongly support the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative. We need to reduce climate pollution and this is an area where I as an individual can make a difference. My next vehicle will be an EV.

I strongly oppose the new “rule”, it appears to me that this should be a law set up by our elected officials so all citizens can be aware of it, not just a select few who are aware of this website. I also question if this is a “rule” or a “law” and is there a difference?
The phrase “EVs produce no pollution where they operate”, although true, is very misleading because it does not mention the CO2 produced to charge the vehicle or manufacture and disposal of the batteries which must be considered. When I see such misleading statements I have to dismiss most other statements from the source. I believe that a lot of support for this “rule” is due to this misleading statement and ask that the statement be changed to include those two factors.

I am strongly against MPCA's intention to adopt California's emission standards, bypassing the legislative process. We don't need unelected agency's making the rules!

I strongly appose MPCA's intention to adopt California's emission standards. We don't need unelected agency's bypassing the legislative process!

I oppose in its entirety, MPCA’s intention to adopt California Emission Standards. Any significant change such as this which impacts every person in the state, should go through the legislature, not be implemented by an unelected group of people in a governmental agency in another state. We elect representatives to make decisions that will impact us so much. In addition, we should NEVER allow impactful decisions to be thrust upon us by California. What works there may not work for us in a different climate and with different economic factors. What works in Minneapolis/St. Paul may not work for us in the rural areas. It will take years for the infrastructure to exist all over rural Minnesota (we were promised high-speed internet access and many are still waiting, as an example). In addition, just because MN moves to all EV, what happens when you want to travel to other states? Where will you charge your vehicle if they have yet to move to EV? We in rural MN may not have access to charging stations everywhere. This will especially be a problem during winter driving. New research from AAA reveals that when the mercury dips to 20 degrees Fahrenheit (much of the year in MN), the average driving range of an electric car decreases by 41 percent. In addition, extreme heat is also a drag on electric vehicles. When outside temperatures heat up to 95 degrees Fahrenheit and air conditioning is used, driving ranges can decrease by 17 percent. This may not matter if you’re driving around the metro, but for us in rural areas, it just doesn’t work! There is a cost to this. AAA’s study found that the use of heat when it’s 20 degrees Fahrenheit outside adds almost $25 more for every 1,000 miles compared to the cost of combined urban and highway driving at a balmy 75 degrees Fahrenheit. EV technology is not as “earth-friendly” as people would like to believe. Electric vehicles need batteries, and you don’t make batteries out of thin air. Before the battery production process, you have to produce the components of the batteries, like the cathodes, and you have to create the compounds that go into the cathodes. Before any of that, you need to mine the raw minerals. Mining and processing of lithium are actually environmentally harmful and China dominates this market making us more dependent on them. In addition, there will be environmental consequences with recycling the batteries when they are no longer useful. Lastly, electricity also requires energy. As of 2019, 31% of the electricity used in MN comes from coal-fired power plants. You are trading one problem for another in this plan. Without adopting the standards, the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) forecast shows that gasoline usage has already hit its peak and is projected to decline exponentially in the future making this mandate unnecessary. There is little evidence that shows that these changes will make a meaningful impact on the environment, but it will certainly destroy small auto dealers, especially in our area where we are close to border states. The effects on the rural economy are vast.

Regardless of any potential environmental impact, this rulemaking process is wrong! This needs to go through the legislature.

Quit overregulating. Electric cars are there for those who want them. Car dealers will sell them where they can, don't force this on us. Northwest Minnesota is nothing like California! Let supply and demand economics run their course.

I oppose this in its entirety. Many of the premises upon which this is built seem more speculative and based on liberal talking points than rooted in fact. It’s easy to look at Electric Vehicles as the end-all, but do do so you have to completely overlook the ecological disaster caused by their manufacture vs. the manufacturing of more traditional vehicles. This includes highly destructive mining of ore required by the batteries, often mined by child labor and subsidizing governments with horrific human rights records. You’d have to ignore the hazards of disposing of worn-out electric vehicles and their components. And you’d have to disregard the carbon produced in charging the vehicles.

The proposed rule also seemingly overstates & dramatizes the destruction of vehicles using internal combustion engines. The efficiency, performance and cleanliness of modern internal combustion engines is incredible. Additionally, those vehicles are built using processes & plants which are well established, thereby having already amortized considerable shares of any carbon produced.

This proposal will also create considerable financial burdens to the citizenry of MN, with higher vehicle purchase prices, increased taxes to pay for new infrastructure, it will reduce the choices available to new vehicle consumers, and we can all expect increased license fees, higher fuel costs & other fees imposed by the state to penalize those who elect to drive conventional vehicles, or that cannot afford to purchase newly compliant vehicles.

Passing this without engaging the Legislature seems untoward and deceptive, tied clearly to a political agenda and less to the will of the people.

If the objective is to decrease trust in MN State Government, you are very solidly on the right track.

I strongly oppose this proposed rule in its entirety!

I am not against cleaner air and a cleaner environment, but I am against an administrative rule. Minnesota residents elected congressional members to consider, debate, and decide on far-reaching ideas like this proposal. Why does our governor not want this to go through the legislature? Yes, this makes me suspect of the entire proposed rule, because I have seen how Minnesota Administrative departments try to sneak unfriendly rules and regulations into our daily lives.

If Minnesota residents demand EVs, then vehicle manufacturers will manufacture and make those vehicles available to Minnesota residents. This is a simply matter of demand driving supply.

If metro-area residents want an EV to improve their polluted air, go buy one. But I also ask that metro-area communities are required to build solar and windmill farms in THEIR communities. NIMBY is not an excuse for metro communities to not have windmill farms and solar farms the size and scope of those in the southwestern part of Minnesota.

we are Minnesota, not California. Any non-carbon mandates should actually work, and be self funding, and not financed by taxes, fees or utility rate hikes.

I too STRONGLY oppose the very hurtful and wrong minded adoption of the "California" standard. Look no farther than CA to see the very negative impact that their laws have taken them. Many others have well stated the argument. Stop the mindless following of this unfounded thinking.

Please don’t use California as a template to produce laws. I strongly oppose any law that would conform Minnesota laws to theirs. California is out of money & cannot fund the laws they have. The mass exodus of business & people are indicative of the effectiveness of the burdensome laws......does Minnesota really want to go down that path? Clearly NOT

Some interesting & very valid topics against this proposed "rule" raised here today: https://www.crowdcast.io/e/say-no-to-california-car?utm_source=email&mc_cid=c5be84a05e&mc_eid=7c0cecbc48

I strongly support Clean Cars Minnesota, and am happy to know that it is under consideration. I have always admired California's leadership in holding the automobile industry to clean car standards. Now Minnesota has the opportunity to show the same type of leadership.

As a consumer, I carefully consider gas mileage and emissions levels before making a car purchase. I look forward to having a wide selection of top-quality, low emission or zero emission vehicles to choose from the next time I’m in the market for a new car.

As a Minnesotan, I value initiatives to move away from fossil fuels, which come from out of state, to locally produced clean energy. Electric vehicles are a great way to make that happen.

As a concerned citizen of this planet, I encourage every effort to reduce pollution of our air, soil, and water. Clean cars and clean energy are vital components of those efforts.

Clean cars are a vital part of Minnesota's future. Adoption of Clean Cars Minnesota is an important step forward, and we must be sure to take it.

In preparing the SONAR, were graphs showing the air quality (e.g. concentration of CO2 and fine particles in the air) of states which have followed the Clean Car standards for 5+ years constructed? I think it would be very useful to see graphs showing the air quality of all Clean Car states over the last 20 years. For the states that I was able to find these graphs for, it appears that the overall air quality has not improved in these states.

Many of the graphs I see only examine tailpipe emissions, but this value is irrelevant if we are moving towards electric cars - the emissions have simply moved from tailpipes to power plants. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed standards, we need to see if the overall air quality of Clean Car states have improved during the years that the standards have been in place. It is also important to examine similar graphs of surrounding states that did not adopt the Clean Car standards for comparison.

If these graphs have already been constructed/compiled, can you tell me where I can find them? Or, if they have not been made, can these graphs be made and added to the SONAR?

I am opposed to Clean Cars MN. Obviously, I want MN to have clean air. I mean, I have to breathe it. Unfortunately, I have misgivings about this specific plan. I agree with others that by only looking at emissions we are not looking at the whole environmental cost. From what I've read, the batteries are created at a cost both to the environment and to human beings in other countries. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact Cleaning one part of the environment, while destroying another part is not a win. Also, as others have pointed out. It still takes energy to charge the cars. That energy is not all "zero" emission. I might consider buying a hybrid, but I would not buy an electric car. While my commute is only 20 minutes on a low traffic day, during the winter or road construction season my commute has often lasted 1-2 hours. I have this horrible vision of my electric car running out of charge in the middle of a snow storm. Also, I cannot afford to have one car for going to work and one car for long road trips. If MN is serious about adding more electric and hybrid cars to our roads, please do it through tax incentives and not through imposing California laws on us.

I don't believe Minnesota is prepared with infrastructure to support Hydrogen powered vehicles, and I don't believe the extreme weather climate of Minnesota is friendly enough to allow PRACTICAL use of Electric work vehicles. The forced introduction of the proposed standards will first affect gasoline, diesel engines, and hybrids. This is where practicality, and affordability go out the window. The adverse effect on the lower income residents, and agricultural families of rural Minnesota will be devastating. Even if we were ready with powerful, dependable EV work vehicles, the rural electrical rates are 3 times urban rates. The distances traveled to work and extreme conditions will cause emission system changes resulting in test failures. You wish to adopt California Title 13 section 2040 making the vehicle owner responsible for all scheduled maintenance. ARB is required to test, but you are conveniently excluding section 2138 of the California code which makes ARB responsible for diagnosis/ restorative maintenance prior to the test. The burden falls on the consumer to pay high cost for vehicle, high cost for the preventive maintenance, and high cost for restorative maintenance to pass a test. The difficulties are compounded by the fact local repair shops will not be prepared to handle this correctly or affordably. If these emission standards are forced upon rural residents, then make the manufacturer 100% responsible for emission compliant performance for the expected vehicle life. There are three reasons Military and Tactical vehicles are exempt from these regulations. They must reliably perform in extreme conditions, the systems must be practically serviceable, and they must be affordable. Those are also the requirements for ALL vehicles in Greater Minnesota. Also, you wish to adopt California Title 13 section 2111 to include off road and all-terrain vehicles. Yet, there is an exemption in your proposed ruling about exclusive off-highway use (7023.0250 Subp.2 D). So to what exactly does this apply? Please don't lead us further down the slippery slope of non-reliable Cal Emissions off-road engines, agricultural engines, and small tool engines.

I would like to express my support for both the proposed Low Emission and Zero Emission vehicle standards. As noted in an article published by The Star Tribune in January 14 entitled "Minnesota falls further away from greenhouse gas reduction," our state is well behind our emission reduction goals. Because vehicle emissions are the number one source of greenhouse gas pollutants in Minnesota, implementing these standards would represent a solid commitment towards these goals. I fear that we will never reach carbon neutrality without such emissions. Quite simply, our planet doesn't have more time—we need to take these actions now.

Furthermore, as a consumer, I pledge to buy only electric vehicles in the future. Minnesotans are ready for these bold changes, but we cannot get there if we do not properly invest in this infrastructure. Please approve these standards.

I strongly oppose the proposed clean air plan for vehicles advocated by Gov. Walz. I’m concerned this unnecessary regulation for this part of the country will result in higher costs for owning and operating a vehicle, which as a senior on a fixed income, already struggle with the affordability of owning a vehicle. And, there clearly has to be an improvement in the battery technology with electric cars since they lose their efficiency dramatically in the cold climate we live in.

Thanks for your consideration in voting no on this proposal.

In what way can California with a population of 39.9 million and Minnesota with a population of approximately 5.6 million people be the same? California having 104.8 million square acres and Minnesota having 55.64 million square acres. California has 33 million Square Acres of forest and Minnesota having 42 million Square Acres of forest. This is just wrong headed to think that we should be compared and ruled by the same laws and rules made by unelected dictators. This is just wrong and i want it dropped from consideration.

I support this change. Minnesota needs to do their part to put pressure in auto manufacturers to increase their fuel economy standards and reduce emissions.

I strongly support this rule change. We need to cut down the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from transportation--now the number one contributor of GHGs in Minnesota. The lack of choice at Minnesota dealers for buyers who want clean vehicles is incredible. I have been very frustrated over the past year in trying to buy an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid (PHEV). There are already some great clean vehicles being manufactured--like the Honda Clarity, the Toyota Rav4 Prime, and the Hyundai Kona Electric. But none of these great cars is on the dealer lots in Minnesota. There is no opportunity for test drives, comparison shopping, etc. The salespeople tell me these vehicles cannot be purchased by Minnesota dealers because sales are limited to California and other clean car states. I do not understand why the manufacturers are doing this as they are losing profitable sales to Tesla. I would prefer to buy from a traditional manufacturer, but the lack of choice offered by Minnesota dealers may force me to buy a Tesla, which will mean one less sale for Minnesota dealers (adding to the many they have lost already).

I strongly support this rule. In fact, electric cars are being shown to be not only better for the environment, but cost effective (see this MIT research comparing lifetime costs of different types of cars https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore.) I live in northern MN and have been driving a plugin hybrid for about 4 years with no problems. I had a difficult time finding a dealer who was knowledgeable about electric cars and there were only a few options. Once people start driving these cars, they will love them! They are cheaper to operate and hardly ever need to be serviced. People fear what is unfamiliar and they tend not to do their research. I have seen many inaccuracies in the above comments. For instance, there are many comments comparing California with Minnesota, but these standards have been adopted by many other states. Also, the energy that fuels cars is much more efficiently and cleanly harvested than the gas that fuels most cars. Finally, I support this initiative because there are many hidden costs to burning fossil fuels that we will pay down the road in health bills if we do not start cleaning up our air.

I am very concerned about fast drastic changes to transportation here. This needs to be done in a methodology consistent with the outcomes. Rural MN is no way near capable of these drastic changes fast. We still don’t have high speed internet in rural MN! Permitted infrastructure projects take over 10 years and this should be treated no different! I am very concerned with our cold temps, the need of 4 wheel drive trucks for snow removal and powered haulage, and burdened some costs related to these changes. Rural life is very different from the metro. These costs will grossly effect rural Minnesotans the most in my opinion and closed door meetings because of covid are extremely troublesome. Drastic changes need to be done in person open meeting format. Online chatting is not available for all Minnesotans and best practices are donee in person face to face with policy’s that change lives!

I am Bill Adamski from Minneapolis. I fully support Minnesota adopting both the Low Emission and Zero Emission vehicle standards as part of the Clean Cars rule. Enacting these rules to greatly encourage electric vehicles will help push MN away from a polluting, expensive carbon-based economy. Gov Tim Walz recently announced a major goal of achieving carbon-free power in MN by 2040 in order to help stop global warming. Year 2020 was the hottest year on record. Consequently, we desperately need this rule to greatly diminish what is currently the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in MN: Motor vehicles.

Obviously, EV operation at this time is not totally carbon-free. That is because some (not all) of the electricity used to operate the EVs is generated from fossil fuel power plants. However, it is intended that electrical generation will eventually be from renewable sources in our lifetime.

There are other advantages of electric vehicles (EV): They are less expensive to maintain, have electric car tax credits and are quieter than gas vehicles. Continually improving battery technology and massive increases in the number of public charging stations are making it increasingly easier to drive these vehicles - and for much further distances.

A big incentive for adopting these rules is that several major motor vehicle manufacturers either already produce only electric vehicles (e.g., Tesla) or recently announced that it will it be shifting from gas vehicles towards an all-electric fleet of vehicles (General Motors recently-announced goal of an all-EV fleet by 2035). Other motor vehicle manufacturers will follow GM in its future fleet configuration.

In adopting these clean car standards, originally developed by California – we would join at least 15 other states that have already done so.

Yes, let’s get these rules on the State of MN books! A much cleaner, quieter MN will follow from this climate-saving action.

Sincerely,

Bill Adamski Minneapolis

I support the clean cars initiative. I live in MN and have had a difficult time replacing my current 14 yr old hybrid (Prius) with a plug-in electric car. I also currently have a plug-in electric hybrid and have found that the number of miles I get from the electric battery has NOT changed substantially from summer to winter. It's established science that climate change is great threat to my children's future well-being. It is also becoming clearer that electric vehicles, over the long-term, reduce carbon emissions and can also be cheaper to own and operate. Here is link to a MIT website that evaluates the cost and carbon emissions for all makes and models of vehicles. I adjusted the link to represent MN AND removed the federal tax credit. You can adjust the parameters yourself and see for yourself that electric/hybrid vehicles are among some of the lowest cost vehicles to own and operate as all well as the lowest in emissions. https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore?federal_refund=dont_apply&taxfee_state=MN&price_Gasoline=2.2&price_Diesel=2.6&price_Electricity=10&electricity_ghg_fuel=600

I strongly support the MPCA Clean Cars Minnesota rule. I support this rule for several reasons:

• most importantly more fuel-efficient and electric cars will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota’s most polluting sector;
• the rule will clean our air and improve public health, especially in inner city urban neighborhoods that already suffer from poor air quality and air pollution;
• and our household is interested in having available a broader diversity of EV options available for purchase at Minnesota car dealers (at this point we may need to travel out of state to buy our next car).

A strong Clean Cars Minnesota rule will benefit all Minnesotans, even the car dealers who are opposing its adoption.

While this debate is part of our RIGHT and RESPONSIBLiTY to find TRUTH in matters like this proposed mandate. If this is to become rules we move into the future with, it should be sent thru the legislative process with full disclosure and Minnesota's citizens should be able to fact gather over a longer period of time.

most importantly more fuel-efficient and electric cars will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota’s most polluting sector;

The above statement certainly should make all Minnesotan's feel good about moving towards the future, it does not clearly convey that a mid size vehicle (Electric) comes at a price tag of 55,000 - 60,000 pounds of carbon footprint and that's before you factor in the additional footprint during the operation of said Green vehicle. There are not and physically cannot be enough generation of electricity if only 10-15 % converts to this GREEN initiative. Before everyone gets up to protest this is simple truth. In the future with more refined processes, this may become justified in the future.

the rule will clean our air and improve public health, especially in inner city urban neighborhoods that already suffer from poor air quality and air pollution;

It may improve air quality to some degree where these vehicles are utilized, but with the carbon footprint to produce these types of vehicles, somewhere on the planet we all call home, will suffer from this pollution.

and our household is interested in having available a broader diversity of EV options available for purchase at Minnesota car dealers (at this point we may need to travel out of state to buy our next car).

With citizens in our state requesting electric, or other green vehicles our dealers will gain the ability to offer these types of vehicles, without a MANDATE, because it will be in their best interest to offer vehicles that consumers are requesting.

In summary the technology does not yet support these vehicles in the northern tier of our country. And consumers have and always will determine what is purchased by them, without the need for a government entity telling us what to purchase. Moving to the future with the hope of new and innovative technology, consumers WILL desire and purchase these vehicles, without a government MANDATE!

I am against making the state like California i believe any and all big changes need to go through our legislators. I believe improving emissions should be a goal but mandating a change takes our voice away. I think what another state does shouldn't be a one size fits all. Rural Minnesota is different than the metro. Please say no to turning Minnesota into California. Thank You

Let's be clear: The MN government "mandate" in this rule is to require car dealerships to offer the same electric vehicles to Minnesota consumers that their companies currently offer to consumers in California and 12 other states. It doesn't mandate that people have to buy them. Our freedom is not being infringed upon.

I owned a Nissan Leaf EV. When I wanted to get a new all-electric small SUV with more range, i discovered that Minnesota's dealerships offered very few options. The Hyundai Kona EV looked particularly attractive but the nearest dealership that sold it was in Colorado. The nearest Kia Niro EV was in Georgia. I believe I'm not the only consumer who has chosen not to buy a new EV because of limited availability.

Several commenters have pointed out the drawbacks to all-electric vehicles. Their range can drop significantly during a Minnesota winter. That was certainly true of my Leaf and the primary reason I wanted to move to an EV with longer range. If I could have bought a Hyundai Kona Electric with the higher-capacity battery, I could have driven 200 miles a day in the middle of winter without recharging. I don't know about you, but I rarely drive more than 200 miles a day. In this case, I couldn't address my problem because the EVs I wanted to check out were not available in Minnesota.

As for those who argue that EVs are also bad for the environment, studies have shown that an EV drawing electricity from the dirtiest sources still generate less greenhouse emissions than a gas-powered vehicle, which means they not only contribute less to climate change but they also lessen the negative health effects of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, which contribute to asthma, bronchitis, cancer, and premature death. A quick Google search of "electric car carbon footprint" will list the studies that support this.

I understand why dealerships don't want to offer EVs. The annual maintenance for my Leaf was a tire rotation. That's hundreds of dollars cheaper than the regular maintenance on a gas-powered vehicle. As the country moves from gas/diesel to electric, dealerships will lose a revenue stream. They're trying to hold that off by selling fewer EVs, which a big reason they oppose this rule.

They can't win this battle because we as consumers and as a country need to change our behaviors to stop climate change. I support this rule as an important early step on that journey.

I am opposed to following California mandates. I am not opposed to a cleaner environment, I just believe that all the facts are not presented and people are making decisions based on fear and lack of facts and maybe even some untruths. I want to know how is China going to be enhanced by this decision to spend MN earned dollars in China for these upgraded cars and or other equipment? China I'm told, ( because we have no way of filtering out the truth from the half truths the smoke and mirrors) is the biggest threat to clean air in the world. CA is being polluted not only by the cars driven by the huge population there, but by the air coming from China and the lack of regulation in China. I suspect that the air pollution will continue to be pushed into our state eventually from China, to the West Coast to Central US etc. I want to know who is going to make out big with the Green New deal as well as this new environmental issue? Are we going to send the manufacturing of these new ideas to China where the manufacturing is not regulated like in the USA? Is it true that China is not regulating manufacturers from polluting their water ways their air ways? What kind of sense is that? While we are spending our money to clean our air, we are giving money to China to make the air worse? When we allow China to get away with it our small population's effort is minimized and at great expense to the working class which of many are losing their jobs, livelyhoods and ability to feed their families, much less contribute to the huge expense of regulation. Another reason we cannot utilize the same rules as CA is the weather. Being stranded in Mpls without power to drive your vehicle is maybe not life threatening but could really be in most of the other parts of MN. Who wants to be the one responsible for the death of a car full of teenagers out just trying to enjoy life a little. Or an elderly couple just trying to get home from a visit to the nursing home. Sorry this needs to be thought through a lot more. And don't forget the amount of jobs that are going to be lost and the tax burden left to the ones left with jobs. Another thought is land fill. What about the huge amounts of landfill now needed for unusable cars, battery replacement for the new cars every year to 2 years and of course the huge wind mill blades that are broken regularly and now filling up the land fills faster than plastic. How about a simple completely free to American taxpayers solution? At least until a better solution can be found. Why don't we just outlaw private jets? Is it because we are afraid of annoying the rich who spend their time joy riding around the biggest emmision vehicles? Or why are we encouraging businesses by tax breaks to buy vehicles that are over 6000 pounds? May-be we could even limit the amount of air travel altogether. If the environment crisis is truely truely real, than why is is the whole burden of the little guy???? Why can congressmen fly back and forth to Washington DC on a regular basis when remote meetings are so readily available? Why not address that more and more people can just use their vehicles less by working from home???? Simple easy and completely free solutions to start with. We need to utilize our own thinking and not try to just copy a state that is nothing like our state.

I support this initiative. Electric vehicles need to be available and accessible. They are proven to be better for the environment and safer for the occupants if involved in a collision. Please listen to the Minnesotans that are commenting on here and know they represent a larger constituency

As a nurse I strongly support approval of the proposed Revision to Minnesota Rules, chapter 7023, Adapting Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards, particularly with early action only credits. Time is of the essence. As the MNPCA’s Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) points out, Minnesota is falling significantly behind on our goals for reducing greenhouse gases.

Vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and associated chemical pollutants are dangerous to the health of the people of Minnesota. I write with particular concern for people in my North Minneapolis community where asthma hospitalizations are Minnesota’s highest (MDH & MPCA Life and Breath Reports). Our community is bounded by Highways 94, 394, and 100 and crossed by Highway 55—all four are heavy traffic transit routes in and out of downtown Minneapolis. While vehicle emissions impact the health of all Minnesotans, they have a harsher effect in vulnerable communities (see SONAR pp. 83-91 for equity analyses data). To protect the health of the public and of the planet, we need to take swift action to make more zero emissions vehicles available and affordable.

Zero emissions vehicles are not readily available in MN. About three years ago, our family came to grips with our role in the planetary threat posed by greenhouse gases and the health effects of gasoline powered vehicle emissions; we stopped regular use of our gasoline powered car and moved instead to biking and walking—taking public transit when necessary. When the pandemic hit, we began looking to trade our automobile in for a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) so that we could safely and conscientiously travel when necessary. We came to the realization that a low emission vehicle was not sufficient to meet MN’s goals or the mandate to safeguard local and global community health. We did not have the budget for a new ZEV and we could not find an appropriate used ZEV on the market. We asked Poquet Auto sales staff to keep a lookout for a used ZEV. Eventually, they found a couple who were both working from home and looking to sell one of their vehicles. Poquet procured their 2019 Nissan Leaf, which we were lucky enough to buy, trading in our gas-powered car for this wonderful electronic vehicle. It is a smoother and more reliable ride; we love this car. Two to three times a week we plug it in for three hours during the night, using Xcel Energy’s wind generated power. In parking lots and on the street, many people approach us and ask us about our car, stating that they have been looking for a ZEV, but cannot find one. The more quickly we get ZEVs on lots, the sooner more affordable ZEVs will be available, our air will be cleaner, and our communities healthier. Thank you for the important role you are playing in the transition to clean cars in Minnesota!

Please approve the proposed revision to MN Rules chapter 7023 with early action only credits.

Margaret Dexheimer Pharris, PhD, RN, MPH, FAAN

I do not support this plan, copy and pasting a larger states emissions standards are not the solution, I recommend shaping an emissions bill that’s more suitable for our population and needs.

Do not support this plan. It will burden costs on MN citizens that are not needed. California and Minnesota by no means have a similar climate. Ev's are not made for our climate. There is no reason to copy anything from the failing state of California. Us rural residents would not be able to afford the costs of vehicles that are required. not with this idea at all terrible idea do not adopt.

As a free American, I believe in our free market economy and allowing people to ‘vote’ with their dollars. If EV’s are wanted, buy them but we do not need government to dictate what we can or cannot have. I am formally against this.

I have worked in the automotive industry for 7 years in the state of MN and I OPPOSE this plan.

From my experience and opinion, these standards are NOT feasible to force into law.

Many California-Emissions cars are incredibly expensive to maintain and purchase compared to what is available for purchase today. Adopting this as a new law WILL expand the already, massive gap between lower class and upper class. If the Clean Cars MN law is adopted, the choice of owning the proper private Transportation will no longer be an achievable privilege for most of us citizens as the cost to maintain an EV is incredibly expensive in comparison to a regular fuel or hybrid vehicle. The reliance on electronics is mostly to blame for the increase in costs; another factor is the inflation of labor costs to repair-- once shops spend thousands on new training and equipment, goodbye to the Mom and Pop $60/hr shop.
Therefore, choosing to vote in favor of adopting this law will unfairly and unnecessarily make private transportation a LUXURY 'option' for Minnesotans in the coming decades; many of whom are recovering from job loss, economic downturns due to Covid-19, and infrastructure changes due to the new Administration.

I highly recommend our legislature reconsider the clean car proposal -- We do not have the same Climate as C.A. and our terrain requires more options than what this law will allow. Many comments here in favor of EV are referencing the Metro area or other smaller metros. In the metro area, they have the luxury/are able to drive shorter distances between work and home and almost always guaranteed to drive on heavily maintained city and state highways/freeways for their commute. The majority of the state is considered rugged terrain with dirt roads, back roads, rugged mining towns or farm-land (where the majority of MN resides) and this type of travel is absolutely NOT suitable for a little electric powered vehicle. Many residents outside of the very few metros of the state have a 30-plus mile commute for something as simple as groceries or doctors appointments. Introducing CC-MN as a 'mandated law' would require an extreme abundance of charging stations or alternate fuel stations to be installed across thousands of acres of state owned land (where majority of highways reside)-- and at what expense to the state?

Considering Gov. Walz has flaunted over $3 million in raised funds (potentially) for reelection AND he is asking to raise taxes higher to rebuild a city he and Frey allowed to be destroyed is an insult to ALL of us residents. Discussing Clean Cars at this moment in time looks unwise and at the very least smug to the hard working citizens across Minnesota. Do you want us to farm, work, and raise our families in your state? Clearly, we have more daunting tasks to discuss at legislature aside from imposing new, suffocating laws on our transportation options as MN state citizens..

If a change must happen, a considerable alternative would be safety checks of vehicle safety equipment (D.O.T.style) every 2 years or between sales to ensure these vehicles are SAFE on the roads. NOT an Emissions standards increase. Another option would be to encourage EV's available for purchase in highly populated, structurally sound CITIES for those with the luxury of living in the concrete jungle. Just for comparison, fewer than 20% of Minnesota roads are in urban areas which leaves 80% of roads across the state incomparable to urban area roads or opinions. 80% are categorized as as low maintenance, rural, unpaved, rarely traveled, or "off the grid". Again, I restate: "Introducing CC-MN as a mandated law would require an extreme abundance of charging stations or alternate fuel stations to be installed across Minnesota -- and at what expense to the state?"

Source: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadway/data/fun-facts.html

As an experienced automotive shop employee, I believe emissions equipment- OEM required are engineered poorly and the electronics involved are known to fail quite frequently; especially in sub-zero temps. Consumers/drivers are already wasting hundreds of dollars to fix a faulty sensor that has nothing to do with the safety and integrity of the vehicle- just to keep a vehicle from spitting out micrograms of particles.

The amount of emissions technology that is scrapped to landfills from failing parts is just as detrimental to our environment's health as excessive carbon emissions. Also, electrical vehicles use electricity which is currently majority-provided by coal with smaller alternatives to wind or solar power. Increasing wind and solar are available at a steep cost. If we convert to majority of Wind energy, consider that a Wind generator uses anywhere from 10 gallons of oil for smaller machines to over 400 gallons of OIL for a large-scale turbine. Site sourced for reference. On the contrary, many internal components of solar panels are non-recyclable and extremely toxic to the environment and health of those near the landfills once they reach end of life. Site sourced for reference.

Without better alternatives to fuel our electrical sources, introducing EV vehicles are nothing more than a "feel good" attempt for a proud human to gloat. Forcing the EV clean law on all Minnesotans is the WRONG choice across the board. EV mandates will surely damage more than the air we breathe. https://www.power-eng.com/renewables/wind/keeping-wind-turbines-spinning/#gref https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2018/04/its-time-to-plan-for-solar-panel-recycling-in-the-united-states/

At the very least, reconsider this with mercy for the residents of this state who are now living paycheck to paycheck AND for the thousands of auto mechanic shops that will not have the finances/aid to convert from standard emissions equipment to extremely expensive equipment. A shop would incur astronomical costs from expensive training, new machines, certifications, and purchasing new computer technology required to repair EV vehicles.-- Business owners and residents alike are already anticipating the potential for higher taxes at your hands; from Walz's new proposals and Federal proposals. As a Minnesota resident, take mercy on us and consider the bad will outweigh the good for a majority of your State's residents. I encourage the legislature to take the conversation for clean cars elsewhere.. This is not the right time nor right state to consider a roll-out mandate for EV.

Thank you for your time.

I strongly support this Clean Cars initiative, especially given Minnesota's failure, so far, to meet greenhouse gas emission targets. As others have pointed out, providing more charging stations will help increase demand for EVs, but having these cars available for consumers to see and test drive on dealers' car lots will also increase demand. My husband and I purchased an EV last year. There were none available for us to see at any dealers closer than an hour away. We were very fortunate to find a young car salesman who was a knowledgeable and enthusiastic EV owner himself. Dealers who have chosen not to carry these vehicles, even whose cars are supplied by car makers who manufacture EVs, we found to be of no help whatsoever in our shopping. Minnesota is not normally a backward state, but in this arena, it felt as though it was. Minnesotans deserve to have the full array of car choices available to us and which many other states enjoy. The Clean Cars Initiative will help move Minnesotans into the 21st century of technology and social responsibility. These cars, in addition to lowering carbon emissions (even when the electricity is still being supplied by fossil fuels), are often very reasonably priced, with lower fuel costs and much less maintenance costs (which may be one reason some car dealers are not enthusiastic about providing this choice for consumers), making them an attractive choice for lower and middle class consumers. As more car manufacturers commit to phase out fossil fueled vehicles, no doubt they will back up their commitments with greater advertising and promotion of these automobiles, which will create a win-win for car dealers.

No. As a lifelong resident of Minnesota I oppose the Minnesota pollution control agencies Minnesota clean cars act 36416. This is legislation that does not need to apply to Minnesotans. We should publish our own thoughts, not from some other state or organization. Our mostly rural state does not need this type of legislation. The citizens do not want it. Do not pass the Minnesota clean cars act. Electric vehicles are available for anyone who wants them already. Do not pass Minnesota clean cars act. Thank you.

I am strongly opposed to these proposed rule changes. This attempt at a “one size for all” and unilaterally adopting the unproven standards from state we share almost nothing in common with is not practical. There is a large part of Minnesota outside of the metropolitan area where EVs are not practical. Large families cannot afford to buy two EVs to replace the singular large vehicle to meet their needs. EVs are not practical to haul commercial or even recreational equipment any distance. The major automobile manufacturers have already committed to meet the needs of their customers and make more EVs; legislators and especially State Agencies have no business interfering with what is already happening organically through competitive business. If cities or counties want to adopt requirements or additional fees, that should be up to their locally elected officials. Minnesota does not need any more draconian rules that burden all of us to make a few feel good about themselves.

For all of those that are saying “I can’t find any EVs” you are not looking. I purchased two during this pandemic, all online, and delivered to my front door. If an EV is practical for you, then buy one! Just because it works for you and you can afford to, don’t expect that others can.

I would like to offer a unique opinion on this topic as I seen most people that have commented on here seem to speak about issues with dealers inventory and demand etc. I do work for a Chevrolet dealership and I am one of the Bolt salesman. One thing I have noticed in these comments is the assumption of demand for more EV's at least in my area we certainly have seen an increase in interest from people regarding the bolt and are one of the top sellers of them in Minnesota. On that note however there is a fallacy thinking of the high demand, the demand for customers coming in asking for trucks is higher than ever and I do respect many of your opinion's for a high EV demand level but compared to the truck market it's very insignificant. We simply live in a truck society here in Minnesota weather it's in the cities or certainly greater Minnesota, it's simply true. I feel the response I would receive is that if inventories being the same more people would choose EV's, I certainly don't have a crystal ball to make that guess. Simply put what is good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. EV's are great vehicles and I do enjoy them but they are simply another option not a replacement. Some of you on here speak about dealerships not wanting to stock EV's or not having inventory. It is partly on the dealership and mostly on the manufacturer. The manufacturer sends most of the EV inventory to big EV areas such as LA, Atlanta, Washington, Oregon etc. The cost that dealers incur from the manufacturer to make sure you have proper equipment, sales staff that's trained, Service technicians trained to work on them is about 25,000-50,000 depending on the requirements. That's a lot of investment that dealerships need to take a hard look at to see if they will get a return on. Right now dealerships aren't seeing a good return on that, will it change in the future? Some dealerships don't get anyone that comes in and asks about an EV. In regards to green houses gasses and climate change, I certainly am not a Scientist, and I don't study these topics, my only question is how can we take around 100 years of recorded data on "climate change" as irrefutable when earth has been in existence for and estimated 4 billion years? That's not a large sample size to go off of to make these types of big decisions on even though I certainly understand it's all they can go off of. Again I do enjoy EV's as well as Gas engine vehicle's, and if my opinion counts in some capacity I'm not in favor of the proposed legislation to adopt the new standards.

Regarding OAH Docket No. 71-9003-36416, I am writing in opposition to this rule. Minnesota should not be abdicating its decisions regarding its environmental policies to any other state, let alone to a state with a vastly superior population density, different climate, and vehicle demands. These are decisions that must be made by Minnesotans through their elected officials. Unelected bureaucrats in California could decide to ban gas powered lawnmowers or gas grills and Minnesotans would have no say in the matter. What is good and necessary for California, is not necessarily good and necessary for Minnesota. California had dozens of areas identified as having poor air quality, Minnesota has zero. The best-selling vehicle for the first quarter of 2020 in California is the Tesla Model 3; in Minnesota it the Chevrolet Silverado 1500. The vehicle needs of the people between the two states are entirely different. I work at an automobile dealership in southern Minnesota. We sometimes do not have the specific inventory that the consumer wants. That means that we need to trade with another dealer to get that specific vehicle. We frequently need to trade across state lines. If this rule were to be adopted, we would only be able trade with Minnesota or California dealers. This means, in the immediate future, a lost sale for us and less choice for the consumer. But the lack of choice doesn’t end there. California has required, under their environmental regulation, all vehicle sold by 2035 must be electric vehicles. If this rule were to be adopted, the same requirements would hold for Minnesotans. They couldn’t buy a new gasoline powered vehicle if they wanted to. Manufacturers will not retool their facilities to produce all electric vehicles just because 2 states have adopted EV only sales. That means that their will likely be a shortfall of inventory to be able to keep up with new vehicle demand and drive sales to gasoline powered vehicles. If Minnesotans wish for or have need of a gasoline powered vehicle, they would have to purchase a pre-owned vehicle which would only increase the demand for pre-owned vehicles because not everyone can afford a new vehicle. As demand rises, the cost of these pre-owned vehicles will also rise thereby increase the financial burden on those who already struggle to find the funds to purchase a vehicle. Minnesota farmers are have been struggling for many years. The number of new markets for their products has been dwindling. The ethanol and bio-diesel market has breathed new life in the farming community. Adaptation 71-9003-36416 would not only ad financial burden to the farmers by forcing higher repair cost on aging assets, but would also hit the ethanol and biodiesel markets hard. This damage wouldn’t just be felt by the farmers. Every rural town and community that depends on the success of the farmer would feel the pain. If the farmers don’t have the income to spend in their local communities, many jobs would be lost. Please consider the overwhelming negative consequences of adopting this rule and reject it. Leave the rule making on how best care for the Environment of Minnesota to the people of Minnesota through their elected officials. Thank you, Darren Durst

The MPCA should adopt the Clean Cars Minnesota rule, as proposed. It is a modest step in addressing the massive problem of greenhouse gasses and global warming. Do not be distracted by those making bad-faith process arguments that the rule should be taken up by the legislature. They are simply carrying water (perhaps unwittingly) for those who see the rule as potentially adversely impacting their short-term economic interests. The rule clearly is within the MPCA's current mandate to regulate pollution generally and greenhouse gasses specifically.

I am the happy owner of a Honda Clarity plug-in hybrid car. It now is only offered in California. If the MPCA adopts the Clean Cars Minnesota rule, maybe Minnesotans will once again have access to this car without having to special order it - and gain access to a wide range of electric vehicles in development.

We are way behind in fighting climate change and transitioning away from fossil fuels. This common sense, modest rule shouldn't be derailed by those carping about state sovereignty and delegation of legislative authority.

Thanks for the work of the MPCA. I wish them well in their continuing efforts to improve the lives of all Minnesotans.

Strongly oppose this and the lack of legislative involvement!

I support Clean Cars Minnesota. Minnesota has emission goals and we have fallen behind on it. This idea provides more clean car options to people who want clean cars, it doesn't require people to give up their current vehicles. The electric energy that would power these vehicles may come from power plants that use coal to generate that electricity, but we have to take this one step at a time. We need to cut out sources of greenhouse emissions so we can focus on the next thing. The longer that we wait for that one idea that will fix everything, the more consequential things will become, not to mention that there won't be one idea that fixes everything. As people above have mentioned, Minnesota is not California. However this step could lead us in the right direction.

I fully support the MPCA action to make Clean Car Minnesota rules. Minnesota's air quality and the natural world we desire are endangered by the continued use of vehicles that have unhealthy emissions. We must offer easy access and availability to encourage higher use of reduced or zero emission vehicles. Changing the direction away from gas powered cars will take time so change must start now to meet or exceed Minnesota 2050 emission goals. My partner is seeking an electric vehicle now and has few options to test and purchase locally.

I support the Clean Cars Minnesota Rule. Energy efficient and electric vehicles help reduce air pollution, including climate altering carbon emissions. Action is URGENT - there is no time to waste on addressing climate change. LEVs and ZEVs cost less to fuel, $aving Minnesotans like our family $$. We drive a Chevy Bolt, and love it. It doesn’t pollute the air — we purchase renewable, Minnesota-made (JOBS! JOBS!) clean electricity. Many EVs are cheaper than most gas vehicles in the long run, due to lower fuel and maintenance costs. We were frustrated that when we went car shopping, we found our choice of EVs severely limited in Minnesota. Since we are not (yet) a Clean Car state, EV car makers don’t sell many desirable models (like SUVs) here. By becoming a Clean Car state, our state won't be left behind - keep Minnesota on the map! Please promote freedom of choice, affordability, renewable energy jobs, and CLEAN AIR by supporting Clean Cars Minnesota - this is a win-win-win-win for Minnesotans, our state and our country!

I believe Minnesota and the MPCA should support a Clean Cars standard. Clean Cars Minnesota will usher in improved vehicle emissions standards that will help clean our air, improve our health, and save money for the people in Minnesota. The last air quality tests indicated that, not only have we not improved, but our air quality is worse.Cleaner air means less money is spent on medical costs to address the health conditions of asthma and COPD. EV and low EV cars cost less to operate and maintain. We need to lower emissions and thus lower greenhouse gases.We are at 1% increase in warming now and on our way to 2%. The effects of climate change are horrendous: ocean acidification, habitat loss-, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, increases in wildfires. All of these effects will create food insecurity, major health problems and mass migrations. All of these issues will be very costly. The United States military has declared climate change to be a national security threat. Climate change will especially impact the poor and people of color. The wealthy will be able to more insulate themselves from these ramifications, just as they have been able to do during this virus. We can not wait on our MN legislature to pass these clean car standards. The senate is working to block the standards, if they pass, using SF 450. If these standards do pass they still do not take effect until 2024 which means three more years lost. The MPCA needs to pass the Clean Car Initiative and then the people of Minnesota need to stand up to our politicians and demand that the standards stay. The health of our planet and the economic well-being of the citizens of the United States demands nothing less.

I support the Clean Cars Minnesota proposal! Having emission limitations on new cars overall is obviously the correct choice given climate change. We are behind in not having adopted these standards already.

Also, availability of ZEVs is also key to moving our society toward a carbon-neutral future. I recently moved to Minnesota from Massachusetts, a state that has also adopted these regulations. When I next need to replace my car, I would love to be able to purchase an electric vehicle--and without regulations that mandate availability, it seems unlikely that I will be able to. Large car manufacturers are already operating under these requirements in other states, it isn't going to be a trial to them to comply here as well, and the requirements don't mean anybody HAS to buy a zero-emissions vehicle. It only says Minnesotans ought to have the option and I don't think anybody could disagree with that.

There is obviously a lack of demand for EV's, or car manufacturers and dealers would have them available, as I think they are still in the business to make money. This bill would manipulate supply in order to create demand. If they are indeed practical for MN, and we the people decide(per the Constitution) we value our environment, believe internal combustion cars are to blame for its ills, and this is the best way to fix it, how about we first concentrate on the infrastructure and a power source that is both cheap, viable and has the least footprint like nuclear? This bill does none of that. Also, let's use a little critical thinking - how well are things working out for California in just about every empirical metric?

Hello and good afternoon, I was looking through the technical analysis, and I would like MPCA to provide me with some of the data used in the analysis, preferably in an Excel spreadsheet. I would appreciate the estimated real-world per-mile fuel savings benefit (in gallons) for both passenger cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2025-2034 based on the differences between the LEV standards and the SAFE rule. I would also be appreciative if MPCA would provide the exact figures used in EPA's MOVES model for LEV and ZEV vehicles in each model year. I'd also like the data described here: "Finally, we calculated dollar savings per vehicle using the calculated fuel savings and projected gasoline prices from the U.S. Energy Information Association’s 2019 Annual Energy Outlook from the Reference case in its Table 12: Petroleum and Other Liquids Prices. 51 These gasoline price projections are $3.07/gallon (in 2018 dollars) in 2023 and grow at an average rate of 0.7% per year in subsequent years. The EIA, in fact, predicts that the price per gallon of gasoline will increase from now through 2050 under all scenarios (Figure 14)" Also, there seems to be an inconsistency in the Annual Energy Outlook scenarios used. Some tables, like Table 19, use AOE from 2016, while the paragraph above uses the 2019 AEO. Is there a reason MPCA did not use the 2020 AEO instead of the 2019 version? These documents are released in January, so the agency would have had ample time to adjust the numbers. I was told by a representative at MPCA that I may be able to get answers to this before March 15th, the deadline for the first round of comments. I hope the ALJ will require the agency to make this information public much faster than that, preferably by the end of the week. I would assume these documents would need to be saved as part of the rulemaking process. Given the scope of the rule, I guess I'm a little surprised that the spreadsheets were not offered as an appendix to the technical support document to make evaluations of the rules as transparent as possible. Hopefully, these questions can be answered and data provided in a timely fashion to ensure a transparent process and instill confidence in the rulemaking. Isaac Orr Policy Fellow Energy and Environmental Policy Center of the American Experiment

I support the Clean Cars Minnesota proposal. It is time for progress in regards to separating our society from the use of fossil fuels. Adopting the Clean Cars Rule would be a contribution to this progress. LEV's and ZEV's are not currently in high demand because they are unaffordable. It's difficult for someone to make the choice to purchase an LEV or ZEV if there is no way to afford one. This rule would allow for more folks to access these vehicles. It's time to be done with supporting fossil fuel infrastructure, and time to be bold and adopt this rule for the future of our planet.

I strongly support the Clean Cars Minnesota proposal, Possible Amendments to Rules Governing Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Clean Cars Minnesota), Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7023. We would be hurting all of us by being blind to climate change and its effect on our health and our planet. GM has announced that it will exclusively offer electric vehicles by 2035 and end production of cars, trucks and SUVs with gasoline or diesel powered engines. This is the future. We can wait to be one of the last states to facilitate this reality with a Clean Cars rule, keeping it difficult for people who want an electric vehicle to find one in Minnesota, OR we can join the more than a dozen other forward thinking states to adopt this common sense rule. Thank you Minnesota for putting this forward. I strongly support the Clean Cars Minnesota proposal.

I do not think this proposal is a good idea. The present cost of an electric car is presently way to high for most people. I will be going to another state to buy my car if this proposal is put in place. Let's keep on going with this clean air proposal. Maybe the people that want this act should:

1.) Get rid of their cell phones 2.) Get rid of their computers 3.) Use a wood burning stove to cook with 4.) Cut wood for their natural gas furnace 5.) Get rid of all street lights 6.) Walk to work/Take a bike. It was -20 below at my house this morning. 7.) Do not order stuff on Amazon. How do you think the products get to your house? 8.) Have your mail delivered by horse 9.) Make room for all of the solar panels your are going to need by clearing the forests. 10.) I suppose you think the "clean air" that will be created will stay within the state's borders. 11.) What about the neighboring states. Will their "dirty air" stop at the state's border? 12.) Move to CA. 13.) Light your house with candles.

I realize that my above statements appear draconian, but that is where we are headed. It starts out maybe harmless, but it keeps going.

I am not in favor of this rule because it ties us to another state that has very different needs than Minnesota. Any time they change the rule to fit California it would tie Minnesota to that rule change. I do not hear of them getting to 25 below O this week or ever, that greatly affects battery life. The same people that want this rule also do not want mining how do you get the materials to make the battery's? How do you dispose of the battery's when they ware out. These are questions that have to be answered. I am not against electric cars. I do think they have a place and technology will change to make them very useable but allowing another state a 1000 miles from us to make laws for us with no representation is not a good idea. I also think the federal laws will be changing soon that will require some of these changes. I would like to see the option of more electric cars at dealers and I think markets will be driving that very soon. (think GM) Maybe the state lawmakers should do that but not California.

SUPPORT FOR THE CLEAN CARS FOR MINNESOTA INITIATIVE

Transportation is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and thus a significant contributor to climate change, both nationally and in Minnesota, Our Minnesota winters are warming 13 times faster than our summers, and extreme weather is becoming more frequent, which is threatening the health and wellbeing of all Minnesotans. Northern Minnesota is particularly at risk. It has warmed almost twice as much as the national average. If we take no action, Minnesota is on track to lose our Northern boreal forests by 2070. We will look like Kansas.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Pathways to Decarbonization report published in 2019, laid out multiple initiatives needed to bring transportation GHG emissions in line with the state’s goal of an 80% reduction in such emissions, from 2005 levels, by 2050. These goals were set out by the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 and signed into law by Governor Pawlenty. Adopting clean car standards is a significant tool for reducing GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, which comprise almost 60% of all such emissions from the transportation sector.

Climate impacts are not the only reason clean car standards are urgently needed. Human health is also at stake. Air pollution in the form of fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone harms lungs and hearts especially when breathed in regularly, which is a burden that falls disproportionately on low-income communities and those of color. Rural communities are also at risk. A recent study by the MPCA found death rates attributable to air pollution were higher in rural areas than urban. Transportation is a major contributor of such air pollution and adopting clean car standards is a step in the right direction toward a healthier state. As an employee of CentraCare Health Systems, in Central Minnesota, I have witnessed increases in pediatric asthma related to poorer air quality. There have also been increases in vector borne diseases such as Lyme Disease, attributable to our warming climate caused by GHGs.

Further, without clean car standards, consumer choice is limited. Folks who are interested in buying or leasing an electric vehicle cannot find all available makes and models in Minnesota. In fact, such prospective vehicle customers may not find even one electric vehicle on a dealer lot. This is partly because automakers choose to not deliver their electric vehicles to states without clean car standards. States that do adopt the standards, however, have more electric options. Clean Cars Minnesota will give consumers the options they want so they can decide what’s best for them. Personally, I have experienced this problem with availability. When looking for an electric vehicle in St. Cloud, I had to travel to Annandale to find a dealer with the car I wanted.

While Clean Cars Minnesota will do a lot for Minnesotans in the way of climate, health, and choice, there are a few key things it will not do: • Clean Cars Minnesota will not impact farming equipment. Clean Cars Minnesota only affects new passenger cars and light-duty trucks for sale. It does not apply to heavy-duty vehicles like farming equipment or big rigs.

• Clean Cars Minnesota will not stop you from buying a gasoline car nor make you buy an electric vehicle (EV) but it will give you more choice. Clean Cars Minnesota does not require anyone to buy an EV – in fact, under its most stringent form, only about 8% of new vehicle sales in Minnesota would be electric. However, the standards will increase the availability of different makes and models on sales lots in Minnesota. In fact, adopting Clean Cars Minnesota would help ensure access to electric versions of some the most popular pick-ups, like the electric Ford F150 expected to come out next year.

• Clean Cars Minnesota will not make owning a gasoline-powered car or pick-up more expensive. The Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) standard of Clean Cars Minnesota, which applies to gasoline-powered passenger vehicles, will save consumers far more money at the pump than the program may cost by making available cleaner and more efficient vehicles. As with other technology improvements, such as those that increase safety, there will be a small impact to the upfront cost of new vehicles. However, in this case, the improvement will save drivers more money than it costs them. An analysis conducted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission found that the average vehicle customer can expect net savings of over $1,600 over the life of a LEV-compliant gasoline-powered car. And for those who choose to finance their new vehicle purchase, as 86% of consumers currently do, savings are realized on day one.

• Clean Cars Minnesota is not just relevant to the metro area. Minnesotans living outside the Twin Cities Metro Area want Clean Cars Minnesota too. And people in Greater Minnesota stand to benefit the most from more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. Why? Because driving longer distances mean higher fuel costs, which means cost savings from more fuel-efficient cars and trucks accrue more quickly for rural residents.

Opposition to Clean Cars Minnesota has stemmed from those who traditionally oppose anything that reduces oil consumption, from general misinformation, and from anxiety over how the rule will be implemented. Two common objections are addressed here:

• “Air quality is ‘fine’ here in Minnesota.” Some opponents believe clean car standards were meant for states that have air pollution at levels that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deems as “nonattainment” per National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This is inaccurate for two reasons:

1.  Air quality metrics from the US EPA do not include GHGs i.e. “carbon pollution” in their assessment. High 
    concentrations of GHGs were found to endanger public health and welfare by the US EPA in 2009, and new 
    motor vehicles were found to be a major source for them. This is a major reason why the clean car standards 
    exist – to reduce carbon pollution in both gasoline-powered and electricity-powered vehicles.

2.  Low levels of air pollution can still harm human health. In 2019, the MPCA published a report on the status of 
    our Minnesota’s air quality called “The Air We Breathe”. It states that some levels of air pollutants that may fall 
    below NAAQS can still harm health significantly. This is backed up by research that links the prevalence of 
    diabetes with higher levels of soot. The MPCA’s 2019 “Life and Breath” report demonstrates that air pollution 
    may contribute to 4,000 deaths each year in Minnesota, with higher rates of death from air pollution in rural 
    areas than urban areas.

• “Auto-dealerships don’t want change.” They are worried that adopting clean car standards here will lead to dealerships holding cars that their customers will not want. But Minnesotans do want cleaner cars. A 2019 Consumer Report survey found 66% of prospective Minnesotan car buyers want more electric options. This includes rural residents, as mentioned above, who stand to benefit the most from both electric and more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The ability for each state to choose which set of emissions standards to enact is an assertion of states’ rights and choice. Fourteen other states and the District of Columbia have already adopted clean car standards, with many doing so 10 years ago, and the federal vehicle emissions standards have mirrored the LEV portion of clean car standards until this year, making Clean Cars Minnesota a tried-and-true set of standards. Minnesota isn’t even the only state considering adopting clean car standards at this time. States like New Mexico and Nevada are also exploring how these standards could benefit their residents in terms of cleaner air, cost savings, and more vehicle choices.

So how are two different sets of clean car standards possible? Under the federal Clean Air Act, two emissions standards were established: those set by the federal government and those created by California. Minnesota would be joining 14 other states and the District of Columbia in choosing the firmer standards created by California over the ones from the federal government, which were recently rolled back despite evidence that doing so would do more harm than good for Americans in terms of lost jobs and higher fuel costs.

Governor Walz has directed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to lead the rulemaking process for Clean Cars Minnesota which would explore a standard that’s right for Minnesota. While some may object to the MPCA’s role in this, I would point out that rulemaking is one of the many civic tools available to enact policy. While rulemaking is a tool of the Executive Branch, it derives its legal authority from statutes passed by the legislature. Minnesota Statute 116.07 lays out the prerogatives and powers of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Specifically, in Subdivision 2 “Adopting Standards,” it states, “the agency shall also adopt standards of air quality, including maximum allowable standards of emission of air contaminants from motor vehicles…”. This power, as granted by the legislature, enables the MPCA to conduct a rulemaking to adopt clean car standards in Minnesota.

In conclusion, I want to express my strong support for Clean Cars Minnesota. This is a bold step forward on the road to cleaner air for Minnesota communities and climate solutions for our planet.

I strongly support for the proposal to align Minnesota's Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards with California standards. It is scientifically clear that human activity is adversely affecting our climate. This represents danger to the well-being of future Americans. Electric power generation, gasoline powered vehicles, and methane gas leakage are the identified major sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. So acting boldly on clean car standards is the best and possibly easiest way in the relatively short term to have a big impact on the emission of these life-threatening gases. Minnesota justifiably prides ourselves on leading the way on many issues both now and historically. The time is now to act boldly and aggressively on greenhouse gas emissions, and adopting the California standards for Minnesota states that Minnesota will help lead on this issue.

Opposing on the basis of loss of Minnesota autonomy by aligning ourselves with California seems like arguing about which size fire hose to use at a fire or of what material the fire hose should be made. The California standards are robust and effective as they stand and meet pressing needs NOW. Is it true that we would be forever tied to California with no chance of relief if we decide to modify our approach? I would think that in the future, as now, Minnesota can adjust our approach as needed.

Also, as to powering electric vehicles, of course there's no such thing as free energy. So yes we will need the capacity to charge an ever-increasing number of electric vehicles if the California standards go into effect here (and also if they do not). But Xcel Energy is already on a path to 100% clean energy I think by 2055. So I don't see the (even short term) availability of electric power as a convincing argument against.

I believe this will be an economic train wreck, what’s going to happen to the used car market? What will happen to gas station/gas station owners? Small mechanic shops? Parts stores? This conversion will cost consumers 1000’s and 1000’s of dollars for what? What is the worldwide affect of the greenhouse gas Minnesota emits? Or percentage of pollution on a worldwide basis is almost immeasurable. We can move in this direction but not with such aggressive timelines.

I strongly support the Clean Cars Minnesota initiative.

Aligning Minnesota’s vehicle emission standards with California’s is a sensible proposal with both immediate and long-term benefits that far exceed potential costs. From an economic standpoint, the proposal makes sense because the externalities of atmospheric pollution from burning fossil fuels are enormous, nearly incalculable, and curbing emissions from our personal transport vehicles would cut that pollution, and trim those costs, considerably.

The proposal makes even more sense from a public health standpoint. The nearly imperceptible particles emitted by our cars have been shown by numerous peer-reviewed studies to cause substantial damage to lungs and other human organs, as well as to the natural environment. Cleaner cars would therefore contribute significantly to public and ecological health.

I hope you too, will support, and strongly advocate for this legislation.

It seems like much of the regulatory language is borrowed from California but we don't have the same problems in MN. It is fine to require electric vehicles to be sold but what about the infrastructure? In other words, we need to have more charging stations! Without requiring charging stations to be available at every public parking lot (like handicap slots) then electric vehicles will not be feasible. Is there a comprehensive plan for the State to require and FUND charging stations to be as common as gas stations are now?

I am a proud owner of an all electric EV (Chevy Bolt) which I bought locally new. It was very difficult when I was shopping to be able to find an EV with the greatest range and options because of the limited choices available in Minnesota. I am very pleased to be able to buy locally, but if Minnesota were to approve these proposed rules for ZEV and LEV, there would be greater choice. So many of the auto makers are already gearing up to increase their availability of electric vehicles, but if Minnesota does not participate in these rules, customers will have to go to other states to purchase the vehicles they desire, and the auto dealers in Minnesota will be out of a sale. Minnesota is a national leader in addressing renewable energy and we should be a leader in available of quality options in vehicles as well. Nobody HAS to buy an electric vehicle, but those who do wish to should have the widest options available to them. Thank you Chris Erickson

I support the proposed rule for strong greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars. It is clear that strong action is needed because MN is not on track to hit its emissions reductions goals of 30% by 2025 and 80% by 2050 (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/12/18/minnesota-moves-ahead-with-clean-car-rules). This rule will certainly be a step in the right direction.

As for the carmakers association's assertion that the state should focus on bolstering demand instead, there's no reason this needs to be an either/or! (ibid) Do both.

I lived for 3 years in Oslo, Norway. There are electric cars all over the place and it's a great sight to see. These policies work, if our state is willing to put its money where its mouth is to fight climate change.

I strongly support the adoption of the Minnesota Clean Cars Rules for several reasons: 1) These rules are about increasing access of Minnesotan's to existing "clean cars" - plug in electric and fully electric vehicles. Presently, manufacturers do not distribute all their models to Minnesota - offering many only in "Clean Car" states. I know, because I had to drive to Missouri to get our plug-in Ford C-Max in 2014 (I was told to my face by a Ford dealer in Minnesota that "no one wants those" when asking for their availability.) In 2019, we shopped on-line and selected a Hyundai Kona as best meeting our needs for a fully electric car. We could find none closer than Baltimore. Local Hyundai dealers could not order the car for us. We settled for a Nissan Leaf, which we like, but still wish we could have bought the car of our choice locally. 2) Living in the metro area, on certain days, the buildup of air pollution triggers an asthmatic reaction in me. It is very uncomfortable, and medically concerning. I've spent thousands on medical costs treating an avoidable circumstance. With these rules, we should reduce particulates and other pollutants from transportation in our air - improving the health of many. (The pollutants emitted even at coal-fired power plants are better controlled than from auto tailpipes.) 3) As an owner of both a plug-in electric vehicle, and a fully electric vehicle I know that the operating costs are much lower than the many gas vehicles I've owned over decades. The slightly higher initial cost is more than paid-for by lower fuel and maintenance. It is in the public interest to allow Minnesotans access to these vehicles which are more affordable to own.
4) Clean Cars rules will help decrease green house gas emissions from personal transportation - through the voluntary purchases of many fellow citizens of the wider array of automobiles offered for sale after their adoption. I have children, and hope to have grandchildren: this is the least we can do to help assure a less-unstable climate for their future.