Scott Lambert: Don't bog us down with clean-car rules

In a March 18 commentary, Ric Fohrman wonders why legislators are hesitant to embrace the California emissions standards and encourages them to take the long view. But thoughtful legislators are taking the long view, and they don't like what they see.

Although the California law would be good in the short term for used-car dealers like Fohrman, there are major issues with it.

First, if California were allowed to implement its greenhouse-gas regulations, the reduction of CO₂ and the gains against global warming would be symbolic at best. In December, Congress passed a bill that would cut greenhouse gases in America's new-car fleet 30 percent by 2020. California's law would also reduce greenhouse gases by 30 percent -- by 2016. Only four years sooner.

California and 12 other states adopted these standards because of smog and other legitimate air-quality problems -- problems unique to the coasts. And problems, as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recently testified, that Minnesota does not have. This is why no one in the middle of the nation has seriously considered this radical proposal.

Many legislators understand that Minnesotans demand accountability from their government. If we adopt the California law, our air-quality regulations would be determined by an 11-member panel appointed by California's governor and accountable to no one in Minnesota. The California Air Resources Board embodies everything extremists in the environmental movement want. These extremists have a tight grip on the board, and they don't want annoying Minnesotans besieging their friendly regulators.

CARB is an enormous bureaucracy that regulates everything from leaf blowers to oceangoing vessels. (Are you listening, Duluth?) If it has a cylinder, CARB has a regulation for it. Nobody at the State Capitol believes environmentalists will be satisfied just regulating cars and trucks. This law would give Minnesota's environmental lobby years of continuing work. ATVs, snowmobiles and lawnmowers will be swept into the California regulatory scheme in the coming years.

Besides offending our sense of democracy, is there anything else to lose? Yes. The economic damage is severe. Over the last decade, Minnesota has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the ethanol industry in a search for energy-independence. All of that work would be wasted with the implementation of the California law, because CARB does not like ethanol. California has just three E85 gas pumps in the whole state, compared with Minnesota's nearly 350. Manufacturers sell far fewer flex-fuel vehicles in states covered by the California law because they cannot pass CARB's "Super Ultra Low Emissions Standards." And, if the CO₂ standards were imposed, auto manufacturers would not get credit for selling E85 vehicles. Like a stalk of corn caught in a drought, Minnesota's ethanol industry would dry up and blow away.

Dealers of new cars and trucks are likewise concerned. Since the CARB regulations on vehicle efficiency move too far too fast, manufacturers would be forced to limit the quantity of bigger vehicles. CARB's rules are written for a state that sells more cars than trucks. But Minnesotans buy more trucks than cars. Pickups, SUVs and minivans would be in low supply. Dealers would not be able to trade with nonparticipating states for popular vehicles, and customers would not be able to purchase vehicles from outside the state and register them in Minnesota.

Environmentalists are offended by Minnesota's use of bigger vehicles. And the California law is one way to wrench people out of the vehicles they need. Farmers, sportsmen, contractors or moms running the car pool will just have to make do with smaller passenger cars.

Business, farm and labor groups all oppose the California law, because the long view is exactly what we have in mind.

Scott Lambert is the executive vice president of the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association.