EV mandates are misguided

OPINION:

Recently, the Biden administration finalized a rule that would drastically limit consumer choice for families in my home state of Michigan and those across the country. The rule effectively imposes an electric vehicle (EV) mandate, forcing over half of all new vehicles to be fully electric by 2032.

These efforts to remove the dominant engine type used in American vehicles are divorced from reality, as EVs are impractical for many Americans due to affordability concerns. The average EV is $13,000 more expensive than the average price of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, costs $500 more per year to insure and is 50% more expensive to repair. Even with government subsidies, EVs continue to be out of reach for most Americans, especially during a time of crippling inflation.

EVs also pose a significant challenge for consumers as EV drivers typically can only travel around 200 miles on a single charge. That’s compared to a gasoline vehicle that can travel around 400 miles on a full tank. Most of the country also lacks the charging infrastructure and grid support needed to support this transition to EVs, making them an unrealistic choice for consumers.

It’s no wonder why electric vehicles are piling up on dealership lots. Consumers are displaying a strong unwillingness to purchase EVs and a forced transition to mainly EVs does not make economic sense.

Not only would these misguided regulations limit consumer choice; they would also increase our reliance on China. The United States does not yet have the domestic critical mineral supply chain necessary to support the proposed transition. As China currently controls 90% of the EV supply chain in aggregate, any push to make EVs the dominant type of vehicle on the market would essentially hand China the keys to America’s auto future.

Furthermore, while the Environmental Protection Administration issued these proposed regulations to reduce emissions, an EV-only approach is not the zero-emissions solution that it is sold as. Compared to an internal combustion engine, a battery electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs. To mine the 100,000 pounds of ore required to make one battery, miners must also dig up 500,000 pounds of earth. Additionally, due to their weight, EVs emit up to 25% more particulate matter than today’s ICE vehicles, one of the pollutants that this rule and others like it claim to address.

The United States would also be relying on minerals from China, which has an atrocious track record when it comes to environmental and labor standards. As much as we would like to decrease our nation’s emissions, greenhouse gases, and criteria pollutants are a global issue and do not stop at international borders.

As a resident of the Auto State and an active member of the Conservative Climate Caucus, I recognize the importance of reducing transportation emissions. However, the government should not force an EV-only strategy on consumers when EVs are not the only pathway forward.

Instead of creating regulations that limit consumer choice, make vehicles more expensive, and cede America’s auto leadership and jobs to China, we should be pursuing solutions that promote innovation and preserve American automobile manufacturing.

In December, the House passed my legislation, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales (CARS) Act, which would ensure that Americans, not the federal government, can decide which vehicles best suit their lives. The Senate must take up this critical legislation to preserve consumer choice so that we can put Americans back in the driver’s seat.

• Rep. Tim Walberg, the Dean of Michigan’s House delegation, is currently serving his eighth term in Congress as the representative of southern Michigan. Based on his record of legislative accomplishment, Tim holds the designation as Michigan’s most conservative member of Congress, according to the American Conservative Union’s lifetime rankings.