Rulemaking - Clean Vehicles Program and General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources

1425 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Bruce Wilson

10/09/22 @ 5:14 AM
I oppose this proposed change. The very idea that the government could force me to purchase a specific type of vehicle is repugnant and decidedly un-American. The Department of Ecology is not an elected body and so this decision will ultimately be a...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Bernadita Sanner

10/09/22 @ 4:45 AM
I oppose this mandate 173 423 WAC. It is unrealistic to force people to have a certain type of vehicle when not all people have the finances for a ZEV, 173 423 WAC. There is not enough research to back this concept or even show proof this works. O...↓
I suggest research of alternatives like Ocean sludge conversion for alternative fuel.
How about vacuuming the polluted air and extracting particles and reuse it.
No attachments

Comment From: david erwiin

10/09/22 @ 4:15 AM
I am opposed to the WA proposed EV standards. These mandates will cost the average person and do nothing to change the "Climate Change Myth". We have way too many of these types of government intrusions on our lives in the once great state of Washi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Fallstrom

10/09/22 @ 2:29 AM
To whom this may concern the State of Washington should not make long term changes with a vote of the people in issues like this.
The costs are going to so high everyone should be part of the process in such long term rulemaking the voters should have...↓
Yours truly Daniel C Fallstrom. Former Commissioner Port of Manchester
No attachments

Comment From: Donald Cole

10/09/22 @ 12:48 AM
The extraction of materials for the manufacture of batteries and then disposal of the batteries for the clean environment vehicles required for the Clean Vehicles Program causes more pollution to the environment and expense to taxpayers than fossil f...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: James Kinder

10/09/22 @ 12:43 AM
lease reject both of these proposed rule changes. They will hurt the poor, destroy jobs, and will do nothing to fight climate change. They violate our rights, and if there is any justice in the world, will cost regulators and politicians their jobs. ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Gary Morriss

10/09/22 @ 12:22 AM
The EV mandate and gas engine ban are unrealistic and unfair, will cost billions to implement and will unfairly penalize rural communities and working families. Incentives are a better approach to encouraging public buying choices rather than a heav...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Debra Blodgett

10/08/22 @ 9:39 PM
This mandate is notoriously progressive and is going to hurt our lower and middle class citizens of Washington state. The cost of electric vehicles is more than most people make in a year making it completely impossible for most people to purchase.

Th...↓

This is a horrible solution to try and stop "climate change," which if any smart person knows, has been scientifically disproven and is a total scam. It has become a power grabbing, money making religion.
No attachments

Comment From: Bruce Guthrie

10/08/22 @ 9:32 PM
Please reject both of these proposed rule changes. They will hurt the poor, destroy jobs, and will do nothing to fight climate change. They violate our rights, and if there is any justice in the world, will cost regulators and politicians their jobs...↓
No attachments

Comment From: John Hofer

10/08/22 @ 9:02 PM
Banning fossil fuel vehicles is absolutely ridiculous. Any average IQ human being can do the research and clearly see that.
No attachments

Comment From: Jon Higley

10/08/22 @ 8:58 PM
This ZEV ruling, while well meaning, is short sighted and ill-conceived as it does not guarantee that the infrastructure will be in place to adequately handle the demand for providing the power to support the increase in electrical energy under our c...↓

The average EV costs $66,000 today. If inflation is not corrected, this price may be well over $100K by 2035 forcing the lower-income individual or family to be forced to use the existing rapid transit system. This mandate will cost consumers and businesses BILLIONS, thereby maintain the inflationary circumstance we currently face. Creating the charging infrastructure to support this mandate will be expensive and could take many more years than intended. The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging loads, are unknown and could be in the BILLIONS, raising the cost of electricity for those who can afford EVs.

Unless there is a viable plan by the state to radically modify the existing infrastructure of the electrical grid in WA state, this plan will only create a drastic setback in the state's ability to maintain a robust economy since workers will be unable to maintain the jobs which require mobility which is not dependent on transportation systems which most likely will not take up the difference. That is not a wise or prudent approach.
No attachments

Comment From: Richard Siegle

10/08/22 @ 8:56 PM
Steering a ship without a driver, this is what you are doing. If your purposes are worthy people will follow rather then getting cattle probed like you are tiring to do to all of us. Let the people decide ....
No attachments

Comment From: Cynthia Galante

10/08/22 @ 8:51 PM
We drive an EV by choice. This should not be a mandate by the government! EV's are not as environmentally friendly as you would think. The lithium batteries are toxic. We do not have the grid that can accommodate such a mandate. Where do you think...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Joseph Conley

10/08/22 @ 8:24 PM
Do not make these changes!!! This is unrealistic and harmful to our state and economy. The new tax on the gas of $50 cents a gallon in 2023 will do enough damage. I am a third-generation Washingtonian and feel this state is going sideways. I owned...↓

People can not afford the car they are driving now. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT TO HAVE PEOPLE BUY AN ELECTRIC CAR FOR $60K AND THEN HAVE A CHARGING STATION INSTALLED? You are putting the cart before the horse. There are not enough charging stations for people in apartments and condos. This will hit minorities especially hard and people without the means to upgrade.

THIS BILL WILL HURT PEOPLE OF COLOR AND THE POOR!!!! SAY NO MORE! PASS THIS BILL AND YOU WILL MAKE THE POOR HAVE TO WALK TO WORK AND SCHOOL!

It is great to be green but at the expense of so many disadvantaged people. There has to be an alternative. Let the people that are being affected by these changes be a part of them. Put to a vote in the state and see how we should proceed.

Regards.
JC
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Keel

10/08/22 @ 8:22 PM
I oppose any rule eliminating gasoline vehicles. California infrastructure can't even support their current electric demands and you expect us to all go to EVs? This makes absolutely no sense, especially when you factor in the environmental impact ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Lawrence Trimble

10/08/22 @ 8:20 PM
Two things, firstly the EV vehicle mandate. So I've heard that we will implement a new EV vehicle purchase requirement either concurrently with California in 2034 or perhaps two years earlier. Either one is unbelievable. It will make a shortage of us...↓
No attachments

Comment From: REVICE SCOTT

10/08/22 @ 8:19 PM
I am very strongly apposed to the banning of fossil fuel automobiles. For starters, our electric grid could not support it . Secondly, the production & disposal of lithium batteries are more harmful to the environment than fossil fuel's. If anything,...↓
Areas of California are already experiencing electricity shortage, so where does this lead ? Can you imagine what problems they and many other cities would face if every household owned just one electric car ? Do people realize how many things we use every day that are derived from fossil fuel's? No , banning fossil fuel's IS NOT THE ANSWER!
No attachments

Comment From: Kenneth Way

10/08/22 @ 8:08 PM
I oppose any ruling eliminating gas vehicles.
No attachments

Comment From: Dennis Goellner

10/08/22 @ 7:54 PM
Electric vehicle mandate and gas engine ban is a bad idea,let people chose what kind of vehicle that they want to buy,government should not be forcing people to buy cars that they don't want and cannot afford.the government is a employee of we the pe...↓
No attachments

Comment From: David Fritz

10/08/22 @ 7:53 PM
Without a vote of the people you have adopted Socialist policies. Using Th. LIFTR reactors would solve our problems. Wake Up!
No attachments

Comment From: John Bowen

10/08/22 @ 7:44 PM
In this time of high inflation and world uncertainty, this is not the a good move for our economy or cost of living for citizens.
No attachments

Comment From: John Harvey

10/08/22 @ 5:35 AM
EV mandate ignores the fact that battery production for the EV produces as much or more carbon emissions than a traditional gasoline operated vehicle. And bigger EV batteries, for greater EV range, will surpass traditional vehicles significantly. A...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/07/22 @ 11:54 AM
Completely foolish. Where is the infrastructure upgrades going to come from? Where are the spent batteries going to be shipped for recycling? How are heavy materials going to be transported? All these and many more need to be sufficiently answered be...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/07/22 @ 11:50 AM
I OPPOSE this proposed rulemaking changes because first and foremost, THIS IS NOT CALIFORNIA! California is stupid! Why should we be adopting stupid California rules? Second, motor vehicles wouldn't make as much pollution if you didn't do stupid thin...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Susan Milke

10/07/22 @ 11:25 AM
Speaking from experience, I own an electric car. I purchased the Leaf in 2011 for $38,000. I did get some form of rebate, but depending on your household income you don't necessarily get the full credit. I do love my electric car. I enjoy not spen...↓

We have the technology to make gasoline cars get 500 miles a gallon. Read the book
"The Ecology of Commerce". Consumers should have options to fit their lifestyle. Make gas cars more efficient. And unfortunately you will put so many people out of business that work in the "oil" industry, that you will create a depression.
No attachments

Comment From: United Moving & Storage (Shauna Washburn)

10/06/22 @ 1:09 PM
EV mandate, gas engine and heavy duty vehicle ban, are unrealistic and unfair, will cost billions to implement, and will unfairly penalize rural communities, working families, and cause uncertainty for trucking operations in delivering critical goods...↓

EVs are still too costly and don't work for all drivers. Washington residents and businesses should be able to choose the vehicle that works best for them.

• The charging time for trucks is likely unworkable for the industry.
• The average EV costs $66,000.1 This mandate will cost consumers and businesses BILLIONS.
• Heavy Duty Electric Vehicles (HDZEV) will NOT work for the diverse scenarios in which trucking works. Add to this the estimated cost of a HDZEV is $200,000 to $800,000 2 or 3 or 4 times more than a traditional clean diesel tractor. Creating a risky, expensive, and unrealistic situation for many trucking companies.
• Creating the charging infrastructure to support this mandate will be expensive and could take years.
• The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging loads are unknown and could be in the BILLIONS.
No attachments

Comment From: Wendy Marsolek

10/06/22 @ 7:35 AM
I am against the ban of gas-powered vehicles. Electric vehicles are a great option for those who would like to purchase them but there are not enough advancements in technology to mandate EV. There are also many costs financially and environmentally...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dan Marsolek

10/06/22 @ 7:30 AM
I think mandatory electric cars is a rotten idea. As many other people have asked is how do they plan to supply the electric grid with enough electricity to power these vehicles. Is it going to be coal or natural gas both of which they are wanting to...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Chris Sheehy

10/06/22 @ 7:15 AM
This is not the way. This is not in the best interest of Washingtonians.
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas McKinzie

10/06/22 @ 12:35 AM
Any professional environmentalists who do not care to curry favor with politicians will tell you that "climate change" isn't as dangerous a threat to this planet, especially from this country. India and China make up 1/3 of all carbon emissions in th...↓

Studies have shown that over an entire vehicle's life, hybrid cars are actually the most efficient between fuel consumption and carbon emissions. If you want to curb emissions, stop pushing false short-term solutions just to set up real long-term failures. Work with actual professionals who aren't swayed by greed, and stop catering to the Federal Government. Their competence weakens every day.
No attachments

Comment From: Jayne Bell

10/05/22 @ 7:21 PM
While I am all for a cleaner environment, the proposed mandates do not achieve that goal. Perhaps in our area it might make a slight difference, but the truth is, we have some of the cleanest air in the nation - air pollution is simply not what shoul...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Gordon Lindell

10/05/22 @ 2:15 PM
The residence of Washington don't want the department of Ecology legislating the type of automobiles that the citizens choose to drive. I represent my wife, daughter and son. We own 5 ICE vehicles now and don't plan on converting to toy battery veh...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/05/22 @ 1:28 PM
Following anything California does is ridiculous. EV batteries are a bigger pollution issue than gas operated vehicles. This is insane.
No attachments

Comment From: Philip Lane

10/05/22 @ 11:56 AM
Our economy is failing as prices rise through the roof which compromises the entire US economy. Placing more short sided legislation will only serve to make the current economic climate worse and only make inflation worse. I am plum sick and tired of...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Emily Tadlock

10/05/22 @ 7:41 AM
Electric Vehicles should be a choice not a mandate. 1. EVs are more expensive than gasoline vehicles and by forcing families to purchase them the state places undue burden on family budgets. And the replacement cost for EV batteries are the price of ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Cheryl Joy

10/05/22 @ 6:42 AM
I greatly oppose turning WA State into another California by adopting their laws, as a taxpayer and as a small business owner.
No attachments

Comment From: Kathryn Palmer

10/04/22 @ 6:37 PM
This rule will further injure the working class who can ill afford the onerous cost of an EV, I protest being forced to have to spend that kind of money on a mandated type of vehicle, in my opinion this rings of totalitarianism. Thank you for the cha...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ron de Ru

10/04/22 @ 4:26 PM
I am opposed to The Department of Ecology's yet another extreme proposal. My family and I are not in favor of the sweeping and harmful mandate for zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) for Washington consumers and a ban on new gasoline-powered vehicles! Pr...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ben Dekock

10/04/22 @ 9:50 AM
While I'm 100% for cleaner air, and earth sustaining decisions, it can not be driven by a "political based timeline", it can ONLY be driven by a "technological based time line".
Failing to adhere to this principle, could result in a financial and infr...↓
We are overly focused on one technology, that has a carbon footprint no different than current energy sources, with the added danger of depleting rare earth minerals, and it's politically and strategically sensitive sources with the seemingly sole focus on an electrical solution.
We are ignoring hydrogen, the most abundant energy source on earth, with long lasting sustainability benefits, which can be sourced locally, vs offshore imports.
We furthermore need to adopt a "blended approach" to energy sourcing, as oil will be required for lubrication, and a plethora of products for centuries to come. This includes the exiting technology for heavy transportation, as in maritime shipping, and the railroad industry.
Lastly, change by nature takes time, infrastructure change takes time, economic preparation for what amounts to the biggest energy change in human history - will DEFINITELY take time.
While goals are admirable, and timelines are a part of goal setting, it must be driven by a realistic technology advance, and not be supersede by political nor ideological fantasy.
No attachments

Comment From: Taisiya Kushykov

10/04/22 @ 9:39 AM
The average EV cost $66,000. This mandate will cost consumers and businesses billions. Creating the charging infrastructure to support this mandate will be expensive and could take years. The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Alice Downs

10/04/22 @ 8:30 AM
Change is often a good thing. And for those who are interested in buying an electric vehicle, they should have the choice to buy one if they want and can afford it. Many of Washington's population could not afford this and it should not be forced up...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Bert Downs

10/04/22 @ 7:50 AM
While I support the development of both technology and rules that help us use our resources with increasing wisdom, I'm also committed to wisdom that takes into account the well-being and realities the state's population faces at any given point in t...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Petershagen

10/04/22 @ 4:09 AM
I thought this was a free country. Forcing me to buy a product I don't want and one that will NOT fix ANY pollution problem we have, is not in our forecast. We do not have any/enough product backup to produce the power needed for all the EV's to b...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Rick Koyanagi

10/04/22 @ 12:00 AM
: Watch "Hidden cost inside all electric vehicles revealed" on YouTube: https://youtu.be/He-3hJHEFFs   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-GEACeX744   https://www.howtogeek.com/832974/why-you-should-buy-a-hybrid-instead-of-an-electric-car/  Our Electri...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dennis Flabetich

10/03/22 @ 5:40 PM
In my opinion the EV mandate and gas engine ban are unrealistic and unfair, the cost to implement will be substantial, and it's effect will unfairly penalize rural communities and working families.

EVs are still too costly and don't work for most fami...↓

The average EV costs $66,000, making this proposed mandate out of reach for most residents.

Creating the charging infrastructure to support this mandate will be expensive and could take years

The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging loads, are unknown and could cost BILLIONS.

Finally, the cost of charging cannot be projected effectively providing residents another major bill that they do not need.

I vehemently oppose this proposed ruling!
No attachments

Comment From: Heidi Dennis

10/03/22 @ 2:12 PM
Before you force everyone to have an electric vehicle to drive. You might want to have the electrical grid able to handle all this electricity. Just look at California this past summer, when they told people to not charge their electric vehicle, ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Raymond Roeder

10/03/22 @ 1:43 PM
Do Not Do This!!! It's a bad idea because it is not feasible. Consider what this will do to automobile sales and service across the State. Consider the amount of pollution required to build and dispose of batteries for these EV's. Where are we going ...↓
Nothing should be mandated. If it's a good idea, everyone will jump on board voluntarily.
No attachments

Comment From: Brian Hildebrant

10/03/22 @ 12:27 PM
This scheme will unfairly effect health and equity of minorities, people with disabilities, seniors on fixed incomes and small businesses throughout Washington. The environmental impact from lithium mining, battery hazardous waste and the increased ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: KRISTEN WEISE

10/03/22 @ 12:21 PM
Please stop adopting these bills until a clear path forward to upgrades to the electrical infrastructure AND AFFORDABLE vehicle options are available. Please put an achievable and realistic plan in place to upgrade the infrastructure, THEN determine...↓
Let's not even talk about the harmful process of obtaining all the necessary subcomponents for the batteries or the disposal options/impacts.
Commerce: With heavy-duty trucks costing on average $400K, the limited range and NO rebates/help for the truck drivers and fleets that must start upgrading, what is the cost to the consumer? We, as consumers, will bear the cost of both availability of products and the price of the expensive units.

Adopting these rules is irresponsible without ACTUALLY putting in an achievable plan to support the infrastructure required at reasonable costs to the consumers and taxpayers. Exchanging one consumable resource with another (Lithium) is not a long-term solution. Has Washington Department of Ecology done ANY research on Lithium mining and its impacts on the countries with the resource? Or is the state putting up blinders because the resource doesn't come from the US?
Shame on the Department of Ecology and our governor's office for even considering moving forward. Washington State should be better than this.
No attachments

Comment From: Randy Asa

10/03/22 @ 12:20 PM
EV mandate and gas engine ban are unrealistic and unfair, will cost billions to implement and will unfairly penalize rural communities and working families.

EVs are still too costly and don't work for most families. Washington residents should be able...↓
The average EV costs $66,000. This mandate will cost consumers and businesses BILLIONS.
Creating the charging infrastructure to support this mandate will be expensive and could take years.
The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging loads, are unknown and could be in the BILLIONS.
No attachments

Comment From: Sunnie McAdams

10/03/22 @ 12:14 PM
I am against the enactment of these rules. We do not have the energy or the infrastructure to deliver the power for all these new vehicles. The cost of electric cars is not viable for many families and/or individuals, not to mention the necessary sp...↓

Wayne makes many of the points I would like to make, so I am reposting those questions here:
Wayne Wright
I am 100% opposed to this proposal. �
Before any action is taken, I expect a complete and truthful environmental impact
statement on the topic. �
Specifically,
1) How will traditional fuel operated vehicles be transitioned and what will be the fate of all those
vehicles?
2) What will be the source of the energy that charges these EVs and what is that impact?
3) What is the fate of the batteries for EVs? How are they disposed of? �Where are
they disposed of? What are the recycling/retrofit options?
4) How will this edict impact outlying communities such as Stevens County, Pacific
County, and other impoverished areas in rural WA state? �
5) What is the financial and environmental cost of this proposal in terms of infrastructure? Who will
pay for it?
6) What market conditions will support this decision? Currently, independent gas
stations are common and available to all. This proposal will shift everything and make
fueling/charging cars redundant and costly. �This decision could ruin countless gas
station owner/operators.
7) It takes decades to get a new hydropower license, solar facility license, wind power
license - how can this proposal be effective within the timeline set? �Environmental
reviews alone will cause serious delays in the proposal. ANY objections or
environmental challenges will create huge delays and costs.
8) Incentives are already in place to promote EV in WA state what alternatives were
considered and how they were evaluated. Again a well done EIS will address
alternatives and provide a transparent thought process to decision making. �
9) What is the overall long term energy strategy for WA state and how does this
proposal fit into that strategy? �How does that strategy provide for the citizens of
WA state - all citizens - not just city dwellers with short driving distances.
10) How will this proposal affect transportation funding in WA state? Gas tax has been
a huge issue and will remain so. With more EVs, how will these vehicles pay their fair
share? �
11) If I cannot sell my gasoline or diesel powered vehicle in WA state after 2035, will the state pay
me fair market value? This proposal portrays a clear property "taking" in the future that makes the
state government vulnerable to multiple lawsuits with great cost to WA state citizens.
12) How will the proposal affect long hauling trade and commerce? What
affect/impact will that have on WA state ports and trade across state, national, and
international boundaries? �
13) Based on current data, EV production will not likely meet the forced demand of
enacting this proposal. What contingencies or "off ramp" options are being considered
if production cannot meet demand?�14) What contingencies are there if electrical
energy grids cannot support this increased demand for electrical power? �
These are but a few of the critical questions that must be answered before this
proposal is acted upon!� I expect/demand a full and complete SEPA/NEPA review.�
Please listen to the MANY Washington residents who are against this going forward.
No attachments

Comment From: Margaret Reynolds

10/03/22 @ 12:12 PM
Regarding the governor's mandate for zero emission vehicles - the cost is simply too high for the average Washingtonian to afford. The price of electric vehicles and maintaining them cannot be sustained with the current average income. Most parts o...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Michelle Fedore

10/03/22 @ 11:47 AM
Electric vehicles are too costly and will not work for most families. The EV mandate and gas engine ban are unrealistic and unfair and will cost billions to implement and will unfairly penalize rural communities and working families. The cost of elec...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Cecily Hoffman

10/03/22 @ 11:46 AM
Electronic vehicles are too expensive. They do not accommodate all driver's needs. They will not have the necessary power and sustainability for heavy over the road transportation. The cost of providing the charging stations needed and the actual ava...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Puget Sound Transfer (Eric Flodstrom)

10/03/22 @ 11:41 AM
I oppose any further mandates towards the requirements to purchase and operate electric vehicles. If the technology is sound and a viable alternative the market will embrace it and make it a capital priority. The EV technology right now is not financ...↓
Infrastructure
There is not the infrastructure in place to put these requirements of 35% of vehicles sold by 2026. The additional power requirements will come at night when houses need heat in Washington. The problems California is having now with not enough power should be more than enough reason to stop these requirements from moving forward.
Adoption of the Technology
People are moving into electric vehicles without these requirements. Let the transition grow organically and newer technology is available. If forced the best technologies will not win out but rather mass production.
I urge you to pause these requirements, we can be our own community and not follow California into an emerging problem.
No attachments

Comment From: Campbell's Trucking, Inc. (Shannon Campbell)

10/03/22 @ 11:40 AM
EVs are still too costly and don't work for all drivers. Washington residents and businesses should be able to choose the vehicle that works best for them.

• The charging time for trucks is likely unworkable for the industry.
• The average EV costs $66...↓
• Heavy Duty Electric Vehicles (HDZEV) will NOT work for the diverse scenarios in which trucking works. Add to this the estimated cost of a HDZEV is $200,000 to $800,000 2 or 3 or 4 times more than a traditional clean diesel tractor. Creating a risky, expensive, and unrealistic situation for many trucking companies.
• Creating the charging infrastructure to support this mandate will be expensive and could take years.
• The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging loads are unknown and could be in the BILLIONS.
No attachments

Comment From: John Reid

10/03/22 @ 11:16 AM
I am surprised at the lack of forethought in this mandate. I recently bought an EV and am enjoying using it. However, each time I have taken it outside of my home area I have trouble finding working charging stations or have to wait in line to use ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Geoff Latimer

10/03/22 @ 11:03 AM
EVs are too costly and don't work for most families. Washington residents should be able to choose the vehicle that works best for them.
• The average EV costs $66,000. This mandate will cost consumers and businesses BILLIONS.
• Creating the charging i...↓
• The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging loads, are unknown and could be in the BILLIONS.

This is too much to risk against a solution that is not proven for a problem whose cause is still debatable.
No attachments

Comment From: Allen Hall

10/03/22 @ 10:25 AM
The charging time for trucks is likely unworkable for the industry.
The average EV costs $66,000.1 This mandate will cost consumers and businesses BILLIONS.
Heavy Duty Electric Vehicles (HDZEV) will NOT work for the diverse scenarios in which trucking ...↓
• Creating the charging infrastructure to support this mandate will be expensive and could take years.
• The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging loads are unknown and could be in the BILLIONS.
No attachments

Comment From: Chad Messerly

10/03/22 @ 10:23 AM
I think we can all agree that we need to make some changes, but this is to radical and we have no plan on the infrastructure that needs to be in place for this change. The cost to the WA state taxpayers is going to be immense.
No attachments

Comment From: Wayne Wright

10/03/22 @ 10:09 AM
I am 100% opposed to this proposal. �
Before any action is taken, I expect a complete and truthful environmental impact statement on the topic. �
Specifically,
1) How will traditional fuel operated vehicles be transitioned and what will be the fate of a...↓
2) What will be the source of the energy that charges these EVs and what is that impact?
3) What is the fate of the batteries for EVs? How are they disposed of? �Where are they disposed of? What are the recycling/retrofit options?
4) How will this edict impact outlying communities such as Stevens County, Pacific County, and other impoverished areas in rural WA state? �
5) What is the financial and environmental cost of this proposal in terms of infrastructure? Who will pay for it?
6) What market conditions will support this decision? Currently, independent gas stations are common and available to all. This proposal will shift everything and make fueling/charging cars redundant and costly. �This decision could ruin countless gas station owner/operators.
7) It takes decades to get a new hydropower license, solar facility license, wind power license - how can this proposal be effective within the timeline set? �Environmental reviews alone will cause serious delays in the proposal. ANY objections or environmental challenges will create huge delays and costs.
8) Incentives are already in place to promote EV in WA state what alternatives were considered and how they were evaluated. Again a well done EIS will address alternatives and provide a transparent thought process to decision making. �
9) What is the overall long term energy strategy for WA state and how does this proposal fit into that strategy? �How does that strategy provide for the citizens of WA state - all citizens - not just city dwellers with short driving distances.
10) How will this proposal affect transportation funding in WA state? Gas tax has been a huge issue and will remain so. With more EVs, how will these vehicles pay their fair share? �
11) If I cannot sell my gasoline or diesel powered vehicle in WA state after 2035, will the state pay me fair market value? This proposal portrays a clear property "taking" in the future that makes the state government vulnerable to multiple lawsuits with great cost to WA state citizens.
12) How will the proposal affect long hauling trade and commerce? What affect/impact will that have on WA state ports and trade across state, national, and international boundaries? �
13) Based on current data, EV production will not likely meet the forced demand of enacting this proposal. What contingencies or "off ramp" options are being considered if production cannot meet demand?�14) What contingencies are there if electrical energy grids cannot support this increased demand for electrical power? �

These are but a few of the critical questions that must be answered before this proposal is acted upon!� I expect/demand a full and complete SEPA/NEPA review.�
No attachments

Comment From: Mikki King

10/03/22 @ 9:42 AM
I truly want cleaner air, but there's no plan to implement this. Washington State doesn't have the means (ex. financial, power/electricity) to support an EV mandate at this time. The trucking industry alone will be so hard hit by this mandate - do we...↓
No attachments

Comment From: John Garoutte

10/03/22 @ 9:35 AM
As a driver of an all electric vehicle i understand the want for more. But it is unlawful, and unconstitutional to force/ban combustion engines. We as proud Americans have the right to choose if want an EV, ZEV, or gas guzzler. the reality is no stat...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Peter Cribbin

10/03/22 @ 9:02 AM
The EV thing would die it's own death if it was not for the political class pushing them. The only viable alternative is hydrogen fueled vehicles if we can build up the systems. Interestingly Toyota seems to be going that way with their R&D and they ...↓

If they would just leave the market alone the solutions would work themselves out naturally. The "we have to do something" gene in the political class is too strong.
No attachments

Comment From: Brian Waggoner

10/03/22 @ 8:27 AM
This proposed rule is simply tyranny under the guise of "clean air". The cost of this program has little to no real value to the citizens, trading $66,000 per vehicle cost for supposedly cleaner air. The citizen who owns today's vehicle will be for...↓
Please, just once, let the progress take it's natural pace. We're already going to be all electric/ZEV. The latest move only hurts the cause.
No attachments

Comment From: Jason Nasby

10/03/22 @ 7:30 AM
Law makers need to research LP vehicles and stop pushing an agenda for the electrification movement, we do not have an infrastructure to support it! Electricity is far from green! It is my understanding that we do not have the resources available to ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Hay

10/03/22 @ 5:38 AM
Having worked in the electric utility industry for more than 30 years, there is no conceivable way the existing electrical infrastructure, let alone generation infrastructure, is ready for the added load of electric vehicles. Flowery language and pl...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Arnold Houg

10/02/22 @ 6:02 PM
I don't think 1 person can stop gas powered cars from being sold. If we are going to have electric vehicles, let them get developed and the technology to facilitate them come naturally. Let's not rush into this and get blindsided by something we don'...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Coyne

10/02/22 @ 3:42 PM
This administrative tyranny is unacceptable. Regulatory capture was addressed by the founding fathers. It is very very bad, and something that We The People, for whom government works and not the other way around as Ronald Reagan said, need to put ...↓

The whole "climate change" theory discounts the science, included historically recorded scientific events such as the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum that prove that solar activity recedes in cycles, historically, and results in "little ice ages". This has nothing to do with my freedom to operate a gasoline powered engine in our Constitutional Republic, where I have the right to the pursuit of liberty and freedom.

This administrative decision, put forth by unelected bureaucrats is very very evil, and must be stopped at all costs. The survival of our nation depends on the defeat of this nonsense.
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Post

10/02/22 @ 2:48 PM
1. What about people who live in apartments (like my extended family members and friends)? Where will they get access to a charging station every night since they don't have a garage?
2. Is there adequate generating capacity? People need to ch...↓
3. What about cost of vehicles? EV's are significantly more expensive.
4. What about long road trips? These aren't everyday needs, but they are significant needs 2 or 3 or more times a year for some people.
This has not been well thought out.
I strongly urge you to let this transition happen more slowly and be driven by market forces and not legislative ones.
Mike Post
No attachments

Comment From: Warren George

10/02/22 @ 2:06 PM
This ban makes zero sense. If EVs are desired, the marker will dictate. Logistically, this does not work, especially with the continued talk of eliminating reliable sources of hydro to charge said EVs. Range is not sufficient for those of us living i...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Lou Childs

10/02/22 @ 1:37 PM
Electric cars sound good on the face of it but are a terrible idea for several reasons. The people who are for electric cars are thinking with their emotions and not the facts. The amount of materials needed for a battery, that is being mined by chil...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ronald Killian

10/02/22 @ 12:30 PM
As a senior citizen with very limited income I am forced by inflation and technology into poverty that I would never thought possible before I retired. Now the government want's me (by force) to exit my fossil fuel vehicle to convert to electric veh...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jo Ann Potter

10/02/22 @ 11:47 AM
Rulemaking - Clean Vehicles and General regulations for Air Pollution Sources
This will exacerbate the problem. Electric vehicles will increase the load on the electric grid. Electric power needs fossil fuels to generate electricity. This is making...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Clare Wilson

10/02/22 @ 11:15 AM
I oppose the passing of this bill. The creation of lithium batteries uses child labor and creates more pollution than it saves. Our electric grid is not prepared to handle everyone charging their cars daily, and we will have to have rolling blackouts...↓
No attachments

Comment From: jon shields

10/02/22 @ 9:08 AM
The move to EV's over a logical and realistic timeline is prudent. Mandating this prior to the electric grid being ready is foolish and potentially catastrophic for our country. To move all vehicles to electric will triple the size of our power gri...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Kimberlee Wixom

10/02/22 @ 7:56 AM
I oppose this bill. Ed's are out of price range for most people with the starting price at $60,000. The electric grid is not going to handle this either. The parts also for this care are more harmful to our world than gas parts. I can't get behin...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Judy Smith

10/02/22 @ 7:42 AM
The Inslee administration failed to meet even one of his stated Covid goals; instead, much harm has been documented by "unintended consequences" of the dictates that issued from the governors executive office rather than our legal law-making process ...↓

Yet here we go again with this e-car dictate, on the brink of bypassing the democratic process with autocratic mandates that would hit every aspect of life and work in our region.

There is NO evidence or experience to give confidence that the State can be successful dictating and leading and managing this level of transformative change.

A great proportion of the adult population is aware that the State is withholding critical information on cost, mobility, economic and life-safety impacts of the e-vehicle edict!!!!! We are being kept in the dark figuratively speaking, and we will be put in the dark literally if this rushed idiocy proceeds.

The State has not talked about, WILL NOT talk about:

- How large families are supposed to get around.
- How people especially in rural areas are supposed to drive distances greater than city commutes, when vacation time and business time is limited, and airfare for family travel would add up to an unaffordable total.
- How the State has secret intentions to tax-out gas vehicles brought from other states, or deny registration altogether.

-Most important, HOW AND WHEN, AND WHETHER THE ELECTRICITY SOURCE AND DISTRIBUTION GRID WILL BE GREATLY BUILT UP TO HANDLE THIS MASSIVE AND SUDDEN EXPLOSION IN DEMAND.

Let's do it right -- let's don't just "do something." Let's plan publicly, collaboratively and for the long term, because the effects will persist long after current politicians are enjoying their retirement.
No attachments

Comment From: Donald Rude

10/02/22 @ 7:00 AM
There is no need for this bill. The Sun is the cause of our climate change (See NASA report 7/19/2022).
Electric cars will never work out. Way to expensive to make batteries, and to re-charge them takes too long. It would take nuke power plants nat...↓
No attachments

Comment From: TERRY MCMILLAN

10/02/22 @ 6:46 AM
Banning gas vehicle sales isnt a solution . Hybrid vehicles are the best transition vehicle. All electric cars are NOT the earth/polution friendly they are touted to be. Their batteries cant be recycled . This proposal of banning gas vehicle sales is...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Marguerite Hiatt

10/02/22 @ 6:28 AM
When will Washington state STOP copying the absurd foolishness of California's power-crazed governor and start making decisions like a fully grownup adult?
No attachments

Comment From: Jina Avila

10/02/22 @ 4:47 AM
As a legal resident of Washington State and a registered voter I oppose the banning of fossil fuels and forcing private automotive industry to do so to the detriment of the American people, causing more damage to the environment by mining lithium for...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Pomerinke

10/01/22 @ 6:23 PM
EV cars would be great if everyone working person could afford one and there was an operational power grid in place to handle their charging requirements. Forcing EVs on everyone before systems are in place to meet the requirements of buyers and char...↓
No attachments

Comment From: IGOR KUSHYKOV

10/01/22 @ 6:08 PM
The average EV cost $66,000. This mandate will cost consumers and businesses billions. Creating the charging infrastructure to support this mandate will be expensive and could take years. The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Debra Hunt

10/01/22 @ 5:54 PM
The EV Mandate and vehicle gasoline engine ban is unrealistic and would have negative impacts on lower income households and rural communities. EVs are expensive to purchase and the electric grid is not adequate for current power demands let alone ma...↓
Washington residents should purchase an EV if and when they want to not by government mandate.
No attachments

Comment From: Stephen Smith

10/01/22 @ 5:39 PM
Why is it that officials here in WA believe they have to do everything that is done in CA? This proposal is a prime example. Anyone with common sense knows that this whole proposal is riddled with technical and financial problems that can not be re...↓

Working at almost all jobs, including DOE, requires superior reasoning, logic, and reading comprehension skills. It would appear that most, if not all, current DOE employees are severely deficient in these areas. Otherwise, proposals like this one would never see the light of day until all areas are thoroughly researched and reasonable solutions are presented for all identified problems. This proposal ignores all of the problems identified in the plan put forth by the CA governor. His proposal, like this one, is based on emotions, not logic, common sense, and reality. Approval of this proposal would be very detrimental to what is best for the citizens of WA State. It is easy for someone in power to just say this is the way it is going to be but the harsh facts of reality can not be ignored by everyone. Those who do not learn from the problems and failures of others are very foolish. Approval of this proposal shows that the DOE employees are not intelligent enough to be trusted with the responsibilities that have been given to them.
No attachments

Comment From: Mike SWANSON

10/01/22 @ 4:05 PM
Please DO NOT try to force expensive major changes onto us the taxpayer, let smart people move us in this new direction which has a better chance of making a true change - versus making a law and forcing the change. I cannot tell you how many things ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: John Lunkes

10/01/22 @ 3:33 PM
Following California's example is not a good way to go. Fuel is, again, increasing in price almost daily at a time when consumers are having to deal with overall hyper inflation caused, in major part, by poor judgement and failing policies on the par...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Gerald McGarvey

10/01/22 @ 3:00 PM
First of all the concept of an electric car being a zero emissions vehicle is a lie. Electric vehicles
emit all sorts of emissions throughout the process of production till when they are demolished. The
implication that carbon dioxide, which is essenti...↓
and alkaline mined refined, fabricated and then disposed are both toxic and volatile are earth
friendly is ridiculous. They are more harmful. We delude ourselves because the real damage
happens to people and countries that can least tolerate it. This notion is as silly as saying fentanyl is
a health food and also quite frankly racist.
This is a bad proposal for several reasons -- economic, environmental, national security, and
ethically.
Others can cite those reasons better than me so I won't dwell on them. The essential question is this
board acting rationally, for the common good, or to further a misguided political end?
Hopefully you can discern that and disregard the emotional talk, the rationalizations and the pseudo
proof.
I leave you with one other fact. For thousands of year the ambient earth temperature rose. Sea
levels were higher than now, the tropical regions more extensive and the frozen polar ones much
more diminished. Then the ambient temperature cooled to the extent that the land you're presently
planted on was under a mile thick glacier, or at least just outside its bounds.
Ice lakes covered much of the northern states. Since then the climate has been steadily
warming...for the last 12,000 years to be exact, with some minor slide back intervals of a couple of
hundred years. All those millions of years of up and down climate change occurred without a single
bit of human intervention.
The next essential fact is for the several hundred thousand years of humanoid species on earth, they
successfully adapted to each cycle of change and did not go extinct...at least extinctions were not
due to climate change...though evolution and adaption played key roles. Worth noting is the more
silly notions people are bantering is humanity will go extinct because of climate change. There's a
good chance humans will go extinct...but not for this and not in the next few years.
The final inconvenient truth is the more the earth warmed the more humanoid species benefited. In
fact for the recorded mini cools such as the 4th century AD and the 16-18th centuries AD, cooling
periods stressed humans. Economies stalled, cultures declined or perished. Not good times. Food
production increased, peace was more prevalent, and population increased during the modern
human era approximately 6000 BC till 2100 AD during the warming intervals.
Please show some common sense. Let people decide what works best. The other inconvenient truth
is humanity does worse when they don't get along and even worse when individuals and markets
are not free to choose.
No attachments

Comment From: Michael A Kildall

10/01/22 @ 1:58 PM
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES
Obviously, Gov. Inslee recruited a boatload of PhDs to initiate this program because it is absolutely lacking any common sense . Many decades will be needed to achieve the stated goals, not in the ridiculous timeline proffered.
1...↓
2) Residential EV quick charging stations for most people means a very expensive service upgrade beyond their means.
3) People using their vehicles, sometimes 7 days a week, not only for round trip commutes but also during the workday to transport job materials and tools put many additional miles (hundreds) on their vehicles. For EV owners extra time for charging and trip planning will be necessary. For fossil fuel owners the increased EV presence will only drive-up fuel prices drive down profits for individuals and small business.
The point I and other contributors are trying to make is there are many, many variables that have not been considered in this proposal. Variables that will economically hurt a large segment of Washington's work force if not properly designed and implemented. The Governors agenda should be the last consideration. The health and wellbeing of Washington citizens is first.
Michael Kildall
No attachments

Comment From: Tim Heenan

10/01/22 @ 1:17 PM
This is a horrible idea, it will not make any difference in the overall world carbon. I don't know why Washington always has to be first to do things. Most people can't afford ev, they Dontt go far enough, can't tow anything. Washington has terrible ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Gary Kindness

10/01/22 @ 12:35 PM
While I believe that there will be a transition to electric vehicles, it needs to be done rationally. The proposed rules are not rational. While the Pacific Northwest currently has sufficient electric energy production capacity, implementation of t...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mrs Faulken

10/01/22 @ 12:28 PM
Stop trying to make us California. This is ridiculous. The batteries used in electronic vehicles have a short life span, and they are polluting our environment & making China rich while China continues to destroy the earth. Poor people cannot afford ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Carol McPherson

10/01/22 @ 12:23 PM
I object to basing any regulation changes using California as a model. Their Governor has pushed EVs as a better mode of transportation for solving Air Pollution. I have now learned he is telling EV owners to stop charging their vehicles so much. T...↓
No attachments

Comment From: JOSEPH MORROW

10/01/22 @ 11:23 AM
Rulemaking - Clean Vehicles Program and General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources - I oppose the timeline set out as I don't believe we can get there that quickly. Although I support alternative energy in most forms, I also believe fossil fuels ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Hubbard

10/01/22 @ 11:08 AM
I feel that it's completely unrealistic to force electric vehicles on WA state by 2035. The cost to upgrade the electric grid is unknown and no one is even mentioning that. Can we reinforce our electric grid and then talk about forcing everyone into ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: jon anderson

10/01/22 @ 10:53 AM
Attention Dept.of Ecology staff, leadership, WA democrat administration and legislature- your science is flawed as All Electric Vehicles pollute much more than 'true hybrid' technologies that utilize a combination of nickel metal hydride batteries ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: THOMAS FALK

10/01/22 @ 10:40 AM
This change is not what the State of Washington needs or wants. It will be a disaster for the common people of our state with the price of EV's. Why are we so bent on clean air when the biggest offenders China,India and Russia could care less. This s...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Bender

10/01/22 @ 10:31 AM
These comments are directed towards the proposed changes to Chapter 173-423 WAC � Clean Vehicles Program, and Chapter 173-400 WAC, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources.

Specifically, I'm concerned about the proposal for 35% of new passenger v...↓

It is my firm belief that the policy makers of today are way overreacting to the greenhouse gas/climate change issue. Reduction of greenhouse gasses is an admirable goal, but it's just not that urgent.

Thomas J Bender
No attachments

Comment From: Dirk Halliwill

10/01/22 @ 10:20 AM
While the idea of EV's sounds great we are not and will not be ready for them in the timeframe proposed currently. The infrastructure will not be in place nor is the EV technology ready to replace gas vehicles. It's a great idea whose time will come,...↓
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]