How government sneaks up on you

The proposal to stop selling gas-powered cars in Delaware finally broke through the media noise this week, but it's been years in the making.

Have you ever been warned that the “big story” you’re following is just the shiny object to distract you from what’s really important? This is one of those stories I think has been intentionally flown under the radar. Even I, who often notices a lot of pieces that form a puzzle, was caught off guard because of the stimulus overload of an election year. (Speaking of stimulus overload, let me warn you: I have a fair number of important links on this post.)

Elections had very little to do with this development, though, because much of what was decided came from our state’s executive.

Here’s the deal: if the state of Delaware has its way, in 13 years, and for all practical purposes, you won’t be able to buy a new conventional gasoline-powered vehicle in the state. (I don’t think automakers are phasing them out that quickly.) Your choices would be limited to what they deem “zero emission vehicles,” meaning you’ll have to buy an electric vehicle (EV) whether you want one or not. It also means you’ll be dependent on the availability of charging stations if you are traveling and electricity if you choose to purchase the additional equipment required for home charging.

So how did it become a big deal all of a sudden?

The story was amplified this week when my three-time Legislator of the Year, Rep. Richard Collins, alerted his constituents to a pair of virtual workshops held by the state to discuss these regulations. Included in that amplification was the local conservative talk radio station, WGMD-FM, which on Thursday decided to devote two hours of its evening air time on sister station WUSX-FM to airing the final virtual workshop. Essentially it gave the state the opportunity to present its case, including how it’s trying to make it easier for those who purchased EVs to get a recharge while on the road.

But there were others who sounded the alarm beforehand over the last few months: David T. Stevenson and his colleague John Toedtman of the Caesar Rodney Institute along with Kathleen Rutherford of A Better Delaware penned articles and op-eds detailing the possibility, but because there are so many other crises in the role of government their pleadings went over like the boy crying wolf.

These regulations, though, were really hatched in June of 2017. In reaction to President Trump properly pulling us out of the Paris Climate Accord - a treaty never ratified by the Senate - a number of Democrat-controlled states decided they would work to meet the PCA guidelines anyway and began the U.S. Climate Alliance. Despite the fact our General Assembly was still in session, Governor Carney chose to announce the state would be joining this alliance without legislative input, placing the First State into a treaty never ratified by our representatives.

“As sea levels rise, more than 17,000 Delaware homes, nearly 500 miles of roadway and thousands of acres of wildlife habitat including our critical wetlands are at risk of permanent inundation. Rising average temperatures and an increase in extreme weather events also pose health risks to Delawareans, and threaten our economy. The U.S. should lead in the global fight against climate change. Delaware is proud to join this coalition of states providing that necessary leadership.”

Never mind neither Carney nor any other environmentalist wacko could tell us what our “normal” climate was supposed to be; perhaps temperatures were previously in a long cool stretch and Delaware was supposed to be under water. It’s absolute folly to believe our gas-powered SUVs have impact on the climate, but we may have a slew of fools in charge.

Fast forward to this past March, and the Governor was right there again to announce we would be adopting California’s Zero Emission Vehicle regulations. Again, the General Assembly was in session but Carney chose to accomplish this through executive edict, with unelected bureaucrats writing these new regulations. One could imagine a batch of guys with the old-fashioned green eyeshades in a dimly-lit windowless office somewhere in the bowels of Dover writing new regulations, but the reality is they’ll probably just copy California’s and plug in appropriate sections of Delaware law.

One thing I wondered about was how this law would be enforced when carmakers aren’t in any real hurry to abandon the internal combustion engine (or won’t be, based on sales.) Given the tiny share these EVs have in the current market, even the 35% figure California enacted for 2026 is a stretch considering the fact they’re at 16% right now in the state, which leads the nation in EV sales. Delaware, on the other hand, has EV sales in the low single digits.

So I made a quick study of California’s law, and found this. Pardon the jargon that refers to their formula for calculating emissions.

A manufacturer shall equalize emission debits by earning g/mi NMOG+NOx emission credits in an amount equal to the g/mi NMOG+NOx debits or by submitting a commensurate amount of g/mi NMOG+NOx credits to the Executive Officer that were earned previously or acquired from another manufacturer. A manufacturer shall equalize NMOG+NOx debits within three model years. If emission debits are not equalized within the specified time period, the manufacturer shall be subject to the Health and Safety Code section 43211 civil penalty applicable to a manufacturer that sells a new motor vehicle that does not meet the applicable emission standards adopted by the state board. (Emphasis mine.)

A further reading of their Health and Safety penalty code leads me to believe the fine would be $5,000 per unit, so if they used California’s penalties in the First State a carmaker who was short by 1,000 units in a given year in Delaware would owe the state $5 million.

So it’s no wonder that a report about Tuesday’s first of two December workshops stated opponents outnumbered supporters by a 3:1 ratio. I imagine it was even more stacked against the proposal on Thursday with the amplification by conservative media. However, that doesn’t count the first three held in November before Thanksgiving which probably had mostly sympathetic onlookers.

In looking at the state’s case, they are under the belief that we would help to alleviate the problems caused by what’s really Pennsylvania’s non-attainment of federal ozone standards. For much of the past decade, the state has only had 2 or 3 “exceedance” days a year, with the overall average for that period being about 4.5 days. If this is the reason the state is undergoing such a radical change, I have to tell you it’s a pretty weak reason.

Near the conclusion of its presentation, the state asks this question: “If NOT ACC2, then what policies should the Department implement to reduce vehicle emissions? (ACC2 is the Advance Clean Cars program.) I want to answer that with a few questions of my own:

• As I noted above, how can we tell that this will affect the climate when we don’t even know what a normal climate is or what the true sea level, number of storms, and so forth should be? All we have to go by is maybe 100-150 years of semi-reliable records when Delaware has been here for thousands of years.

• Secondly, why should we trust a state that these numbers won’t change when they’ve tinkered with more and more unattainable renewable portfolio numbers and participated within RGGI in a bid to soak utilities for more money to transfer their wealth?

• Finally, why do this end run around the legislative process when you know the majority party in this state would back this law? Don’t politicians want to have a vote for this on their record if it’s so great?

Speaking to my last question, as state Representative Jesse Vanderwende, who represents an area just up Delaware’s western border from me, noted in a social media post:

By imposing the transition through coercive regulatory measures, the Carney Administration is all but ensuring needless turmoil, pain, and expense for all Delawareans. I will be joining with colleagues who share my concerns to introduce legislation to restore consumer freedom in our state.

Here is the legislature’s chance to get on the record.

We are NOT bound by the Paris Climate Agreement; however, it can be argued that, through the use of our heretofore bountiful supplies of natural gas as a source of electricity, we have done more to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere than most of the signatories to the agreement, particularly the exempt nations of China and India - the former building smoke-belching coal plant after coal plant to supply their needs. We could do more to limit carbon emissions by revamping and restarting our nuclear power program than we will ever do with this regulation - but the state can’t steal from automakers if we do things my way.

In essence, what we are debating here is legalized extortion: make cars that people don’t want but make us feel like we’re saving the planet or we will exact our toll upon you. And don’t believe the automakers will take this in the shorts; nope, they’re going to raise their prices even more to cover this cost.

Send this back to California and let them suffer with it.