Without action by state lawmakers, the California Cars Minnesota mandate, pushed into law through rulemaking by Governor Tim Walz in May 2021, will go into effect in 2024 and would require a specific number of electric vehicles be carried on every car dealership lot. By tying our law to California’s electric vehicle mandates, the Walz administration could soon force stricter standards in Minnesota than those set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This mandate would take choice away from Minnesotans and let California officials more than 1,800 miles away set the course for our state’s future.

Minnesota is not California, which is why I have worked hard to craft the Minnesota Consumer Choice of Fuel Act, SF 3065, a bill that will repeal the governor’s California cars mandate and allow Minnesota to decide its own path on the vehicles we drive and use. Whether it be farmers, auto stakeholders, or the everyday consumer, we all should have the freedom to choose our own vehicles to purchase without government intervention and coercion. That’s why my bill affirms the right of Minnesotans to choose the vehicle that fits their lifestyle and protects consumers from politically-motivated policies that cost them hard-earned dollars.

There are many reasons why Governor Walz’s California Cars Minnesota mandate make little sense for Minnesota and why repealing the measure through the Minnesota Consumer Choice of Fuel Act is necessary. 

First, Minnesota and California have vastly different economic landscapes and thus vastly different needs. Basing Minnesota’s vehicle market on California’s air quality regulations is problematic, as Minnesota does not have the same air quality problem that California does. We also purchase a far higher rate of pick-up trucks and SUVs than California (82% compared to California’s 55%), meaning our vehicle market differs drastically from California’s. Additionally, Minnesota does not have a single electric vehicle plant in the state, but we do have 18 ethanol plants. Why establish a rule that enriches electric vehicle plants when we could be supporting already established ethanol and biodiesel plants that provide Minnesota jobs and boost our economy?

Soybeans serve as one of the leading crops in Minnesota and are used to produce biodiesel fuel, an energy source that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50%. Pushing electric vehicles rather than biodiesel will render large portions of our state’s crops useless. As Wanda Patsche, a Minnesota corn and soybean farmer in Fairmont and editor of Minnesota Farm Living, noted it official testimony, “many workers involved with the industry would be out of a job” if state law prioritizes electric vehicles over biodiesel. A broad association of Minnesota voices, including the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Grocers Association, agreed, writing that a vehicle mandate would “negatively affect the livelihoods of corn and soybean farmers who produce the crops for these fuels.”

Second, an electric vehicle mandate will hurt the wallets of Minnesota farmers and families as well. The administration’s own research shows that Minnesotans would pay approximately $1,139 more per-vehicle by complying with the rule. This greatly affects Minnesotans, especially those in the agriculture business, as agriculture employees rely on internal combustion engine vehicles to run their farms.

Finally, government has no right to ban products based on fuel source. The attempt to try to dictate consumer behavior is not only wrong, but it is not the most effective way to bring about the best solutions to address emissions. Market forces, not mandates, are the most efficient means to see changes. In fact, without adopting a mandate on EVs, data shows that between the spring of 2018 and the spring of 2019, EV registrations in the state nearly doubled from 6,000 to just over 10,000. Competition is what works, and my bill protects the right of consumer choice across the board. 

If the Walz administration wants to follow California’s lead in lowering greenhouse gas emissions, it should support Minnesota’s biodiesel fuel sector that is already doing that. Further, we should be supporting Minnesota industries and empowering Minnesotans families to make the choices best for them, rather than following whatever California does. That path leads only to higher costs that Minnesotans can ill afford and dictates the inventory car dealers are required to purchase, a power that our state government should never have.

Minnesota is a unique state with equally unique needs. We should chart on our own course when it comes to vehicles and emissions, not blindly cast our lot with California. Hopefully, state lawmakers will see the wisdom of the Minnesota Consumer Choice of Fuel Act and repeal the harmful California cars mandate before it hurts our state.