Great Seal of Virginia

by James C. Sherlock

Few media outlets are as influential with their readership as Consumer Reports or as active in soliciting direct contact of public officials on issues that management feels are important to that publication’s political values. That is their right, but false statements in support of their positions is a violation of public trust.

I received yesterday afternoon in my email a solicitation for political action in Virginia pushed out by Consumer Reports to all subscribers. It read:

Earlier this week, the Virginia House of Delegates approved an exciting piece of legislation that would allow the state to make it easier for consumers to buy fuel-efficient and electric vehicles at car dealerships in the Commonwealth.

That in turn could help drivers save money on fuel and reduce our air pollution: a win-win no matter how you slice it.

But before the bill can get signed into law, it must pass through the Senate by next week. Can you send a message to your VA Senator now and ask them to vote YES on House Bill 1965?

(This spot had a button with which to send the email)

Because of the pandemic, the legislative session is shorter than usual, so we don’t have much time. That’s why it’s critical for us to get as many messages as possible into the Senate so we can get this bill passed before the clock runs out.

Send a quick email now your Senator to ask them to pass House Bill 1965 to ensure Virginians can find next-generation cars, trucks, and SUVs at nearby dealerships.

Once you’ve sent your email, please consider forwarding this email action to friends and family in Virginia who might be able to do the same. With a quick deadline approaching, we need to ensure this critical bill is prioritized by our local lawmakers.

One problem. It isn’t true. Not even close.

The Bill

Here is the relevant section of HB 1965.

§ 10.1-1307.04. Low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicle standards.
A. As used in this section:
“LEV” means low-emission vehicle.
“ZEV” means zero-emission vehicle.
B. The Board may adopt by regulation and enforce any model year standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, including LEV and ZEV standards pursuant to § 177 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7507). The Board shall promulgate final regulations for (i) an LEV program for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions and (ii) a ZEV program. Such programs shall be applicable to motor vehicles beginning with the 2025 model year, or to the first model year for which adoption of such standards is practicable. The Board shall periodically amend any regulations adopted pursuant to this section to ensure continued consistency of such standards with the Clean Air Act.
C. The Board may work in cooperation with, and enter into agreements with, other states to administer the requirements of any regulations adopted pursuant to this section.
2. That the regulations required to be adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board pursuant to § 10.1-1307.04 of the Code of Virginia, as created by this act, shall be exempt from the requirements of the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq. of the Code of Virginia). Such regulations shall become effective upon filing with the Virginia Registrar of Regulations.
3. That the regulations required to be adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board pursuant to § 10.1-1307.04 of the Code of Virginia, as created by this act, shall not become effective prior to January 1, 2024.
[ 4. That the State Corporation Commission may exclude energy jurisdictional retail sales related to zero-emission vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles from energy jurisdictional retail sales calculated pursuant to § 56-596.2 of the Code of Virginia. ]

Note: § 56-596.2. Energy efficiency programs; financial assistance for low-income customers governs the conduct of incumbent investor-owned electric utilities. Not sure why that appears here.

The Consumer Reports statement is false

Can anyone find in that proposed change to the law any words that would allow the state to make it easier for consumers to buy fuel-efficient and electric vehicles at car dealerships in the Commonwealth? Me either.

It is a false statement by Consumer Reports and a rather bold one. They would tell you their intentions are pure, perhaps justifying some “sloppy” wording.

HB 1965 will deny citizen participation in the rule-making process

The exemption in the bill from the Administrative Process Act is particularly egregious. It eliminates the existing rights of citizens to have a role in the crafting of regulations.

The left is going to get what they want from the State Air Pollution Control Board. The appointees were all picked by Democratic governors to give it to them.   As example, the current chairman directed the legal and litigation efforts of the Virginia office of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

This bill expands the writ of that board to EVs and shows the impatience of the left with public participation in processes they control by waiving the Administrative Process Act.

The Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq. of the Code of Virginia), requires in part:

  • that prior to rule making an agency provide the Registrar of Regulations with a Notice of Intended Regulatory Action that describes the subject matter and intent of the planned regulation.  At least thirty days should be provided for public comment.
  • that each agency develop, adopt and use, public participation guidelines for soliciting the input of interested parties in the formation and development of its regulations.  Further, each agency should afford interested persons an opportunity to submit data, views, and arguments, either orally or in writing.
  • that before delivering any proposed regulation under consideration to the Registrar, the agency submit a copy of that regulation to the Department of Planning and Budget.  Within forty-five days, the Department of Planning and Budget in coordination with the agency should prepare an economic impact analysis of the proposed regulation.
  • that before promulgating any regulation under consideration, the agency should deliver a copy of that regulation to the Registrar.  The agency should also file along with copy of regulation a summary of the regulation and a separate and concise statement of:
    – basis of the regulation,
    – purpose of the regulation,
    – substance of the regulation,
    – issues of the regulation, and
    – response of agency to the economic impact analysis.
  • executive review of proposed and final regulations procedures include:
  • review by the Attorney General to ensure statutory authority for the proposed regulations, and
  • examination by the Governor to determine if the proposed regulations are (a) necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and (b) clearly written and easily understandable.
    any person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation, or party aggrieved by and claiming unlawfulness of a case decision have a right to review by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.  Actions may be instituted in any court of competent jurisdiction and the judgments of the courts of original jurisdiction are subject to appeal to or review by higher courts.

All of those citizen protections are rendered inactive by HB 1965 in the case of LEV and ZEV standards. Justification? None offered.

Vote no on HB 1965

I have seen no public attempt to explain HB 1965’s denial of public participation in rule making. Indeed I have seen no attempt to explain why Virginia needs to regulate LEV and ZEV standards since they are subject to federal regulation.

The bill exists because Democrats think they can pass it, not because they can or will explain it.

So, Senators, please understand the basis of the automated emails you receive on HB 1965 was a false characterization of the bill by Consumer Reports.  And understand that more of your constituents now understand what is really in it.

Vote no on HB 1965.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

28 responses to “Consumer Reports Misleads on Virginia EV Bill”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    One of the big energy issues I hadn’t gotten around to. This is the 2021 green push, instead of the previously discussed carbon tax scheme, the Transportation and Climate Initiative. The auto dealers are behind some of this, too, Sherlock. It has quite a head of steam.

    Not news to me that Consumer Reports is taking a firm left stance.

    1. sherlockj Avatar

      My small attempt to reduce that head of steam.

      Consumer Reports is welcome to take a firm left stance. They are not welcome, at least by me, to misrepresent the facts when doing so.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        But that is usually required to support such stances. 🙂

    2. Nor me either (re: left leaning CR).
      When Prius first came out (2004-2006), almost every issue of CR said it did not make sense to pay $3000-$4000 more for a hybrid. But they were wrong at that time. Would not pay off in 5 years, they claimed.

      Since then they have gone way left, and have green-washed electric cars. I have been well aware of their leftist stance since 2012 or so.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Yeah, okay. Just keep your Prius outta the left lane or do the 85 that we both know that car is capable of doing. Most the danged Prius drivers in this neck go the double-nickel and look like rocks in a river.

      2. idiocracy Avatar

        Would not pay off in 5 years*

        *Unless you live in Northern Virginia and work in DC and can use it to bypass HOV restrictions

        1. I held mine 14-yrs almost no repairs except tires…never even changed a brake shoe. One of the cheapest cars to own, was the Prius.

          Furthermore probably the best way to help address climate change. Liberals want to quickly destroy the US fossil fuel industry, is the main logic of favoring full electrics over hybrids. As per Michael Moore “Planet of the Humans” , nothing to do with solving climate problem, everything to do with liberal virtue signaling, which is perhaps the most important activity for liberals. Moore actually called the problem “greed” to race to popular non-solutions.

      3. idiocracy Avatar

        In 146,000 miles my 2013 Chevy Volt has needed some software updates, tires, and an electric water pump. (I did that myself, the part cost $180–and the failure of the electric water pump was only noticeable as a lack of heat in winter when the gas engine shut off).

        But I only paid for the 2013 Chevy Volt what a Toyota Corolla of the same mileage and year would have cost (I bought it used).

        So, for me, there was no cost premium for going with the Chevy Volt.

        Oh, and for Nancy Naive, the top speed of the Volt is 102MPH. This is because the electric motor is spinning at roughly 10,000RPM at that speed.

        Any faster and it is in danger of centrifugal destruction.

  2. Exempting the EV rule-making process from public participation? I guess legislators don’t want citizens doing to the EV rules the same thing the environmentalists did to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Public participation is a wonderful thing when you can use it to thwart things you don’t like. It’s a bitch when the public doesn’t like what you’re proposing.

    Gee, I wonder if the editorial boards of Virginia newspapers will stand up for openness and transparency on this issue.

    1. sherlockj Avatar

      It is part and parcel of the Jacobin approach to governance favored by the left. The old saying about Progressive principles: “People can do as they wish as long as it’s mandatory”.

    2. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      Fred Hiatt has probably directed his team to write a series of editorials supporting removing the public from the regulatory process and arguing it’s racist to want to participate.

      Maybe I’ll buy my next car in Maryland.

  3. John Harvie Avatar
    John Harvie

    Wondering when AARP will add their Socialist views to the discussion.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      … he says with his AARP UnitedHealthcare Plan F….

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        And how do you know what Mr. Harvie has in terms of health insurance?

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Uh, could you sit back? Your breath is clouding my magic ball 🎱

  4. Can someone sum up the proposal?
    What are they saying? They will go behind closed doors and let Sierra Club make up our policy?

    As a hybrid owner since 2006, I am interested in the proposal, whatever it is. I probably do not agree with it either, but if it were reasonable I could be on board. I doubt it though.

    1. sherlockj Avatar

      “They will go behind closed doors and let Sierra Club make up our policy?” You have correctly summed it up. Consumer Reports did not, and didn’t even try.

  5. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    So, you go EV and Texas sues the Feds so that this can go on indefinitely…

    “Early findings reveal Permian companies emit nearly three times more methane than EPA estimates. That’s 1.4 million metric tons of methane generated each year from the Permian Basin alone — enough gas to meet the annual gas needs of nearly 2 million homes.”

    1. sherlockj Avatar

      Nothing like early results to boil the blood.

      I wonder how the true numbers compare to livestock methane. It is commercially viable to capture and use that if the greens will permit the pipelines. I’ll leave it to you to guess the likely answer to that.

      Gas companies trying to do just that in Virginia and North Carolina. Don’t complain that it is going to waste if you won’t let it be captured and used.

    2. …..Two-thirds of (methane) emissions come from belching cows, factory farms and rotting landfills. We know liberals love humongous landfills to rot garbage. Liberals will happily tolerate emissions they agree with, but want to foment outrage and ban any emissions they do not agree with. I actually favor controls for reducing methane and things like particulates, and HFC’s, that may be exacerbating glacial melting/etc.. CO2 may be a harder “nut to crack” speaking globally re: population growth.

      1. vaconsumeradvocate Avatar
        vaconsumeradvocate

        As a beef farmer, I can tell you that cattle that are not factory farmed are not a problem source of methane. Putting too many in an area, as factory farms do, is what yields enough methane to collect it. Those spread on farms grazing are not the problem. Some folks try to say all meat farming is bad but that’s not true. Oh, and most farmers are conservatives. Here’s testimony to a US Senate Committee:

        South Dakota Cattleman to U.S. Senate Committee: American Beef is Climate Change Solution https://www.ncba.org/newsreleases.aspx?NewsID=7064

        WASHINGTON (Oct. 17, 2019) — South Dakota cattle producer Todd Wilkinson today told a U.S. Senate subcommittee that contrary to the claims of some environmental and anti-animal-agriculture activists, “American beef production and consumption is a climate change solution.”

        “Climate policies that unfairly target cattle producers fail to recognize the positive role of cattle and beef in a healthy, sustainable food system,” Wilkinson told members of the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. “Rather than adopting misguided policies that threaten the viability of farmers and ranchers, we want to shift the conversation.”

        The subcommittee held today’s hearing on the issue of “Reducing Emissions While Driving Economic Growth: Industry-Led Initiatives.” In his testimony, Wilkinson discussed the environmental benefits of grazing, and busted myths about the effect of methane on global climate.

        “(Grazing) naturally sequesters carbon, a benefit compounded by ruminant grazing,” Wilkinson explained. “Grazing builds deep root systems in prairie grasses, which improve soil health. Healthy soils retain more water, sequester more carbon, and increase the resiliency of our ranches.”

        “Methane emissions from cattle are part of the natural methane cycle,” Wilkinson continued. “Within 10 years, more than 90 percent of that methane combines with oxygen in the atmosphere and converts to CO2. Methane has no long-term impact on climate when emissions and oxidation are in balance. And this balance has been maintained for centuries.”

        Wilkinson, who is co-owner and operator of a commercial cow-calf operation and feeing business in De Smet, S.D., also serves as NCBA’s 2019 Policy Division Vice Chairman and as Vice President of the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Foundation. He closed his testimony by reminding Senators of producers’ long commitment to environmental stewardship.

        “The U.S. cattle industry is proud of its history as stewards of our nation’s natural resources,” he said. “Cattle producers are America’s original conservationists, and we work hard every day to ensure that we can pass our operations on to the next generation. My family, and the entire American cattle producing community, is committed to remaining environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable for generations to come.”

        You can read Wilkinson’s full written testimony here.

        1. Ms. Advocate, I agree with your comments, but I would like to add one phrase: Most (if not all) farmers and ranchers are conservationists. (If you don’t take care of the soil and your animals, you are out of business.)

  6. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Capt. Jim, This old story might be helpful. There have been lawsuits by the aut0omobile dealers association against Tesla since and I think they were unsuccessful.
    A general rule of thumb is that gas-powered vehicles represent 20 to25 percent of any economy. There’s a huge supply chain for them. Lots and lots of money is at stake. I have been following Elon Musk for a while and he’s a brilliant innovator and pushes disruptive products.

    Here’s the story:

    https://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/short-circuited/Content?oid=1915253

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Nancy, Production at the Permian bobas in started declining. It could be that is played or maybe the virus. Don’t know. Another texas shale field, Eagle Ford, also had been doing very well recently

  8. Interesting New Hybrid Tax!

    I just tried to renew my RAV4 registration, and it said I owed $35 extra fee because my car gets 40 MPG which is in excess of the allowed 25 MPG.

    when did this tax get passed? Do all cars over 25 MPG get taxed? Or just hybrids?

    1. vaconsumeradvocate Avatar
      vaconsumeradvocate

      I believe that tax is to help pay for highways. As mileage has improved, they get less gas tax per mile driven. That has hurt highway funds and many say such owners don’t pay a fair share of transportation costs, leading to the new tax.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        That’s what the claim is, anyway. We all know it’s flushed down the same johnny pot in Richmond that the rest of the tax dollars get flushed.

    2. I have a 2012 “Flex Fuel” Ford Focus and I do not pay an extra tax. It gets 35.5 mpg on rural roads even with my heavy foot. The gas mileage approaches 40 mpg on long trips on the interstate, but I’ve never quite gotten it there.

Leave a Reply