True North

I’ve spent a good portion of today checking into the claims Rep. Melissa Hortman made in an email she sent to her House colleagues. Follow this link for a recap of what I said earlier today. Now let’s examine more of what Rep. Hortman said, starting with this claim:

We should adopt the Clean Car Standard to save money, improve health, decrease dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Adoption of the standard would result in cost savings for consumers who would need to purchase less fuel to get where they are going.

I just did a quick check of car dealerships in California and Minnesota. Though I didn’t do a comprehensive search, what I found spoke volumes. The California vehicles I checked cost north of $2000 more than the identical vehicle sold here in Minneosta. That leads me to believe that Rep. Hortman’s claim that adopting the Clean Car Standard would save money is misleading at best. While there might be some savings on what’s spent on fueling vehicles, that doesn’t mean that it won’t cost consumers more because of the more expensive purchase price.

The question worth asking is whether Rep. Hortman intentionally omitted this information to make her legislation more appealing. I don’t know so I won’t make that accusation. What I will do is say that she wouldn’t be the first politician to omit less-than-flattering information to win an argument.

Here’s something else that I found interesting:

The Clean Car Standard is an air emission standard, not a fuel standard. Put simply, the Clean Car Standard is an air emission standard for vehicles.

It is not a fuel efficiency bill. Congress exclusively regulates fuel efficiency. It is not a fuel standard. States regulate fuel standards in cooperation with the EPA.

According to Don’t Take My Truck.com, that isn’t technically true:

The California Emissions law passed in the 1960s is an emission standard that regulates smog and ozone forming emissions from vehicles. The additional regulations passed by California in 2002 is a greenhouse gas emissions, or fuel economy standard. Almost all (98%) of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles is CO2. The only practical way to decrease CO2 is to increase fuel economy. California’s greenhouse gas emission standard IS a fuel economy standard.

I googled greenhouse gas emissions automobiles to verify the 98% figure. Here’s what I found in a study prepared solely by Environmental Defense:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts for an estimated 94% of the overall GHG emissions from a typical light duty vehicle. On the vehicle itself, means of reducing CO2 emissions fall into two broad categories: reducing the vehicle’s rate of fuel consumption and changing the fuel to reduce its associated net emissions of CO2 and other GHGs.

Based on that study alone, I’d conclude that Don’t Take My Truck.com’s information is accurate. It isn’t a stretch to think that complying with California’s tighter standards makes each vehicle more expensive.

Let’s look at another portion of Rep. Hortman’s email:

Congress allows states to adopt either the California standard or the federal standard for air emissions from vehicles. California regulated air pollution from motor vehicles before Congress adopted the motor vehicle sections of the Clean Air Act. Because of California’s pre-existing state law on the issue, states were given the choice to follow the California standard or the federal standard but they may not set their own standards that would be different from either the California or the federal standard. Minnesota has not yet adopted the California standard so the EPA regulates motor vehicle emissions in Minnesota. The Clean Car legislation I have authored would have Minnesota opt into the California standard for motor vehicle emissions.

I’ve pointed this out before but it’s worth repeating: Minnesota won’t have the ability to affect California’s regulatory body. Although we don’t have control of the EPA, at least there, we have the ability to propose legislation that controls the EPA’s regulations. I’d prefer having some control of the federal regulations than not having any control of California’s regulations.

I can’t fathom why we’d give up our control for a set of regulations that would have a significant price impact on Minnesota consumers but little impact on Minnesotan’s health.

That’s why I can’t imagine why Rep. Hortman is proposing this legislation. That its only co-authors in the House are Democrats is telling. That John Marty is the author of the Senate companion bill raises additional red flags.

Cross-posted and comments welcome at Let Freedom Ring.