Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Seven months ago, Xcel announced a $200 million plan to put 730 fast chargers throughout the state — since rescinded. The entire article "Are EVs the new Ford Pinto?" is a resounding endorsement for this minor investment.

Want further proof? Tesla invested in a reliable charging infrastructure long before it became profitable, a core feature of their business strategy. And Tesla sells twice as many electric vehicles in the U.S. as the next 19 manufacturers combined.

A rapid transition to EVs significantly benefits all of us, as EVs simply keep significantly more money in our local economy. How? EVs have substantially lower operating and repair costs. I have driven EVs for 10 years, about 200,000 miles, and never been stranded. I estimate $20,000 in reduced energy costs and about $6,000 in reduced drivetrain related repair costs.

Remember at the beginning of COVID when gas was $1.85 a gallon because demand had dropped? The same logic applies when 20% to 30% of cars are EVs. Thus it is gas car owners who will benefit the most from rapid adoption of EVs. Minnesota spent $12 billion ($3.77 per gallon on average) for fuel in 2022. If fuel had cost only $1.85, this would have saved citizens over $5 billion with just a one-time $200 million investment.

Rural economies would benefit the most, as they spend a higher portion of their income on transportation than their urban and suburban counterparts.

Philip Adam, Plymouth

•••

The reporter's experience of a lack of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in rural Minnesota names a reality that Democrats have ignored in their strategy to fight climate change. Buying an EV in rural areas makes no sense without solid infrastructure. Minnesota Auto Dealers Association President Scott Lambert had it right regarding the group's failed lawsuit: "Minnesota dealers are happy to sell customers electric vehicles if those customers choose to purchase them. But we are not in favor of a mandate that requires us to stock vehicles that have very little demand" ("Justices reject emissions challenge," Oct. 17).

To address the necessary transition away from gasoline-consuming vehicles, a better strategy is to encourage consumers to buy plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). PHEVs use electric for shorter trips (e.g., commutes), but for longer trips (e.g., in rural areas) they revert to high mileage gas-electric hybrid. PHEVs are the ideal transition-to-EV option until a fuller EV charging structure is built. The satisfaction of lower fuel costs with significantly higher fuel efficiency of PHEVs would induce consumers to happily move toward full electric when the charging infrastructure is ready.

A problem for PHEVs, like EVs, is that too few are produced and the demand is low (in part because of price, in part because they are not strongly marketed). The push for EVs without the fueling infrastructure is unfair to both the climate-conscious consumer and producer. PHEVs are the way to go for now.

•••

The article "Are EVs the new Ford Pinto?" starts out with a tortured comparison of electric vehicles to the Ford Pinto and should have been retitled: "Do your research before you buy the car." The reporter is correct that charging infrastructure needs to be built out more, but he bought the wrong car for his particular mission. The only electric car brand at the moment that will do what he needs is a Tesla, which typically has more range and an extensive charging infrastructure unique to Tesla. But soon other brands will have access to Tesla's (and other vendors') fast chargers. To paint all EVs with his Nissan Leaf's shortcomings is missing the point: Be prepared to spend more money on a longer-range EV, or buy a hybrid vehicle that will economically sip gasoline and still reduce emissions. Incidentally, I am a Leaf owner who is perfectly happy with it as a second car.

Tim Wheat, Blaine

Muslim Americans have experienced more than their share of ugly, blatant and at times deadly racism in this country for years. They know more than most what exclusion feels like and how damaging it can be. Because of this fact, I was puzzled to read that a large group of Muslim parents are demanding that 24 LGBTQ-friendly picture books be banned from use at a north suburban charter school ("Muslim parents protest LGBTQ books," Oct. 15). The books are a small part of a program that uses dozens of books that promote understanding and acceptance of others (including, ironically, religious tolerance) in a child-friendly way. No agenda is forced, and there is an opt-out choice.

This accommodation is not enough for those protesting. They are insisting that the books be removed as it is an affront to their faith. Rather than using the experience as a teaching tool for their children (that not every one is like us) they are wielding their religious views as a cudgel and attempting to force them on all of the children at this public school. This, despite the fact that 71% of Americans now support gay marriage!

James OBrien, Mendota Heights

In all the talk of the renovation of the governor's mansion, there's been no mention of the carbon footprint involved and how this will be improved with the renovation. This a huge opportunity for the governor to lead in this regard. Many of the houses we live in were built in the 20th century and will need upgrades to electrical systems, insulation, etc., to meet our responsibility to future generations. The governor's mansion renovation would be a great way to promote this type of work to the general public. The project is already facing a huge increase in the costs involved — apparently without considering sustainability. This perspective must be included in any taxpayer-funded renovation project. And when it is, the best decision may be to knock it down and build from scratch. We won't know that until a more complete picture of the trade-offs is discussed.

Jay Schiltz, Minneapolis

By the summer of 2010, virtually every bar and restaurant in both Wisconsin and Minnesota were smoke-free for the purpose of protecting employees and the public from the health dangers of inhaling secondhand smoke. This move was contentiously argued: Smokers said they had a right in a free country to smoke. Others contended that they had a right in a free country to enjoy going to bars and restaurants without endangering their health. The health advocates won out.

Now I read in the front page of the Star Tribune ("Pollution fears over big farm proposals," Oct. 17) that the basic argument is not over. Farmers in Wisconsin near the St. Croix River want to increase dairy herds and hog lots to thousands of animals. Evidence shows that rates of nitrates and phosphorus, generated by such large animal lots, are rising, polluting our water, and that the health of humans and animals is being put in jeopardy because of this practice. What happened to the health argument? How is drinking dirty water so different than inhaling secondhand smoke?