Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electric Vehicles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resolution urging rollback of perceived EV mandates draws contested testimony on facts and policy
Summary
Representative Brandon Gregg's HJ 12, asking Congress to remove EV purchase requirements, prompted testimony both asserting and disputing that federal policy mandates EV purchases. Environmental groups and EV owners said no binding federal mandate exists; sponsor argued for 'consumer choice.'
Representative Brandon Gregg opened the hearing on House Joint Resolution 12, calling on Congress to remove any requirements or obligations to purchase electric vehicles. Gregg said EVs can be appropriate in urban settings but argued rural Montana faces range, charging and cold‑weather constraints that can make EV ownership impractical or unsafe for some residents.
Opponents, including Nick Fitzmaurice of the Montana Environmental Information Center, told the committee the resolution mischaracterizes federal policy. Fitzmaurice said the so‑called EV "mandate" commonly referenced in testimony is a misnomer: the EPA’s tailpipe standards establish fleet-average emissions requirements and do not force consumers to buy EVs. "What I want to emphasize with those standards ... is that they set an average amount of pollution that is acceptable across a fleet of new vehicles. It's in no way says you have to sell this many electric vehicles," Fitzmaurice told the committee.
Multiple Montanans who own and drive EVs testified the vehicles work for winter and long‑distance driving and urged the committee not to advance a resolution they see as based on misinformation. Diana Hammer, who said she charges at home with solar, summarized the lived experience: "I went down to Salt Lake, drove back after a storm, cold weather, icy conditions... no problem... I would buy another one in a heartbeat." (Diana Hammer)
Industry and policy witnesses highlighted specific policy mechanics: one explained the difference between a federal "goal" and a binding statute; others stressed that federal standards are designed to reduce tailpipe pollution and create fleetwide benefits. Representatives asked whether the resolution is necessary because federal goals and standards already operate under federal authority; sponsors responded that the resolution is intended to emphasize consumer choice and signal state opposition to policies that they say could be interpreted as a mandate.
The hearing included discussion of state-level registration fees and road‑use considerations. Witnesses described recent Montana legislation that enacts a flat registration tax on EVs and noted that out‑of‑state EV drivers using Montana roads may be captured by a specific fee arrangement. The committee took testimony from auto dealers, engineers, EV advocacy groups and citizens; no committee vote was taken at the hearing.
