I strongly encourage a shift on how we
are approaching this move to the elimination of tail pipe
emissions. California’s don’t need more mandates and
regulation; we need encouragement and incentive. To truly solve
this problem, it needs to be the choice of the consumer to purchase
in a manner that will achieve the goal of this proposed
regulation. The two
biggest factors in this decision are financial and uncertainty.
When choices/competition is eliminated, price goes up. If this
regulation passes, in the 13 years when it takes effect, the state
will have a decrease in gas tax revenue that will likely lead to
two uncertain outcomes. First, an increase in the gas tax therefore
further burdening low-income family as most can’t afford an
EV alternative or second, another tax to compensate for the lost
revenue. There are other drawbacks to such a hasty implementation
such as: overwhelming the fragile and vulnerable power grid, lack
of a feasible network of charging stations to travel beyond the
vehicles range (keep in mind that Californians will want to travel
outside of the state), supply chain issues which again will limit
the manufacture's ability to offer more choices and the sharp
increase for the demand of electric vehicles will obliterate the
supply chain of rare metals for the batteries, and a lack of
utilitarian choices (i.e. Trucks, SUV's, vans). The regulation as
it stands has its environmental benefits, but it strips
Californians of their choices and forces them into something they
may not desire so therefore I would encourage a different approach
to achieve the goal of this regulation. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
|