Biden/Harris: Insane, infeasible Energy Policies

By The Little Hut @Adobe Stock

Kamala’s Official Government Actions

Finally, it seems to be happening: punching back at insane energy transition policies. “The reason is simple”, notes the Manhattan Contrarian: “The proposed energy transition is infeasible.” It can’t possibly work. You see, the effort to achieve the impossible via government mandates and subsidies will inevitably raise costs and otherwise affect voters directly in ways they would understand. At some point, voters would react.

Read here where Kamala Harris stands on official government action in which she is personally involved. In case you haven’t noticed, the push-back against insane energy transition policies has suddenly become a winning political issue, cheerily observes Francis Menton:

For the first time, Republicans are explicitly using the now patent consequences of the energy transition as a key strategy to win close races, including the presidency.

What’s going on with these EV mandates, Mr. Menton? The Biden/Harris administration seems all on board.

Francis Menton:

There is no question about where Kamala Harris stands on this issue right now as a matter of official government action in which she has been personally involved.

The Biden-Harris administration worked on developing a form of mandates for EVs from the day those two took office, as part of the administration’s “all of government” approach to, supposedly, controlling climate change through regulations.

Two major rules were initiated on the subject, and gradually crept their way through the regulatory labyrinth. After years of process, the two rules became final on, respectively, April 18 and June 7, 2024. This is not ancient history, but rather something that occurred just over four months ago and was big news at the time.

The two Rules are in effect right now. There is no pretending this does not exist, or that it is part of some long-ago talking points of prior Harris campaigns that she has since moved on from. I covered these two rules in a post on June 8 titled “The Latest On The Federal War Against Internal Combustion Vehicles.”

Mr. Menton, as readers we aren’t always closely focused on specific issues. Can you help us out here by giving us a review of the bidding?

The April 18 Rule came from EPA, with the title “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles.” It is 373 pages long in the three-column single-spaced format of the Federal Register. The gist is to progressively tighten the permissible emissions from internal combustion cars such that only fewer and fewer and smaller and smaller cars can meet them.

The June 7 Rule came from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and sets fuel economy standards for combustion vehicles. Its title is “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond.” This one, often known as the “CAFE” standards, is 1004 pages in standard double-spaced typing.

Question: Is it much of a reach to conclude that the standards, in terms of emissions and fuel economy, are set in a way that most internal combustion engine cars cannot meet?

Manhattan Contrarian: It is a way of government setting standards so most internal combustion engine cars cannot meet them, thus forcing a transition to mostly EVs by the early 2030s.

(Mr. Menton’s post of June 8 cites a March 25 analysis from Atlas EV Hub, which concluded that the EPA Rule alone could force EVs to be as much as 69% of new vehicle sales by 2032).

Question: It sounds like the U.S. is on what you call “a glide path to full electrification.” Won’t this result in significant upsets to the auto industry?

Menton: Well, yes, significant changes are on the way.

According to the EPA rule” Under this final rule, battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric light-duty vehicles could make up 32 percent of all new vehicle sales in model year 2027, increasing to 69 percent by model year 2032. 

The Trump campaign not wanting to miss a political advantage, began running an ad in Michigan explicitly stating that Harris is seeking to ban gasoline-powered cars.

Thanks, Mr. Milton, for putting up the video of the ad at this link. Here are the first few sentences of the text:

Auto workers. Kamala Harris wants to end all gas-powered cars. Crazy but true. Harris’s push requiring electric only is failing big and Michigan auto workers are paying the price. Massive layoffs already started. You could be next. President Trump’s committed to protecting America’s auto workers.

Question: Mr. Menton, what do you think of Kamala Harris denying that she would ever attempt to tell people what kind of car to drive?

The Biden/Harris Gas Car Ban

Menton: Well, let’s take a different approach and look at Ted Cruz’s proposal over at the Senate. Cruz correctly characterizes it as “the Biden-Harris gas car ban.”

The resolution ultimately came to a vote in both the House and Senate, forcing Democratic Senate candidates in close races to take a position and defend it. One of those was Michigan Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin, currently in the House. Here is her statement defending her vote to uphold the Rules.

Excerpt: “In March, the EPA announced new emissions standards that had been drafted in close consultation with Michigan’s auto industry and Michigan’s auto workers. After responding to legitimate concerns from our auto manufacturers, the administration developed standards that were tough and aggressive, but also achievable — and earned the support of the auto industry and the UAW.”

Question: Mr. Manton, you claim a similar situation has been unfolding in Pennsylvania. Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey (PA) is “now pretending that he has been a big supporter of fracking all along.”

Expensive, Unworkable Energy

However things come out this year, Francis Manton predicts that two and four years from now, the needle will have swung further in the direction of energy sanity. “Sooner or later, support for expensive and unworkable energy will become politically toxic. It can’t happen soon enough.”

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The auto industry reportedly is losing billions in trying to sell EVs that few buyers want (and only after getting subsidies), so they are between a rock and a hard place either way thanks to government interference. One of the Manhattan Contrarian’s readers observes:

The automakers and the UAW want to stay in the government’s good graces because they will want continued EV subsidies and a bailout and other “job saving” goodies from taxpayers when they start to teeter on brink of bankruptcy and mass layoffs from their “good high paying union jobs.”