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

1425 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Stephen Davenport

10/11/22 @ 1:45 PM
Chapter 173-423WAC. This is very costly and foolish action. No one has yet found a way to safely dispose of all of the batteries. I am retired and the cost of these vehicles is our of my reach and I DON'T WANT ONE. I do not care what California do...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ellen Zouras

10/11/22 @ 1:45 PM
Dear Adam Saul,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Clean Vehicles Program rule. I strongly support the adoption of Advanced Clean Cars II, the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, and the Fleet Reporting Requirement.

Washington needs ...↓

We need to switch to clean vehicles to stop polluting our air. I don't want vehicles that spew fumes driving through my neighborhood and polluting my lungs, and I want everyone who drives to have access to clean vehicles. This is why Advanced Clean Cars II and its equity provisions are important. So is the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, which improves emission standards for large vehicles.

It is also important to gather more information on our transportation system so we can better address the harms it is causing–not only to the environment, but sometimes to workers through poor labor practices. This is why the Fleet Reporting Requirement is an important piece of this regulation.

Every new vehicle sold that is powered by fossil fuels is a missed opportunity. Relying on polluting vehicles hurts the climate and our health. It also makes us beholden to oil companies that bring in record profits while raising prices. We need clean options in Washington.

I strongly support this rule and thank the Department of Ecology for its hard work.

Sincerely,
Ellen Zouras
No attachments

Comment From: David Hallowell

10/11/22 @ 1:39 PM
Worry about making China more clean not making us like China. The public does not want this stop your dicticoral BS
No attachments

Comment From: Dan Moline

10/11/22 @ 1:36 PM
Has anybody thought about when they do away with fossil fuels, mining "How are they going to make batteries for the EV? What about all the infrastructure jobs on highways (Big Equipment) Requires much more voltage to charge and they will need bigger ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Edgar Meyer

10/11/22 @ 1:36 PM
Global warming is that serious'
No attachments

Comment From: Betty McNiel

10/11/22 @ 1:31 PM
Dear Adam Saul,

I strongly support the adoption of Advanced Clean Cars II, the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, and the Fleet Reporting Requirement.

Washington needs to adopt Advanced Clean Cars II to meet its climate goals according to the State Energ...↓

We need to switch to clean vehicles to stop polluting our air. I want everyone who drives to have access to clean vehicles. This is why Advanced Clean Cars II and its equity provisions are important. So is the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, which improves emission standards for large vehicles.

It is also important to gather more information on our transportation system so we can better address the harms it is causing–not only to the environment, but sometimes to workers through poor labor practices. This is why the Fleet Reporting Requirement is an important piece of this regulation.

Relying on polluting vehicles hurts the climate and our health. It also makes us beholden to oil companies that bring in record profits while raising prices. We need clean options in Washington.

I strongly support this rule and thank the Department of Ecology for its hard work.
No attachments

Comment From: David Church

10/11/22 @ 1:30 PM
In my opinion, to start putting these changes in place before our infrastructure is ready is a huge mistake. There will be equal resistance to this. Why not improving our electrical grid by adding surcharge to new electric vehicles. That way the peop...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ernest Wohleb

10/11/22 @ 1:29 PM
The technology for electric is not ready for mass transit needs. Electric vehicles have proven to be unsafe with lithium batteries having the potential to self destruct with a rather large fire that is extremely hard to extinguish.
Lithium mining is m...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Carolyn Boatsman

10/11/22 @ 1:24 PM
I am in favor of proposed rules for zero emission cars by 2035. Also making these cars available for people at all income levels. Yes to the improved emissions from heavy duty trucks as well as reporting on how things are going to inform future dec...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Judith Stone

10/11/22 @ 1:24 PM
Dear Adam Saul,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Clean Vehicles Program rule. I strongly support the adoption of Advanced Clean Cars II, the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, and the Fleet Reporting Requirement.

Washington needs ...↓

We need to switch to clean vehicles to stop polluting our air. I want everyone who drives to have access to clean vehicles. This is why Advanced Clean Cars II and its equity provisions are important. So is the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, which improves emission standards for large vehicles.

It is also important to gather more information on our transportation system so we can better address the harms it is causing–not only to the environment, but sometimes to workers through poor labor practices. This is why the Fleet Reporting Requirement is an important piece of this regulation.

Every new vehicle sold that is powered by fossil fuels is a missed opportunity. Relying on polluting vehicles hurts the climate and our health. It also makes us beholden to oil companies that bring in record profits while raising prices. We need clean options in Washington.

I strongly support this rule and thank the Department of Ecology for its hard work.

Sincerely,

Judith Stone
No attachments

Comment From: Heather Murawski

10/11/22 @ 1:19 PM
Dear Adam Saul,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Clean Vehicles Program rule. I strongly support the adoption of Advanced Clean Cars II, the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, and the Fleet Reporting Requirement.

Washington needs ...↓

We need to switch to clean vehicles to stop polluting our air. I don't want vehicles that spew fumes driving through my neighborhood and polluting my lungs, and I want everyone who drives to have access to clean vehicles. This is why Advanced Clean Cars II and its equity provisions are important. So is the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, which improves emission standards for large vehicles.

It is also important to gather more information on our transportation system so we can better address the harms it is causing–not only to the environment, but sometimes to workers through poor labor practices. This is why the Fleet Reporting Requirement is an important piece of this regulation.

Every new vehicle sold that is powered by fossil fuels is a missed opportunity. Relying on polluting vehicles hurts the climate and our health. It also makes us beholden to oil companies that bring in record profits while raising prices. We need clean options in Washington.

I strongly support this rule and thank the Department of Ecology for its hard work.

Sincerely,

Heather Murawski
No attachments

Comment From: Patricia Waterston

10/11/22 @ 1:13 PM
Dear Adam Saul,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Clean Vehicles Program rule. I strongly support the adoption of Advanced Clean Cars II, the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, and the Fleet Reporting Requirement.

Washington needs ...↓

I am extremely affected by air pollution. We need to switch to clean vehicles to stop polluting our air. I don't want vehicles that spew fumes driving through my neighborhood and polluting my lungs, and I want everyone who drives to have access to clean vehicles. This is why Advanced Clean Cars II and its equity provisions are important. So is the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, which improves emission standards for large vehicles.

It is also important to gather more information on our transportation system so we can better address the harms it is causing–not only to the environment, but sometimes to workers through poor labor practices. This is why the Fleet Reporting Requirement is an important piece of this regulation.

Every new vehicle sold that is powered by fossil fuels is a missed opportunity. Relying on polluting vehicles hurts the climate and our health. It also makes us beholden to oil companies that bring in record profits while raising prices. We need clean options in Washington.

I strongly support this rule and thank the Department of Ecology for its hard work. We have bought an electric car, and it's wonderful!

Sincerely, Patricia Waterston
No attachments

Comment From: Kristin Bolt

10/11/22 @ 1:10 PM
As a resident of Washington, I strongly oppose the EV mandate and gas energy ban, clean vehicles program and the general regulations for air pollution. These expensive policies are unfair. I believe it should be a right and freedom of each citizen ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Marilyn Darilek

10/11/22 @ 1:07 PM
Dear Mr. Saul,

I'm commenting on the proposed Clean Vehicles Program rule because I definitely support the adoption of Advanced Clean Cars II, the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, and the Fleet Reporting Requirement.

Washington must meet its climate go...↓

We want and need clean options in Washington. That's why I strongly support this rule. I urge the Department of Ecology to pursue this vigorously - thank you for your hard work.

Sincerely,
Marilyn Darilek
No attachments

Comment From: joseph Kuk

10/11/22 @ 1:06 PM
I find it Ironic that you believe mandating electric vehicles is going to decrease pollution throughout the world. The less we use oil and gas for driving vehicles the more we will use to provide the electricity needed for electric cars. Further, whe...↓
No attachments

Comment From: David Ezzell

10/11/22 @ 1:05 PM
Please do not follow the lead of the California State Government. Electric vehicles have not surpassed the era of combustible engine-powered vehicles. This action would devastate the economy of our state and put an undue burden on the citizens of thi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Sean Hogan

10/11/22 @ 1:04 PM
I have been in the solar and geothermal business for over 40 years in Washington, an environmentalist well before it was popular or a movement. This however is a trainwreck in search of a date, not thought through unless the goal is to cripple our ec...↓
I'm all for electrification, it makes a great deal of sense, but our infrastructure is not capable of such load shifting. BPA sells a good deal of our hydroelectric power to other states which ties our hands on capacity. Power transmission lines are at capacity already and you want to "legislate or Mandate" such as this fool's errand without a well thought out and executed infrastructure buildout. Please, don't implement this crazy fuel plan and internal combustion engine elimination, it will hurt our entire state and do very little for the environment. This from a guy whose entire career has been centered around renewable energy!
No attachments

Comment From: Jospeh Moreland

10/11/22 @ 12:57 PM
The governor and legislative push for zero emissions goes against science. The cost of an electric vehicle is 2 X 3 times a conventionally powered vehicle. The actual cost in terms of environmental damage in order to manufacture the batteries far out...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Douglas Brierley

10/11/22 @ 12:47 PM
This is an extremely bad bill. I understand that we need to move to a more environmentally friendly state but this bill will hurt millions of people. There is no plan from the state to gradually move people. Instead you follow California blindly w...↓
How about if you come up with a real plan and people might be ready for it.
At an average price of $66K for an EV normal people can't afford it.
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/11/22 @ 12:44 PM
You are hurting the citizens of Washington by enforcing a law that will raise both new and used car prices. Most people in Washington make less than $100000 a year and a $60000 electric vehicle is not something they can afford when electricity rates ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Cathryn Som-Mueller

10/11/22 @ 12:42 PM
This is regard to the Clean Vehicles Program 173-423 and 173-400.I strongly oppose this program for several reasons. Being a Senior on a fixed income, living in a rural area, I cannot afford to buy a new EV. The cost would be more than I can afford a...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Restivo

10/11/22 @ 12:33 PM
This initiative will cost billions, unfair to rural citizens, and unrealistic.
No attachments

Comment From: Timothy Weller

10/11/22 @ 12:31 PM
Changes made to these two rules, Chapter 173-423 WAC and Chapter 173-400 WAC will do nothing but add more convoluted language to over-reach already restricting Washington State Citizen's ability to travel for business or pleasure. We are paying some ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mariko Saum

10/11/22 @ 12:28 PM
I find this a short sighted and racially/economically predjudicial act. As most of lower income and minorities are not economically equipped to purchase over priced EVs with a limited life span of about 10 years, Should all vehicles be EVs the stres...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Richard Owens

10/11/22 @ 12:20 PM
I'm certainly not against transistioning to EV's, but let's do a reality check!

- It's mathmatically impossible to have 100% EV's by 2030 in the state of Washington!
- Electrical charging needs for all the new EV's will increase strain our electrical g...↓
- What's the big benefit... we still use a larger percentage of fossil fuels to generate electricity!
- The cost-benefit analysis really needs to be considered on this!
- Please consider a slower more realistic transistion toward the EV market.

Sincerely,
Richard Owens
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Smithson

10/11/22 @ 12:20 PM
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Clean Vehicles Program rule, which I wholeheartedly support.

As I understand it, Washington needs to adopt these rules in order to meet the mandates of the State Energy Strategy, which is critic...↓

Our household has recently purchased a full battery electric vehicle, to do our part in cleaning up the air. These new standards will help insure that eventually, all new light duty vehicles sold within Washington also are meeting a zero-emission standard.

Thank you for your hard work and perseverance in helping all Washingtonians have a better climate and air quality future.

Sincerely,

Thomas Smithson
Mukilteo
No attachments

Comment From: Andrew Stevens

10/11/22 @ 12:13 PM
The market is naturally gravitating towards clean energy and vehicles, but we are not yet at a point where we should start banning clean natural gas or fossil fuels. All this does is price people out of things and keep them using older, less efficie...↓

Instead, we should continue to make investments in efficiency with both gasoline and electrics until the market (not the government) decides its time to switch.

Please, dump the virtue signaling,and we can make strides together towards a clean energy future.
No attachments

Comment From: Curt Bilka

10/11/22 @ 12:12 PM
Totally another taxation. This is a joke our infrastructure can't support this. The clean energy is not there yet. What do we do
With all the batteries and the mining to get those batteries. Another liberal idea that doesn't work.
No attachments

Comment From: Jamie Peltier

10/11/22 @ 12:12 PM
Dear Adam Saul,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Clean Vehicles Program rule. I strongly support the adoption of Advanced Clean Cars II, the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, and the Fleet Reporting Requirement.

Washington needs ...↓

We need to switch to clean vehicles to stop polluting our air. I don't want vehicles that spew fumes driving through my neighborhood and polluting my lungs, and I want everyone who drives to have access to clean vehicles. This is why Advanced Clean Cars II and its equity provisions are important. So is the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Rule, which improves emission standards for large vehicles.

It is also important to gather more information on our transportation system so we can better address the harms it is causing–not only to the environment, but sometimes to workers through poor labor practices. This is why the Fleet Reporting Requirement is an important piece of this regulation.

Every new vehicle sold that is powered by fossil fuels is a missed opportunity. Relying on polluting vehicles hurts the climate and our health. It also makes us beholden to oil companies that bring in record profits while raising prices. We need clean options in Washington.

I strongly support this rule and thank the Department of Ecology for its hard work.

Sincerely,

Jamie
No attachments

Comment From: Ed Tropp

10/11/22 @ 12:09 PM
Please do NOT copy California's harmful rules and legislation. Gas vehicles are still a necessity, and pushing electric vehicles prematurely simply out-sources pollution to different areas. These rules will unfairly and unnecessarily burden consumers...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Stephen J Turner

10/11/22 @ 12:03 PM
Cart before the horse. You condemn the continued use of fossil fuels and the people that depend on them. You punish your citizens while never providing us an infrastructure which provides a viable immediate and and minimally disruptive transition. Yo...↓
No attachments

Comment From: ken staudinger

10/11/22 @ 12:03 PM
Come on anybody with half a brain knows anything labeled so called green and clean, has such a debt to carbon in its creation and all the cost to take these goods or service's to market, they never produce any green energy the hole thing is big fat s...↓
Not a fool and not fooled. Ken.
No attachments

Comment From: STEVE GITTINGS

10/11/22 @ 12:00 PM
This proposal directly impacts the freedom of mobility all of us have enjoyed our entire lives. Vehicle cost is too high, with limited choices. Range is limited as well with extended recharging times, assuming a charging station is available. Even...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dale Weir

10/11/22 @ 11:57 AM
Not a well thought out idea!
Electric vehicles are expensive
We don't have enough electricity production to meet the extra demand
Batteries are expensive and a hazardous material to dispose of
In the event of a disaster (such as recent events in Florida)...↓
No attachments

Comment From: MARK BURRIS

10/11/22 @ 11:55 AM
No, Not so fast, More measured, slowly phased in. As a retiree on a fixed income living in the county this would have a negative impact. WA does not have the infrastructure to support these proposals.
No attachments

Comment From: Erika Horn

10/11/22 @ 11:50 AM
This is ridiculous! To ban gas powered vehicles when we are not ready to support this is an expense no consumer needs.
The cost of these vehicles and the cost to the electrical grid which is not prepared to support these vehicles is way to high.
No attachments

Comment From: Dave Croonquist

10/11/22 @ 11:44 AM
The state and country is not ready for EV changes. The impacts on the infra-structure by going green are huge. We need a slower and more measured transition.
No attachments

Comment From: Arnold Lewis

10/11/22 @ 11:17 AM
Comment on the proposed rules, Chapter 173-423 WAC – Clean Vehicles Program, and Chapter 173-400 WAC, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources.

Another form of regressive taxation, particularly for those of us on a retirement fixed income.
No attachments

Comment From: Ceres (Sarah Sachs)

10/11/22 @ 11:05 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: DELORIS HAMMER

10/11/22 @ 10:44 AM
The EV bill is not fair. Too hard on most people. Besides the cost to convert to all electric will cost BILLIONS of $$$'s which means MORE TAXES to everyone is many forms!! Wake up Ensley - get off your high horse and do something about the overcr...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Alexander Lusk

10/11/22 @ 10:34 AM
The climate emergency is already here. Washingtonians are currently feeling the damaging health, ecological, and weather effects of global heating. Car, truck, van and bus tailpipes produce almost half of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington (45%)....↓

I support the Washington Department of Ecology's proposed rules requiring 100% of new light-duty cars and trucks sold in Washington to meet zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) standards by 2035, and to require cleaner, less polluting truck & bus engines by adopting California's Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation.

Please adopt the rules specified in Chapters 173-423 and 173-400 of the Washington Administrative Code.

Thank you,
Alexander Lusk
2814 NW 113th Street
Vancouver, WA
98685
No attachments

Comment From: Jeremy Strohmeyer

10/11/22 @ 10:31 AM
These rules will be economically disastrous for our state. These rules will widen the gap between the rich and poor and increase the number of poor citizens in our state. The best thing for our state would be to loosen the rules on gas powered vehi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dorothy Greenough

10/11/22 @ 10:17 AM
It is unrealistic to consider this at this time. We are too quick to jump the gun when it comes to issues such as all electric cars. It seems that the state does not look at the pro's and con's of switching at this time. People need to know if we ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Leigh Saint-Louis

10/11/22 @ 10:15 AM
The climate emergency is already here. Washingtonians are currently feeling the damaging health, ecological, and weather effects of global heating. Car, truck, van and bus tailpipes produce almost half of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington (45%)....↓

I support the Washington Department of Ecology's proposed rules requiring 100% of new light-duty cars and trucks sold in Washington to meet zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) standards by 2035, and to require cleaner, less polluting truck & bus engines by adopting California's Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation.

Please adopt the rules specified in Chapters 173-423 and 173-400 of the Washington Administrative Code.

Thank you.
Leigh Saint-Louis, MD
Vancouver, WA 98685
No attachments

Comment From: Yvonne Pipkin

10/11/22 @ 9:09 AM
Department of Ecology
Subject: EV Mandate & Gas Engine Ban

I am voicing my concern regarding the costly and misguided energy proposal.

• COST: The EV mandate will cost consumers and businesses BILLIONS.

• INFRASTRUCTURE: There needs to be an infrastru...↓

• ELECTRIC GRID UPGRADES: The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging loads, are unknown and could be in the BILLIONS. Have the utility companies been consulted on the time and money it will take to upgrade their electric grids?

In summary, the proposed EV mandate and gas engine ban are unrealistic and unfair, will cost billions to implement, and will unfairly penalize rural communities and working families.

What we need are common sense solutions for cost-effective, sustainable fuel and transportation policies in a timely manner for Washington state. Let's be a leader; not a follower of California's impractical gas engine ban.
No attachments

Comment From: Paul Smith

10/11/22 @ 8:51 AM
I am extremely disappointed at the short-sighted plan to ban gas-powered vehicles in Washington by 2035. Don't get me wrong. I support being energy efficient. My entire life I've driven some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles available. But the move...↓

How are we going to generate the additional electricity to meet the increased demand? An electric vehicle is hardly zero carbon if it is getting the electricity from coal or gas plants. Wind and solar don't generate nearly enough power to meet the demand. Hydro power is good, but you're talking about removing dams, not building new ones. If people were talking seriously about expanding nuclear power, then you might have a plan, but even if that was the plan, there is no way to design, permit, and construct the required nuclear plants to meet the 2035 goal.

How will the increased demand impact the power grid? How many more substations will we need? How many more power lines?

I am 100% in favor of improved energy efficiency. Please prove to me that you are too. I want to see if electric vehicles are more efficient, not just that they make you feel good. I want to see a plan for increased electrical generation to meet the need.

You may think the 2035 goal is aspirational, but in the absence of a plan, it just sounds delusional.
No attachments

Comment From: Lisa Bride

10/11/22 @ 8:46 AM
Opposed. It is premature with technology. Research and development on batteries and grids are not up to standards. The economy will not withstand the monetary increase at this time. This will create excessive hardship for many. Timing of this proposa...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Bertschinger

10/11/22 @ 7:59 AM
Rulemaking - Clean Vehicles Program and General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources
As a USN Submariner I was trained in critical thinking skills. Since leaving the navy, I have received additional training and taught Design Evaluation, Root Cause F...↓
Adopting the California model, or any close variant of this proposal will have dire consequences for the citizens of Washington State.
Although the full (negative) impact of this proposed policy extend well beyond the capability of this format, I will attempt to brief one of many pitfalls of the proposal.
Try for a moment to think of the overall economic, social, structural, infrastructure of human activity, to be a building. This building does not have one foundation, but rather, the "foundation" supports the structure while at the same time IS the structure. This "building" is comprised of all species; (human, animal, flora, fauna, and even mineral) and are intertwined together in a fashion where ALL parts to the finite level affect all other parts. This is the basis for all endangered species listings, not merely that a single species may be lost but the effect that loss will have on the world as a complete entity. At the same time, realize that this building was not designed by one architect or one builder, but what started as a cave thousands of years ago has seven into an immeasurably intertwined components. Of the current (and ever changing) design, the IC engine and the fuel requirements to support them are a foundational part of this world. Removing this foundational part will cause many other critical infrastructures to fail. "Byproducts" of the IC engine will also be damaged by suddenly removing this foundational piece. Propane (a byproduct of making gas for IC cars) is used to heat homes in rural areas with limited electricity delivery systems. Rural areas will now need a massive increase in transmission and distribution. Millions of tons of new overhead wires, power poles. Whose property will these go through? In cities with underground electricity delivery, whole sections of the city will need to be torn down for the new distribution system and the charging lots that will need to be constructed to support electric vehicles. School districts will have to purchase at least two to three times the busses they have now to transport children to schools as the parents can't afford to buy new electric cars. Paint, plastics, grease pipe etc are all results of the byproducts generated by the manufacturing of gasoline for the IC engine this proposal will destroy.
Far before the full intended effect of this proposal is realized, the social upheaval will damage the very fabric of our lives.
Rule by dictating to achieve desired results has never worked and generally efforts to such have resulted in destruction of the very social order it attempts to benefit.
This proposal (wishful thinking) is not realistic at any level, as my grandmother told me"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride".
This proposal is nothing more than a wish you may as well mandate that everyone ride unicorns. At least no one will have to die from cold or starvation with that law.
No attachments

Comment From: Rich Soloski

10/11/22 @ 6:28 AM
We are not ready yet to switch to EV vehicles. This would hurt our economy and jobs. The power grid can not handle the load. A more reliable way is let the market dictate the switch to Ev's. Please don't force us to this mandate.
No attachments

Comment From: Adrienne Torre

10/11/22 @ 6:21 AM
Please put out an explanation as to WHERE you will get all this extra electricity. Since WA state has basically banned the use of natural gas you are already putting a strain on our electrical infrastructure. Heat pumps in the eastern Washington clim...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Stuart Smith

10/11/22 @ 5:21 AM
Please do not restrict Washington State to unproven standards. These new rules will harm businesses and individuals and make government less efficient and more expensive.
Let others experiment. We then can learn from their mistakes and find out what...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/11/22 @ 4:06 AM
I understand the desire to transition to cleaner and renewable energies. However forcing people to follow you along the path is not the correct answer. If this truly is the best idea and the way forward people will simply adopt this change on their o...↓

Make electric cars something people want, make the upsides of ownership be undeniable. Flip phones, vhs, air drying laundry, horses and buggies, trains all had their moment in the sun and were thought to be "the way" at their time. Until a better option with easily tangible upsides and little to no downside came along and replaced them.

Change that happens naturally occurs constantly throughout humanity and is often welcomed and lasting. Change that happens by force is almost always resisted and subverted at every opportunity.

You're going to hear counter arguments about the economic, environmental, and infrastructure impacts of this idea from plenty of people in these comments. They have a point, however I think the idea of choice is more important. When electric vehicles are the clear winner in terms of what consumers want vs gasoline vehicles people will buy them en mass. Until then all you're doing is forcing people to purchase a lesser product by restricting their options.
No attachments

Comment From: Paul Jr. BLALOCK

10/10/22 @ 9:54 PM
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. EVs are still too costly and don't work for most families. Washington residents should be...↓
• The average EV costs $66,000.1 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: Ralph Bickerton

10/10/22 @ 6:32 PM
Where is the electricity going to come from?
No attachments

Comment From: Shari Anderson

10/10/22 @ 6:27 PM
This is a prime example of OVER GOVERNMENT. This rule doesn't help Washington families. Its too costly and too soon for this in our great state. The next step should be preparing the infrastructure for such a mandate not tossing out dates to the publ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/10/22 @ 6:14 PM
With the needed infrastructure not planned, budgeted or available to support all these battery-powered cars, it seems you are putting the cart before the horse again.
No attachments

Comment From: Vince Shawver

10/10/22 @ 5:18 PM
I am adamately opposed to phasing out gas powered car by 2035. Our state should only follow federal regulations and nothing more. By going further we are hurting our states economy and the well being of our citizens. 
No attachments

Comment From: Roger Gatts

10/10/22 @ 5:11 PM
I'm a disabled American Veteran and I'm 73 years old and I can't work, and I will never be able to afford an electric vehicle on the small, fixed income I receive. This state is taxing me into poverty already with all the taxes you impose upon us.
No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Bright

10/10/22 @ 5:05 PM
California has over 5 times the population of Washington state and the number of people per square mile in California is 250% larger than Washington's. More importantly, California's Gross Domestic Product (economy) is over $3.6 trillion dollars. Was...↓
Washington should not be adopting rules specifically designed for California that were developed to address the specific needs, strengths and weaknesses that California has. Washington should be charting it's own course with regard to clean energy and work to develop rules that address our demographics, our energy sources, and our economy. Adopting another state's rules on emission standards will cause numerous negative impacts to our economy, disproportionately effect lower income households in Washington and result in many unforeseen negative consequences. If adopted, California's ZEV standards will make new cars in Washington even more expensive than they already are, which will put them further out of reach of the largest segment of our population. Instead of buying a new car that meets California's ZEV standards, people will just drive their current vehicles and continue to buy used cars from elsewhere. I don't think that's the best course for Washington to take in trying to meet the needs of it's own citizens. Housing affordability in Washington is already approaching the "priced out of the market" challenge which California has been dealing with for decades and decades. Do we want to follow this lead with our personal transportation choices also? I don't think so.
I am all for clean energy but ram-rodding California's vehicle standards into our state is not going to work for Washington. Please go back to the drawing board, develop our own state specific rules which hopefully will be written with more realistic timelines for phasing in cleaner vehicles.
No attachments

Comment From: Gary Rowell

10/10/22 @ 4:37 PM
I'm trying to figure what you're thinking. Our electric grid can barely keep up with our needs now.I can't imagine what it will be like if everyone is trying to charge their cars. Are you going to be like Newsom and tell people they can't charge thei...↓
ou're going to do with all the batteries when they wear out? We're already running out of space to bury nuclear waste and these batteries have to be buried along with the carbon fiber the windmills and solar panels. With all the issues facing converting to electric vehicles you need to rethink the issue. PLEASE DON'T DO SUCH A FOOLISH THING!
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/10/22 @ 4:25 PM
Did we vote on this? Who is paying for the new vehicles? Who is paying for the new trucks to transport goods back and forth, new farm equipment, new stations to 'charge' your vehicle? We are because we have the brain of CA and a dictatorship in this ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas O'Neal

10/10/22 @ 4:17 PM
We get the batteries form China. And we do not have enough electricity to run the cars. I oppose this measure.
No attachments

Comment From: T MIERKE

10/10/22 @ 3:56 PM
Another stupid move by an inept governor. I'm fed up with him and the policies he comes up with. He continues to make stupid moves. I never voted for him and would never support him and the stupid moves he inflicts on Washington voters. I'll leave...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Deborah McPherson

10/10/22 @ 3:48 PM
Do not move forward with these mandates, please. Whatever happened to common sense and moderation? All this forced pushing ahead no matter the cost and no matter the real consequences for people is mind boggling. My understanding is the USA is pretty...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Sam Sanders

10/10/22 @ 3:41 PM
I completely oppose this. If electric cars are the panacea to our problems, then the market will see it happen without government mandates. This governmental action will raise costs, increase mining in countries with little environmental protections,...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Cori Webster

10/10/22 @ 3:20 PM
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.
I oppose any such mandate.
No attachments

Comment From: Penny Cox

10/10/22 @ 3:17 PM
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.
I oppose any such mandate.
No attachments

Comment From: Troy Cox

10/10/22 @ 3:16 PM
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.
I oppose any such mandate.
No attachments

Comment From: Ian White

10/10/22 @ 2:46 PM
Greetings,

As a private citizen of Washington State, I am writing to provide comments on the Clean Vehicles Program and General Regulations. In short, Ecology should follow established market principles to allow the prevailing market to influence the ...↓

The Washington Cap and Invest Program will finally set a market-based price for carbon emissions. This places an economic price on the negative externalities for emissions of carbon. This, along with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard will undoubtedly increase the costs of fossil-based fuels for Washington Citizens purchased in Washington State. This direct increased cost will allow electric vehicles ("EVs") to better compete with and appear attractive from a fuel-cost perspective compared with traditional fossil fueled vehicles. This creates economic incentive for the adoption of EVs based upon price competitiveness -- a market factor.

Where possible, good public policy should establish rules, costs and benefits -- in a technology agnostic manner. In other words, public policy should not determine winners and losers. The best and cleanest technologies will win the day because they are better products, cleaner and will be far more economic than fossil-powered vehicles in the future. In addition, many auto-makers have announced the end of traditional fossil-powered vehicles before 2035.

In closing, EV adoption should be encouraged -- but with "carrots" rather than "sticks". Gov. Inslee's rabid approach to California-esque mandates, proclamations and decrees is a poor excuse for well-reasoned and measured public policy. Ecology has the opportunity to implement policy borne-out by market-based factors.

Thanks for the consideration of these comments.

Ian White
Dustin Hall
Spokane, Wash.
No attachments

Comment From: Harvey Widman

10/10/22 @ 2:34 PM
ZEV, or zero emissions personal transportation vehicles specifically (automobiles) are a valid and useful transportation, however limited or impractical for many types of travel.
Liabilities; 1 the environmental cost of extraction of materials to c...↓
2. The battery is merely an energy storage device. An electrical plant has to produce the energy to charge the battery. Here in the NW, we have hydro power, but we also have coal fired electrical plants, and those produce carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
3 every time the battery is charged, it loses a small increment of the amount of electricity it can deliver. Over time, the battery will become less and less chargable.
4. When used up, no longer to effectively be charges, the battery itself becomes a hazardous waste.
5. The regeneration of 110 volt charge time for most electric vehicles is glossed over, and the high cost of installing 220 volt charging systems into the average home are not brought to the public attention.
6. Lithium based batterys have shown such a high potential of fire generation, that they are not recommended to be placed in garages
5. THE BIGGEST LIABILITY for electric vehicles is that they are promoted as a political platform, with those proclaiming their desibability, apparently having very little actual knowledge about the characteristics of the different types of electric vehicles. Politically, they are ZEVs, zero emissions vehicles, which anyone with a working knowledge of the vehicle type knows is false.
Banning the sale of gasoline fueled vehicles
So, are they then necessarily bad ? No, not at all.
In limited distance usage, such as campus areas, manufacturing plants, government jurisdictions where the average trip distance is short, the electric vehicle works very well. I volunteer in a large campus museum, where we use them very effectively, to move visitors around and avoid noise. We use the lead acid battery type vehicles which can be effectively charged on 110 v overnight . ( the average electric car takes 96 hours to get a full charge on 110v. – 4 days )

In order to properly access the viability of electric vehicles, perhaps the best way proceed is to mandate that every Washington State department , including WASHDOT, switch over to electric vehicles, and let the state employees determine their usefulness over a 5 year period. I would suggest that all police departments be exempt from this exercise.
Meanwhile, the Washington State government should not restrict the process of free personal choice and free commerce relative to vehicle sales. A great percentage of folks actually think and analyze what their realistic needs in transportation are, and many are willing to try new methods ( specifically electric vehicles ) without government mandates. In the local area, there seems to be a significant uptic in electric vehicles sales without government interference. An outright ban on the sale of internal combustion engine cars will backfire on you folks, because it will be another example of perceived elitists inflicting their political agendas on the average working citizen.
No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Goehner

10/10/22 @ 1:45 PM
Please, Please do not make this a law. The proposal has not been planned out thoroughly. Do we have the infrastructure to handle filling up the cars on electricity? Does a police car have the same speed and /or engine to go after people with older g...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Michael A Schreiner

10/10/22 @ 1:15 PM
No, EVs should not be mandated at this time. There is very little infrastructure in place to make it a viable idea. Let's have a sustainable source of power and distribution network in place before we jump in with both feet. And Arizona is already wa...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Forrest Didier

10/10/22 @ 12:53 PM
This ruling is the cart before the horse. The electric grid is not ready to handle the demand, technology is not fully developoed yet and this is yet another intrusion by the government on the freedoms of Americans and will be exceedingly costly to h...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ray Michlig

10/10/22 @ 12:36 PM
Adopting a California emission is not a solution to the issue. Just as crazy as shutting down oil production on Joe Bidens' 1st day in office, after as a candidate said "we will phase it out over time"! In the haste to "Do Something" for climate chan...↓

Why the push on electrical vehicles prior to having the infrastructure in place? The power grid cannot handle the additional load of private, and commercial charging stations, it can barely function in California as it is!
Wind and solar cannot provide the power for California, or Texas as evidenced over the last 2 years, not now, or ever for us as an entire country. Without hydroelectric, coal, fossil fuels, and nuclear currently running the bulk of the American grid we would be in a panic like Europe is now gearing up for. People will start using fireplaces to reduce electrical bills.

Following the elections in November, I believe you will find support for the Green New Deal, and the policies you have been pushing will need to be reversed by the "voice of a large majority from the people of America.
Fossil fuels make up an estimated list of 6,000 products, significantly more than just fuels, oils, greases, natural gas, plastics, insulation, tires, asphalt, medicines. those prices are ALL increasing for consumers today. You are impacting all of America, not just the oil industry. Food production, travel, employment, stock market, housing, along with all businesses, not to mention the small businesses that closed due to the Covid shut down, and will never return.

You have been voting to support, and cause this inflation, do not continue with this decline of America.

You are creating slaves of the American citizens, if you think we will own nothing, and be happy with that.
Those rules must apply to all of you as well. There can be no rich people anywhere in the world, no private property, no estates, no private islands, no gated communities, no oligarchs, no corporations, no businesses, no private armies, no armed body guards.

Have you really thought about this Utopia, that you are pursuing?
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Berntsen

10/10/22 @ 12:26 PM
Our government is getting to large in it's overhanded reach telling citizens what to do. our infrastructure is not set up for EV only. in a free market people can choose to have gas or electric or hybrid. I personally have had two Toyota Prius hybrid...↓
No attachments

Comment From: John Casey

10/10/22 @ 11:59 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.
No attachments

Comment From: Joan Pekarek

10/10/22 @ 11:55 AM
We really can't afford an electric vehicle, nor do we wish to have one!
What about the farmers? All of their equipment is diesel powered!
Just because California thinks this is a good idea doesn't mean we should follow suit!
It's a crazy idea!
No attachments

Comment From: James Jennings

10/10/22 @ 11:45 AM
Please refrain from limiting the sale and purchase of fuel vehicles in Washington State. The free market is what makes America the best country in the world, and imposing these types of restrictions, regardless of motive limits the free market choice...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ross Watkinson

10/10/22 @ 11:33 AM
In general moving to fast on the clean air initiative will destroy the middle and lower class. We can not afford and EV. We should not be punished for our social economic situation by a bunch of folks that have never worked in the private sector.
No attachments

Comment From: Pederson Bros., Inc. (Brian Pederson)

10/10/22 @ 11:27 AM
Stop this insanity,
We can't afford more costs instilled on individuals and businesses in the form of carbon and energy
taxes for trying to reduce carbon, when we have the cleanest air of all the industrialized nations now.
The cost of doing business is...↓
inflation and rising business cost.
No attachments

Comment From: James Grover

10/10/22 @ 10:57 AM
there is not enough elecrical grid sources to support ev electric cars. Even CEO of toyota says this 2035 change won't work, perhaps by 2060 if we start now building 4 gen nuclear plans to create more engergy. Solar and wind will not come close to ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ray Lynn

10/10/22 @ 10:56 AM
Your mandate doesn't allow or encourage new nonEV technology, it also doesn't account for the ability of the electric power production industry to provide all the increased demand. The reality is unless there is a significant change in the ability o...↓
In summary, I don't think the EV time has come and its mandate is premature.
No attachments

Comment From: byron lee

10/10/22 @ 10:55 AM
Background: I am an individual that owns an electric car and am happy with it. For over 50 years I have been interested in transportation and vehicles. I have a doctorate in science and an interested in energy in most forms.
Comments: There will n...↓
Mandating transportation methods is not a preferred way to bring about change. The public will adapt to the electric car when it is in their interest to do so.
There is insufficient raw materials (eg, cobalt) in the US to supply batteries for a large number of electric cars, and little if any progress is being made to increase supply of needed raw materials, which predominantly come from China. NB: China is not a friend of the US. This creates not only a supply problem, but a national security problem.
Why should we emulate CA when it is failing as time passes. We should learn from their mistakes, not blindly follow them over a cliff.
No attachments

Comment From: Stephen Gildea

10/10/22 @ 10:43 AM
This is absolutely undoable. The cost of these cars is out of most people's reach. The cost to the environment to produce one battery or to dispose of the spent battery is outrageous. The cost to replace batteries is absolutely insane. Finding a plac...↓
No attachments

Comment From: jeff hamm

10/10/22 @ 10:28 AM
Like most Americans I am concerned about the environment. Each one of us needs to do our part to move in a direction that does the least amount of harm to our environment. Doing something is one thing but changing the way the country has functioned f...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Carole Seng

10/10/22 @ 10:22 AM
One of the last points of discussion about electric vehicles that I never hear anybody speak about is what you were going to do about people who live in multi-family residences. There are not enough charging stations nearby, in grocery store parking ...↓

About 6 months ago I considered buying an electric vehicle, had a down payment on it and then realized I wasn't going to have anywhere to charge it. I live in a condo complex with about a hundred units and there are no charging stations, there are no charging stations near me and I can't install one in my condo where I have an assigned parking spot on the other side of the parking lot. I never hear any talk about how this is going to be handled. All these plans about having electric vehicles only being produced in 2035, which is only 13 years from now, doesn't seem to ever bring up or address these issues. Putting more charging stations in commercial parking lots is not the answer. Are we going to have a whole society that's hanging out in mall parking lots to get their vehicles charged? How can that make sense to anybody?

Having a plan to do something, or to have something take effect at a certain period in time is wonderful, but the whole picture needs to be looked at and everybody that it's going to affect needs to be considered.

This is a little different than taking away leaded gasoline and forcing people to use unleaded gas. At least when that happened vehicles that were using leaded gas were able to use unleaded gas.

How are people of nominal income going to be able to afford electric vehicles and worse afford to get a battery replacement at the cost that they are now. Charging needs to be super fast and battery placement needs to be super cheap otherwise it's not effective. It's not cost-effective and the amount of disposal involved in those batteries is not environmentally effective either
No attachments

Comment From: Gerald McGarvey

10/10/22 @ 10:22 AM
Lets try some facts on for size

To make One Electric Car Battery

500 Tons of Ore to refine 25lbs of Lithium
900 to 1000 gallons of fuel to move the ore
Lithium is refined by using sulfuric acid
The mine at Thacker Pass requires 75 semi loads of acid per d...↓

One electric battery for a Tesla requires
25 lbs of lithium
60 lbs of nickle
44 lbs of Manganese
30 lbs of Cobalt
200 lbs of Copper
400 lbs of aluminum, steel and plastic

To produce just one batttery takes a tremendous
amount of energy suppplied by coal, nuclear or gas fired plants.

If you believe this is Green Energy, then you are the problem and we are all in trouble!
No attachments

Comment From: Clyde Carpenter

10/10/22 @ 10:16 AM
Following California is ridiculous. The average EV costs $66,000. You are just hurting the poor among us by requiring EV's.
Creating the charging infrastructure to support this mandate will be expensive and could take years. California, at this time...↓
It will cost billions to upgrade the electric grid that will be needed for new EV charging.
If you were truly serious about the environment, you would use the cleanest, most renewable energy source-- nuclear power plants.
No attachments

Comment From: Andrew Clay

10/10/22 @ 10:13 AM
I am opposed to the phasing out of gasoline or diesel vehicles. This is not an appropriate role for government, let markets decide what vehicles we want to drive. The infrastructure is not ready for electric cars, nor is the mining or building of EVs...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dwight Motz

10/10/22 @ 9:44 AM
The proposed regulations effectively banning sales of non-EV vehicles is very short sighted and will be even more destructive to the environment that allowing and promoting further development and environmentally conscious innovation of internal comb...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/10/22 @ 9:38 AM
Please stop this "affordable fuel". It will never be this as long as we continue to GO GREEN. We need gas, oil and hydro. We need to go green gradually and not all at once.
No attachments

Comment From: Brandon Christensen

10/10/22 @ 9:33 AM
Thank you for taking the time to review my comments regarding the EV Mandate, gas engine and heavy duty vehicle ban. The ZEV mandate and ban on gasoline vehicles in my opinion is unrealistic and will hurt lower income families and those living in ru...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Heiner Schwede

10/10/22 @ 9:24 AM
To Whom it May Concern:
The average EV still costs $66,000 which will cost consumers and businesses BILLIONS. And what will happen to the millions of GAS powered cars that are still running and the need for fueling stations for them. Are you going to ...↓
Creating the charging infrastructure to support this mandate will be expensive and could take many years. Who is going to pay for these stations, the Washington TAXPAYERS? Never!
The cost of electric grid upgrades needed for new EV charging loads, are unknown and could be in the BILLIONS. Which of course will be added to our electric bill, causing energy costs to soar sky high.
Have you read the news reports of EV's bursting into flames that are very difficult to extinguish using vast amounts of water and really polluting the environment? Besides costing our local fire departments time, training, new equipment, etc. and possibly spreading to local forests and grass lands.
Let American Free Enterprise control this transition. Thank You, Heiner Schwede
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Holzman

10/10/22 @ 9:15 AM
Please tell me why those who have the ability to make Washington more user friendly to its residents always seem to make life harder for the middle-class working people? The legislature of this state needs to try "walking a mile in our shoes once in ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jay Kinzel

10/10/22 @ 9:09 AM
EVs are still too costly and don't work for most families, especially rural families. Washington residents should be able to choose the vehicle that works best for them.

The average EV costs $66,000.1 This mandate will cost consumers and businesses BI...↓

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.

Vote No in this initiative.

.
No attachments

Comment From: Davvid Franklin

10/10/22 @ 8:58 AM
Please stop playing idealistic politics and consider how we must get the infrastructure in place before we eliminate gasoline engine vehicles and natural gas heating. I think you would stockup on groceries before you banned farmers. You clearly have ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Leghorn

10/10/22 @ 8:54 AM
Clearly another effort by the elitist leftists to drive a poorly conceived and even more poorly executed pile of legislation down our throats with NO regards for the hardships it will impose on the fixed income sector or the middle to lower class (wh...↓
Another one of Jay Inslee's moronic attempts to placate the liberals pulling his strings....
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Cammann

10/10/22 @ 8:54 AM
Your proposal of eliminating gas vehicles is a serious mistake. The first issue is how will the electric grid handle everyone charging their EV's. I cannot handle the volume. Second, how can everyone afford these vehicles? They are too expensive....↓
No attachments

Comment From: Steve Bell

10/10/22 @ 8:50 AM
The proposed Clean vehicle program regulations are extremely unrealistic, and will not help Washington residents or the local ecology. The energy grid is not capable of supporting the additional electric vehicles. Most households will be forced to ho...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ann Shelton

10/10/22 @ 8:37 AM
I vehemently oppose the EV mandate and gas engine ban. It is not right to demand all people purchase and drive an EV. It is unfair and unaffordable.
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]