The Biden administration is proposing to require that about two-thirds of all U.S. auto production to consist of electric vehicles by 2032, only eight years from now. 

This mandate doesn't solely impact the automotive sector; it also reverberates across many sectors of our economy, including the distribution of transportation fuels. Nevada's economy, especially its export economy, relies on industries such as mining and agriculture, which require large vehicles that travel long distances for long periods of time. Electric vehicles, while suitable for many urban commuting scenarios, may not have the necessary power or endurance to meet the demands of these industries. Mandating electric vehicles could potentially hinder these industries' operations, affecting job growth and economic development, especially in Northern and rural Nevada. 

For over a century, gasoline and diesel retailers have played a crucial role in providing secure and ever-cleaner transportation fuels. These men and women are prepared to offer all types of fuel/energy to meet consumer needs and demands, whether it be petroleum-based, electric or a combination of both. Hydrogen is also recognized as a potential transportation fuel.

The fuel industry has recently stepped up its push for greater access to biofuels during the summer months, launching off of the initiatives of several companies' investments into biofuels. For example, ExxonMobil is working with Porsche to test eFuels, a synthetic product made from hydrogen. When blended to current market fuel standards for today's passenger vehicles, eFuels could reduce up to 85 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. Chevron and Toyota teamed up to showcase a new fuel that is more than 40 percent less carbon intensive than traditional gasoline on a lifecycle basis. 

Nevada consumers should have the freedom to choose the type of vehicles that best suit their preferences and needs rather than having such decisions dictated by the federal government. The “one size fits all” approach begins to sound like centralized economic planning from Washington, D.C., a system more associated with socialism than a free market economy.

It's crucial to acknowledge the diverse needs and usage patterns of drivers in Nevada. What may be suitable for a driver in Austin might not align with the preferences of a driver in Las Vegas. These regional differences underscore the importance of allowing flexibility in adopting technologies based on local circumstances and consumer choices.

All Nevadans will pay for EVs whether you drive an EV or not. A new study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation claims that over 10 years, almost $12,000 of costs per EV are transferred to utility ratepayers and taxpayers, effectively socializing the price of recharging an EV while keeping the benefits private. In total, the study says, “Subsidies and regulatory credits amount to almost $50,000 in taxpayer subsidies per EV over a decade.”

Nevada’s distributors and dealers of transportation fuels support Nevada’s Gov. Joe Lombardo, along with other governors in asserting their dissent against the EV mandate via a recent letter to the president. “The American customer should be able to decide what technology makes most sense for them, not the federal government," the letter states. 

Be forewarned that EV mandates may have unwanted consequences for Nevadans.

Peter D. Krueger is the state executive of the Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association.

The Nevada Independent welcomes informed, cogent rebuttals to opinion pieces such as this. Send them to [email protected].