Brief Background of the Endangerment Finding

To oversimplify, the Endangerment Finding declares that a mix of six greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare, primarily because they contribute to climate change. These six gases are carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane, nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆). In the finding, the EPA observed that U.S. motor vehicles and engines emitted four of those greenhouse gases, which collectively amounted to 4.3 percent of global GHG emissions in 2005.

Thus, the agency concluded that vehicle GHG emissions also endanger public health and that “contributors must do their part even if their contributions to the global climate change problem, measured in terms of percentage, are smaller than typically encountered when tackling solely regional or local environmental issues.” Prior to this, the EPA did not regulate greenhouse gases.

As a result, the Endangerment Finding has been crucial for allowing the EPA to regulate vehicle GHG emissions and reduce them, which in part has paved the way for electric vehicles (EVs).

The EPA’s 2025 Proposal and Potential Impacts

The recent proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding leans on a few key arguments:

(1) The authors of the proposal argue that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act, which was designed to regulate “criteria pollutants” that include nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), sulfur oxides (SOₓ), particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone (O₃), and lead (Pb).

These criteria pollutants have direct effects on human health—eye, nose, throat irritation; aggravation of respiratory diseases such as asthma, coughing and difficulty breathing, cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, chest pain, and more. The proposal argues the effects of GHGs on human health through climate change are indirect, and should not be regulated under the same directive.

(2) The authors of the proposal claim that the Endangerment Finding’s measures of harm, such as more frequent heat waves and extreme weather events, have not borne out despite increases in GHG concentrations (driven primarily by increased emissions from foreign sources).

(3) The authors question whether federal mandates regulating vehicle GHG emissions can meaningfully address climate change as they claim there is no existing technology capable of making a “measurable” impact.

One excerpt from the EPA’s proposal conveys the potential impact on the automobile industry, if finalized:

“In connection with the proposed rescission of the Endangerment Finding, if finalized, this action would remove all existing regulations that require new motor vehicle and new motor vehicle engine manufacturers to measure, report, or comply with GHG emission standards . . .

. . . As a result of these proposed changes, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers would no longer have future or current obligations for the measurement, control, or reporting of GHG emissions for any vehicle or engine, including for previously manufactured [model years] MYs. However, we [EPA] are not proposing to reopen or modify any regulations necessary for criteria pollutant and air toxic measurement and standards, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) testing, and associated fuel economy labeling requirements.”

In theory, if the finding is rescinded, we could see lower car prices. (However, this is not  guaranteed because car companies have priorities of their own). Repealing the Endangerment Finding, along with the One Big Beautiful Bill’s (OBBB) phase-out of EV tax credits, could bring significant shifts to the transportation sector.

The post The EPA Continues to Review Carbon Emissions Standards appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Today, many Missourians receive electricity from state-approved monopoly utilities, which own and manage the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity for their customers within exclusive service territories. Transitioning to a retail competition system would shift the ownership of generation from state-approved monopolies to private entities competing to sell power, while transmission and distribution would remain under utility control.

Responding to Change

The energy sector is in a state of flux, with several critical uncertainties lingering:

• How accurate are current energy demand forecasts?
• Will technological advancements from artificial intelligence significantly reduce energy consumption, and if so, how soon?
• What is the trajectory of electric vehicle adoption?
• How will the Trump administration’s regulatory reforms, such as recent changes at the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), impact the coal industry?
• Will the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enact needed reform?

These unknowns highlight the challenges of relying on a regulated monopoly model, where long-term infrastructure planning is guided by government oversight rather than market signals. Competitive markets, on the other hand, offer greater adaptability. For example, the rise of hydraulic fracturing led to significantly lower natural gas prices over the last decade. Customers in competitive markets experienced the benefits of low gas prices sooner than customers in monopoly markets did.

Additionally, in a competitive market, private suppliers, not ratepayers, bear more financial risk of failed energy investments. If there is a significant cost overrun or if a project fails to come online, customers have less exposure as they can switch to another supplier or remain insulated through competitively priced default service (if they do not select a supplier).

Further Considerations

Despite the benefits of retail competition at the state level, other free-market reforms are needed. Energy regulation is complex, with overlapping layers of subsidies, taxes, and federal mandates distorting market forces. A truly free and competitive energy market would require broader regulatory reforms at the federal level to ensure private developers can better respond to market demand.

Another key consideration is the role of incumbent utilities in a competitive system. House Bill 417 requires utilities to divest their generation assets before retail choice begins, but it grants them discretion in how they do so. Utilities like Ameren could choose to sell their power plants to unaffiliated private developers or transfer them to a newly formed competitive affiliate, as long as the transaction occurs at fair market value and receives commission. As Missouri considers this transition, it will be important to define the appropriate role of former monopolies in a newly competitive market.

Retail competition is not a silver bullet, but it could introduce market forces to a historically insulated energy sector. Missouri policymakers ought to consider how implementing retail competition might work, and what potential barriers exist at both the state and federal levels.

The post Retail Competition in the Energy Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• “Microsoft deal would reopen Three Mile Island nuclear plant to power AI”
• “Amazon goes nuclear, to invest more than $500 million to develop small modular reactors”
• “Amazon and Google have plans for fueling their data centers: Nuclear power”
• “Oracle will use three small nuclear reactors to power new 1-gigawatt AI data center”

Why are some of the largest corporations, who are the biggest consumers of energy, trying to get nuclear plants up and running?

In my view, energy security—access to sufficient, affordable, and reliable energy—is the key motivator. These corporations likely foresee potential shortfalls in energy supply, particularly for sources that can meet demand at any time.

As these headlines show, corporations are even willing to go “behind-the-meter” in order to have access to clean, reliable, and consistent nuclear power. Behind-the-meter refers to the practice of purchasing power directly from a plant, bypassing tradition utility infrastructure. For Missouri, these national trends again highlight the need to seriously consider nuclear power as a solution to building a reliable grid for the future.

What Big Tech is Saying about Energy

A strong and reliable electric grid is vital. Demand for electricity is growing because of data centers, artificial intelligence, electrical manufacturing, and electric vehicles. More than ever, citizens rely on energy to power their daily lives.

Michael Terrell, senior director for energy and climate at Google, said this:

We feel like nuclear can play an important role in helping to meet our demand, and helping meet our demand cleanly, in a way that’s more around the clock.

When major corporations, whose profits depend on uninterrupted power, express concern about future electricity demand, it is worth paying attention.

A Warning Sign for Missouri

Missouri is not doomed, but if you see a bear running away from something in the woods, it is wise to at least consider why it is running. Big Tech’s movement toward nuclear may be a similar warning signal.

Missouri needs to be prepared for an immense energy transition. Amending the Construction Works in Progress (CWIP) law is one way forward. This would open the door for nuclear construction by allowing utilities to gradually recover costs during construction as opposed to all at once afterwards. Investing in more nuclear power is an investment in a strong, reliable power source that we will need as energy demands continue to increase.

The post What to Make of Big Tech’s Pivot to Nuclear appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Certain municipalities, such as the City of St. Louis, have mandated that if certain residential and commercial businesses engage in new constructions or major renovations, they must install, maintain, and operate EV charging stations on their own dime.

HB 2062 would provide statewide exemptions for churches and nonprofits from EV charging station mandates. But what about everyone else?

As I have written before, these types of mandates are an unnecessary government intrusion into the free market. All businesses should be protected from EV mandates—not just churches and nonprofits.

At the local level, the City of St. Louis has also included some exemptions from its mandate. Businesses that the city council has determined a visitor wouldn’t typically stay long enough at to warrant charging their vehicle are exempt from the mandate. Currently public-level charging is exceptionally slow (which is part of the reason why installing them is wasteful), but what happens when charging improves and people use charging stations during shorter stops? Will many of these businesses no longer be exempt?

A stronger version of a state law with more than just narrow exemptions would render these concerns at the municipal level moot. While it’s nice to see protections from these mandates offered to some, shouldn’t those protections be extended to all businesses in our state?

The post Protections from EV Charging Station Mandates—for Some appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In light of Ameren’s recent declaration that all coal plants will be decommissioned by 2045, this bill seems to add a level of accountability and protection, and could help prevent officials from undertaking actions that would compromise the energy needs of Missourians.

To make an energy grid truly reliable; we need both sufficient capacity and dispatchability.

Prior to examining SB 757, let me explain what these terms actually mean. I will examine the provisions of the bill in my next post.

First, what is nameplate capacity?

In simple terms, nameplate capacity is the amount of energy a power plant can produce if it is operating at 100 percent power all the time. So, if a coal plant is “rated” at a nameplate capacity of 1,000 megawatts (mw), that means 1,000 mw is the maximum the plant could produce—but that is not what it actually generates.

If the nameplate capacity isn’t what the plant generates, how much electricity do plants actually generate?

That answer depends on the type of energy source, the weather, the time of year, and the strategies used to generate energy. I wrote an earlier piece on all the types of energy sources in the United States that you can read here.

Another key variable that determines how much electricity is actually generated is something called “capacity factor.”

Capacity factor, in simple terms, is the percentage of time that a power plant is operating at maximum power (its nameplate capacity).

The capacity factor is not the same among different energy sources. For example, nuclear power plants operated at maximum power 92.7% of the time in 2021—meaning nuclear power had a capacity factor of 92.7%. Coal plants had a capacity factor of 49.3% in 2021, natural gas was 54.4%, wind was 34.6%, and solar photovoltaic (solar panels) was at 24.6%.

Let’s say five different types of plants have a nameplate capacity of 1,000 mw (enough to power around 565,000 homes). Here’s how the capacity factor would affect rates of electricity generation:

Now that we better understand capacity, what is dispatchability?

Dispatchability is essentially an energy source’s ability to be “dispatched” to the grid’s consumers whenever they need it. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, meaning that when we “use” energy, that energy has to be coming from somewhere.

There are a few main “baseload resources” that have ample dispatchability: nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, and natural gas. On the other hand, intermittent resources such as solar and wind have times of day and certain weather conditions where they lack production, meaning they have less dispatchability.

How does dispatchability come into play in decommissioning power plants?

The reason we produce energy is to power things society needs and wants—and we are living in a world where we want and need electricity 24/7. In an internet-driven society, we want to stream movies at night, meet on Zoom for work meetings, play video games, mine bitcoins, or potentially even have a “metaverse.” The growing number of data centers that power these activities devour large swaths of energy, and they have to be operating constantly. If electric vehicles become more popular, we will have millions and millions of individuals using an immense amount of energy overnight to charge them.

This is where some of the dilemma lies. The energy demand market is trending towards 24/7 energy, while many proposed replacement plants are intermittent and don’t produce energy at night, when it is cloudy, or when there is no wind.

Here is a table taken from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which shows the dispatchability of solar and wind and where loss of load occurs. The numbers 1–24 on the x-axis represent the hours of the day, and the y-axis represents the months of the year.

The top “loss of load” graph shows the times where both renewables struggle to be dispatchable when paired together. Some states like California have experienced this dispatchability problem and have tried to mitigate it with the vast expansion of battery infrastructure. This is a fine enough idea and does help with improving reliability. However, there is no realistic path to mass expansion for the needed battery infrastructure to maintain reliability if renewables continue to be scaled. The battery technology also still has problems that need to be ironed out. We should not bet our energy future on battery technology given all the existing issues.

That bet would be too risky, as it could potentially lead to utilities or the government dictating when individuals and businesses may use electricity— such electricity rationing.

In order to achieve dispatchability and maintain reliability, the replacements for coal cannot just be renewables—we need nuclear and other baseload energy sources. Even if you believe that renewables should be the primary energy source, there should be a highly dispatchable and reliable source backing them up.

Now that we understand the two legs that grid reliability needs to stand on, we can turn back to SB 757 in my next blog post.

The post Show-Me Energy: Decommissioning Power Plants Part 1 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last week, I submitted testimony on House Bill (HB) 1511, which would protect St. Louis–area business owners from being forced to install, operate, and maintain electric vehicle (EV) charging stations on their own dime. The legislation would not prevent mandates for the installation of EV chargers. However, it would require St. Louis–area governments to pay for their mandates. You can read the full testimony here.

HB 1511 was filed because some St. Louis municipalities (the City of St. Louis and Brentwood, among others) are forcing business owners to install and operate EV chargers (on their own dime) following new construction or significant renovation. There are a few reasons why such mandates are a bad idea.

Remember when people thought MySpace was the future? It is possible (although I think not likely) that EVs could suffer a similar fate.

Fully electric vehicles are only 1% of the cars on the road.

Governments are assuming that the EVs of the present are also the vehicles of the future. A new type of electric vehicle could emerge (like when Facebook surpassed MySpace) and make premature government investment unnecessary. A whole new technology like hydrogen-fuel cells could emerge as the best way to power our transit in the future.

Additionally, EV chargers that are currently on the market are in their early stages. The typical public charger used in cities (also known as a Level 2 charger) takes 4–10 hours to charge an EV from empty to 80%. As charging technology improves, faster options will hopefully become available. Will there need to be a mandate for new construction each time the technology improves?

As EVs make up a bigger share of cars on the road, and as developers hopefully improve charging speeds, establishments such as apartments, hotels, and restaurants will likely seek to lure this growing consumer base with EV chargers. There is no need to force any business to build charging stations that cost $2,000–$5,000

As of right now, public chargers are rarely used. The market can grow at its own pace. I see gas stations everywhere, but I do not fill up all the time. I usually fill up when I am nearing empty and it is convenient for me. EV owners typically follow a similar pattern, as over 90% charge their car at home daily (55%) or weekly (38%).

According to a 2023 survey:

• Only 4% of EV owners report using a Level 2 public charger daily.
• Approximately 14% of EV owners report using one weekly.
• Approximately 16% use one monthly.
• Approximately 46% say they “rarely” use a public charger.
• Approximately 21% say they have never used one.

It’s possible that plug-in electric chargers will never be popular.

The current legislation is restricted only to the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County. But why is it so limited? Unfunded mandates for EV chargers are bad policy wherever they are in the state.

The post Who Will Be Getting Charged for New EV Chargers in STL? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Independence has struggled to maintain its own power generation as the environmental and financial costs of coal plants has [sic] pushed many other energy firms into renewables. While many say IPL provides exceptional service and reliability, city officials note that their customers pay higher electricity rates than those served by for-profit companies in other parts of the region.

The utility is also facing financial headwinds: Its cash reserves will drop below the utility’s target of $25 million by 2025, officials said. And those reserves will drop to a negative $97 million by June 2032 as the costs to maintain the utility’s infrastructure mount.

“The problem we have, as we sit here today is that IPL is on a course to a financial train wreck, due to what I believe to be questionable decisions in the past,” said Councilman Jared Fears. “So clearly something has to change.”

It bears repeating that Independence utility customers pay more than those using for-profit utilities in the region. This is despite the advantages in taxation and regulation that municipal utilities have over private utilities. There have been several water utility privatizations in Missouri in recent years, but not many electrical utility privatizations. The case for electrical privatization is probably even stronger, as one does not have to deal with the typical “how do you privatize something that falls from the sky?” argument. Unless you make extensive use of your home lightning rod, someone is artificially generating the electricity you use. Eureka and Arnold are just two of the larger cities that have privatized their water or sewer systems in recent years. From the Post-Dispatch story:

Arnold sold its sewer system to Missouri American in 2015 for $21 million. “The system was not in good shape. It was not well maintained,” said City Administrator Bryan Richison. “And city council members were running on not raising rates, so it put us in a bad position.”

As electric vehicles ramp up the electrical power needs of our communities, it is time for Independence, Columbia, Kirkwood, and (most of all) Springfield to get out of the utility business. Private, regulated utilities are much better positioned to provide the necessary services to these communities. These cities should privatize their assets via an open, transparent process and use both the sale price and the future tax revenues to provide better overall public services for their communities.

The post Prudent Pundit Ponders Independence Power Privatization Proposal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In response, I weighed in on the details of this policy. In particular, I noted the lack of trust in free-market innovation, even though the EV industry was kickstarted and fueled by market forces and ingenuity.

The Missouri legislature appears to be fearful of NEVI opening a Pandora’s Box of EV expansion mandates and is considering ways to curtail it in the upcoming session. House Bill (HB) 184  was recently pre-filed and would create protections for small-business owners subject to onerous local government mandates like the NEVI Deployment Plan. Under this bill, any political subdivision that adopts a rule requiring the installation of charging stations at any non-fueling business would be required to pay all costs associated with the installation, maintenance, and operation.

While I appreciate this pre-filed bill defending the rights of some small business owners, why are fueling-businesses excluded from its protection? If a fueling business does not have charging stations, that probably signals it does not have market demand for that service. Only 1% of cars on the road are electric, and in many rural counties you could probably count the number of EV’s in the community on one hand. When it makes economic sense for fueling businesses to install charging stations, they will, and they shouldn’t be forced to do so prematurely.

Unfortunately, a law protecting against overreaching EV mandates only treats a symptom of the disease—the mandates shouldn’t be happening in the first place. The EV market has been rapidly innovating through fierce competition and expanding due to increased consumer interest. As it grows, restaurants, hotels, fueling-stations, landlords, and other businesses will face economic decisions about whether to add charging stations to their premises to attract consumers. A barbershop with limited parking may not want to build an EV station, but for a landlord, an EV station could be beneficial for luring tenants. Why is the government getting involved when market forces are driving progress on their own? By the time government-mandated projects like NEVI are actually completed, who’s to say that those charging stations will even be up to date?

These inefficient mandates are unlikely even to significantly increase the convenience and allure of EVs. In a study published by Plug-in America, only 9% of all EV owners said charging stations being too far apart was a major difficulty, and 7% said that there were not enough charging stations at each location. In addition, 60% of EV owners charge their vehicle at home daily. What problem is the government trying to solve if current EV owners are comfortable with the availability of chargers and most of them charge their cars at home?

Hopefully, protections can be put in place for business owners when inefficient EV expansion projects are implemented, but I hope HB 184 will not even need to be invoked.

The post Curbing Forced EV Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Is this massive undertaking needed? Can the free market not guide the expansion of EVs itself?

A mere 8% of Tesla owners and 18% of other EV owners said charging stations being too far away was a major difficulty, and an even lower 8% and 14% respectively said there were not enough charging ports at each charging station. Despite these statistics, the federal government is attempting to control the charging station market throughout the country instead of allowing the free market to operate. The government claims to be farsighted when protecting future generations on climate change policy, but their policies are routinely shortsighted. If we truly want to be more environmentally friendly, central planning is not the answer; instead, we ought to trust in the responsiveness of the free market to consumer desires.

Lucid Motors is an example of market innovation occurring naturally without central planning. Recently, Lucid gained traction in the stock market due to having the longest-lasting car battery in the market. In response, competitors started creating longer-lasting batteries in order to win over consumers who prioritize battery life.

With the free market spurring innovation for battery life in EVs, why would we need a massive expansion of charging stations? The already high levels of satisfaction with charging station availability will only increase as battery life further improves. As the demand for EVs continues to grow, electric chargers and EV infrastructure will likely grow proportionately. There’s simply no reason for the federal government to interfere in an industry where the free market is already spurring plenty of innovation.

The post Federal Overreach on EVs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

HB 1584 stipulates that any municipality requiring property owners to install EV charging stations pay for those installation costs. Some municipalities in Missouri created requirements for property owners to build EV charging stations on new construction and major renovations—this law would ensure that private property owners aren’t forced to bear the costs of government-mandated construction.

Retrofitting an existing parking space with EV charger equipment can cost thousands of dollars per space, so sorting out who pays for what is not unreasonable. Despite what some opponents claim, this bill doesn’t “block” EV market growth; it simply ensures that private property owners aren’t told where and when to spend more money.

Another objection to this bill is related to costs. It costs much less to outfit a parking space with EV charger equipment during construction than after. Some estimates say installation during construction rather than after could cut costs by 75 percent. And with thousands more EVs hitting the road each year, opponents of the bill claim it would be better to require building charging stations as cheaply as possible to accommodate EV market growth.

This gets it backward. It may indeed be cheaper to install chargers during original construction, which is something property owners can take into account if they wish to respond to a growing EV market. Accommodating an emerging class of customers is standard business practice and doesn’t require any mandates.

Lost in the discussion surrounding HB 1584 are several better policies state and local policymakers can pursue to improve the EV market. For charging stations, municipalities can streamline their zoning rules to allow EV chargers in all zoning districts, review EV charger installation permits in days rather than weeks, and make information about the permitting process much more transparent. To make it easier to purchase EVs, state lawmakers can allow Missourians to buy EVs directly from manufacturers rather than forcing them to go through a franchised dealership (which many new EV companies do not have).

HB 1584 is a step in the right direction, but it’s a narrow bill that only deals with protecting private actors from an onerous government mandate for EV charging station construction. I’m hopeful that future EV policy discussions can turn from talks of fines and mandates to free markets.

The post Major Confusion About Missouri’s EV Charging Station Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Saint Louis County, Saint Louis City, and Brentwood have decided to mandate that new construction and major renovations for several types of properties (residential and/or commercial, depending on the jurisdiction) must be accompanied by EV charging stations. None of these mandates consider the $5,000-per-charger cost businesses will face, and some of these regulations impose a substantial fine for being a day late and an EV charger short.

Some places—like apartments and office buildings where people park for hours at a time—are a good fit for EV chargers. But for other places, a charging station could actually be a liability. Think of places like diners or convenience stores, whose business models rely on getting people in and out quickly. The last thing the owner of a small diner needs is someone who comes in and occupies a table for an hour or longer, nursing a coffee while his car charges. That’s why decisions about where the chargers should be installed are best left to businesses rather than being determined by a one-size-fits-all government mandate.

If local officials want more EV charging stations, perhaps they should first clarify where they can be built rather than dictating where they must be built. Ironically, the municipal codes for the Saint Louis jurisdictions mandating chargers are mum about where chargers can be built outside of the areas where they are mandatory. This lack of clarity results in several weeks of permitting and site plan reviews, which often vary by jurisdiction. This is backwards. Dozens of municipalities nationwide have amended their codes to allow EV chargers to be built wherever property owners see fit and have fast-tracked the permitting process to finish, in some cases within a day. For example, Kane County, Illinois, and Bellevue, Washington, allow EV chargers to be built in all zoning districts. Several states, such as New Jersey, New York, and Oregon, have classified the installation of EV chargers as “minor work,” which helps speed up installation times and cut down on permitting costs. Chicago grants EV charger installation permits within a day and even provides a guide for the installation process. These are all simple ways to speed up the proliferation of EV chargers without twisting anyone’s arm.

Local officials are right to recognize that fueling an EV is different than fueling a traditional car. Due to the time it takes to charge, EV drivers won’t be waiting in lines at centralized “electron stations.” Rather, they’ll incorporate charging into their everyday life. As more Missourians buy EVs, it will make good business sense for more businesses and property owners to install EV charging stations, either to retain current customers or attract new ones. What EV driver wouldn’t the option of charging his or her car while at the grocery store or while typing away at work? Likewise, charging stations at apartment complex could become an appreciated—or even expected—amenity for prospective tenants.

Policymakers could also make it easier for Missourians to buy EVs. Currently some uncertainty exists about the validity in Missouri of the direct sales model that many EV companies use to sell their cars. Several years ago, Tesla was taken to court over the legality of selling its cars to customers without using a franchised dealership. While Tesla eventually won, it’s not clear if other EV companies would be granted the same freedom to sell. With many more EV companies using direct sales entering the market, ensuring they can operate in Missouri can bring EVs to thousands more residents.

EVs come with many benefits. They help improve local air quality and reduce the transportation sector’s overall environmental impact. For Saint Louis EV drivers, charging their EV at home can lead to hundreds of dollars of fuel cost savings each year compared to a gasoline-powered car. EVs have lower lifetime maintenance costs than gasoline-powered cars. EVs can succeed on their own merits; forcing the hand of property owners is the wrong way to speed up the EV adoption process.

The post EV Charging Stations Don’t Need Mandates to Succeed appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So what do some in the Missouri Legislature want to do with this burgeoning market? Subsidize it, of course. A bill prefiled in the Missouri House would subsidize Missourians for a purchase many are already making by giving out a thousand-dollar refundable tax credit for each EV purchase.

This is so redundant and unnecessary that even Elon Musk wouldn’t support it.

In a recent interview, Musk favored ending subsidies of any kind for all vehicles, whether gasoline or battery-powered.

When asked about the possibility of an up-to $12,500-per-EV tax credit being considered in Congress, Musk criticized it as unnecessary. While most makes of electric vehicles still qualify for the existing $7,500 federal tax credit, Tesla’s cars—which made up over two thirds of all EV purchases this year—haven’t for several years. Admittedly, Musk’s market power may account for some of his opposition to EV tax credits.

Musk also criticized the $7.5 billion dedicated to building EV charging stations in the recently passed federal infrastructure bill, saying that if gas stations don’t need support, EV charging stations shouldn’t either. If he doesn’t support these subsidies, I can’t imagine he’d support Saint Louis-area governments mandating new construction and property renovations being built with EV charging stations.

If the godfather (or Dogefather?) of electric vehicles thinks EV tax credits and subsidized charging stations are unnecessary, shouldn’t we?

The post Even Elon Musk Wouldn’t Support Missouri’s EV Tax Credit Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The rule they’re considering would require electric vehicle charging stations be built with “new and substantial renovations and additions [at least 50 percent of the unit’s final floorspace] on single-family two family and townhomes and new multi-family residential developments.” The Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission rejected a similar proposed mandate last month, but the Brentwood Board of Aldermen has revived the idea, with the Brentwood mayor indicating they may pass a bill on the matter.

Each EV charger costs an average of $5,000 to install, but it is still unclear who will pay for them. Ameren offers property owners subsidies for EV charging stations up to half the cost, but that still leaves thousands of dollars unaccounted for.

Additionally, their deliberations are vague concerning how many EV charging stations would be required per property. Would it be one per family in the case of townhomes? Would it be a percentage of total parking spaces available, as the new Saint Louis County ordinance requires? Would families that don’t use an EV be paying for their EV-driving neighbor’s charging station?

The board of aldermen’s proposal is not finalized, but the idea should be rejected. Let property owners install EV charging stations at their own pace based on the market demand for them. EV charging stations have grown rapidly across the country for the past several years without mandates like the one Brentwood officials are considering.

In the near future, equipping townhomes and apartments with EV charging stations may indeed make good business sense, either to keep existing tenants or attract new ones. But shouldn’t business and property owners be the ones deciding where to place EV charging stations rather than government officials?

The post Brentwood Considering Mandating EV Charging Stations in New Townhomes and Apartments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The new order affects new constructions, major remodels, parking lot reconstruction and overlay projects, and changes in use or occupancy classification. The changes apply to properties zoned for commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, cultural, or municipal and park land uses. These properties must equip 2 percent of their parking spaces with electric vehicle (EV) chargers and have the electric wiring ready for another 10 percent of spaces on standby.

Not every property will be affected by this decision. But why should any?

The bill’s sponsor stated that its purpose is to incentivize more Missourians to drive EVs. However, EV ownership in Missouri, while small, is already increasing. Why not let property owners add EV charging spaces on their own and compete for EV drivers rather than force every renovating business to do so?

In addition to the bill’s warped incentives, it reeks of what economists call rent seeking, which is when companies use the political process to pad their bottom lines rather than providing a better service to customers. In this case, a prime beneficiary of the new requirements is local monopoly utility Ameren (which according to one councilmember lobbied heavily in the bill’s favor), which gets to make more money from captive customers simply by governmental order.

Another major problem is that installing EV charging stations is not cheap (they cost roughly $5,000 per unit). But the bill makes no mention of how property owners will pay for this. This is a government mandate that will squeeze business and property owners while only benefiting the existing electricity monopoly.

EV ownership is a personal preference. If more Missourians purchase EVs, businesses can make their own decisions about installing  EV charging stations and competing for customers’ business. Shouldn’t competitive markets decide these kinds of things instead of government bureaucrats?

The post St Louis County Council Mandates Businesses Install EV Charging Stations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The same bill that raised the gas tax will also raise the annual fuel decal fee that EV owners pay by 20 percent each year for five years. This means that the EV fee will rise from $75 to $150. Lawmakers are increasing this charge because EVs cause wear and tear on the state’s roads (just as gas-powered vehicles do), but EV drivers don’t pay into the state’s road-maintenance fund through gasoline taxes. Show-Me Institute researchers have estimated that the average driver of a gas-powered car in Missouri pays $250 per year in fuel taxes. A $150 fee would still have Missouri’s EV drivers paying only 60 percent of what other drivers (on average) pay. Nonetheless, it would be one the highest fees for EV drivers in the country.

The bill also establishes a new Electric Vehicle Task Force to study ways to ensure EV drivers pay fairly for road maintenance, such as through a per-kilowatt hour charge on electricity used to charge their EV. The Task Force will also attempt to ensure that non-EV drivers do not end up subsidizing EV drivers, as well as study what role actors typically not part of the transportation sector, like electric utilities and the Public Service Commission, play in the process.

The bill slates several government officials and industry representatives to be on the Task Force, and also stipulates that:

The task force may hold public meetings at which it may invite testimony from experts, or it may solicit information from any party it deems may have information relevant to its duties . . . .

I hope the Task force solicits input from ordinary citizens in addition to experts so that their voices are heard as well. The Task Force should also consider what other existing policies might be affecting drivers of both gas-powered vehicles and EVs (specifically, the federal ban on electric vehicle charging stations, gas stations, and nearly all other commercial activity at interstate rest stops).

Getting EV policy right is important. EV drivers should contribute their fair share for road maintenance just like drivers of gasoline-powered vehicles—with neither subsidizing the other. The transportation landscape in Missouri is changing, with more and more EVs hitting the road. Policymakers should remember that government’s role isn’t to promote or hinder the adoption of EVs, but rather to ensure a level playing field.

The post Electric Vehicle Policy Changes Coming Soon appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Instead of raising the fuel tax by 2 cents per gallon each year for five years, the bill would raise the fuel tax 2.5 cents per gallon each year for five years. If it were to become law, Missouri’s fuel tax would be raised from 17 cents per gallon now to 29.5 cents per gallon in 2025. The bill’s sponsors estimate that, once the increases are fully phased in, these measures would raise an additional $462 million per year starting in 2026.

The tax increase would eventually cover a little more than half of the annual $745 million MoDOT claims it needs for high-priority road and bridge needs. Increased transportation funding is needed, Show-Me analysts and other organizations have pointed out.

There’s another new wrinkle added to the bill: residents can claim an exemption and refund for the additional tax amounts they paid as a result of the fuel tax increase. This exemption would only apply to vehicles that weigh less than 26,000 pounds, effectively ruling out commercial trucking companies from receiving the refund. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the exemption and refund are onerous particularly if you have more than one vehicle. Under the current draft of the legislation, the claim for a refund shall at a minimum include:  (1) Vehicle identification number of the motor vehicle into which the motor fuel was delivered; (2) Date of sale; (3) Name and address of purchaser; (4) Name and address of seller; (5) Number of gallons purchased; and (6) Number of gallons purchased and charged Missouri fuel tax, as a separate item.

It’s hard to know how many Missourians would take advantage of this refund mechanism, but available evidence suggests that most won’t. The fuel tax refund is modeled after South Carolina’s fuel tax rebate, and only $3.4 million in rebates were issued out of over $500 million raised.

Perhaps the most interesting change is that the bill would establish an Electric Vehicle Task Force to study how to ensure drivers of electric vehicles (EVs) adequately pay for the damage they cause to roads. As more people use EVs and don’t fuel their cars with gasoline, this will become a salient question for future legislation. The task force would also study how the charging of EVs will impact the state electric system, the role of utilities and the Public Service Commission in overseeing charging stations, and ensuring that electric customers without EVs don’t end up subsidizing those who do.

The bill still faces another vote in the Senate, so things could change once again. Hopefully, we see a final bill that addresses transportation funding issues in Missouri in a fair and equitable way.

The post Gas Tax Bill Undergoes Several Changes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s road maintenance funding is on a road to nowhere.

Interstate 70, Missouri’s economic and transportation lifeline, is falling apart. Many other roads Missourians travel on each day also need to be fixed, and they too will continue to deteriorate because the Missouri Department of Transportation is running out of money.

While travel on Missouri’s roads continues to increase (up 12 percent since 2008), MoDOT’s budget has been headed in the opposite direction (down 15 percent in the same period), and that has resulted in a whopping $745 million in unfunded road transportation needs.

MoDOT remains heavily dependent on the state fuel tax (17.4 cents per gallon) for road maintenance, and that’s part of the problem. Because of the improved fuel economy of today’s gas and diesel-powered cars and trucks, fuel tax receipts have declined even though people drive more and put more wear and tear on the roads. Furthermore, drivers of electric vehicles are paying significantly less for road maintenance because they aren’t paying fuel tax.

It’s time to rethink transportation funding. The damage inflicted upon roads is determined by how much drivers drive on them and how much their vehicles weigh, not by how much fuel they consume. A better way to match the damage drivers do to the road with what they pay for its upkeep is to charge by the mile, instead of by the gallon.

Several states experimenting with road-usage charge programs demonstrate how such programs could be implemented. One method to record mileage is by a simple odometer reading. Drivers could self-report their odometer readings as part of the annual vehicle registration process or by plugging a recording device into the vehicle’s diagnostics port. While this method would pose no threat to driver privacy, it would be impractical for those who frequently drive out of state.

A more controversial method is to record precise in-state miles driven by using GPS technology. Current programs in Oregon and Utah use third-party providers to record in-state mileage either through a GPS-equipped plug-in device or a smartphone app. In both cases, the state receives the total miles driven for billing purposes with no location data.

While this poses more concerns for driver privacy, it should be noted that GPS satellites do not track locations. GPS responders, whether in plug-in devices or cell phones, track their location in relation to satellites, but do not necessarily share their location with those satellites. Protecting driver privacy is a serious concern, and the reporting of personal or location-specific data should only be allowed when explicitly agreed to by drivers.

With these first two methods, as drivers pay for their miles driven, they are reimbursed for the gas taxes they paid to travel those miles.

A third method is to use electronic tolling to raise maintenance funds specifically for heavily traveled highways, as many states already do. Drivers can use transponders that send a signal that is picked up at certain points along the road, and payments can automatically be deducted from that driver’s account. Those with concerns about the privacy implications wouldn’t have to opt for a transponder. Instead, cameras on the highway could record their license-plate number and a bill could be mailed based on their driver registration information.

No system is perfect, but in each of the examples listed above, drivers can choose their method of payment and are presented with several options depending on their privacy concerns.

In any case, our current system of taxing fuel usage is becoming less viable. Missouri policymakers should consider solutions already in use in other states to move Missouri’s transportation funding methods in the right direction.

The post Commentary: Funding Roads by the Mile, Not the Gallon appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Modern tolling is electronic rather than using traditional stop-and-go toll booths. Drivers have transponders that send a signal that is picked up at certain checkpoints along the road. Payments can either be deducted from an online account with the tolling organization, or drivers can receive a bill in the mail. For drivers without a transponder, license plate photos direct the tolling organization—whether state-run or private—where to mail the bill.

Electronic tolling is widely employed in several states, and each new state that adopts the technology benefits from the years of experience gained by the others. Missouri would not have to reinvent the wheel should tolling be adopted here.

The main privacy concern with electronic tolling is whether transponders remain active outside of toll roads on which they are meant to be used—as could happen if the state transportation department wanted to use the transponders to collect traffic flow data (for example, to inform decisions about adding lanes in congested areas).

One method by which states have attempted to mitigate this concern is by allowing anonymous transponder accounts, where data is stripped of personal information and reported by an internal account number. Again, though, drivers who aren’t comfortable with having a transponder in their car could still have bills sent to them via mail based on their license plate.

Ultimately, the current fuel tax system of funding road maintenance is becoming less viable, as the increasing popularity of electronic vehicles renders fuel taxes less effective and more unfair. Policymakers can begin the transition to road-usage charges, but this will require balancing the efficiency and accuracy of various measurement options while also respecting the privacy of motorists.

The post Driver Privacy and Electronic Tolling appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recording mileage via GPS tracking has some advantages over the odometer-reading method I described in yesterday’s post. For one thing, the GPS method would allow out-of-state miles to be excluded. Additionally, as some roads—such as urban freeways and interstates—are more expensive to build and maintain than typical roads, drivers could pay different rates for using different roads.

However, this type of mileage recording raises privacy concerns. How do these programs work in states that have tried it?

The longest-running and best-established program to date is in Oregon. Drivers who voluntarily participate in the OReGO program can pay a per-mile fee for driving and have any fuel taxes reimbursed. Drivers have several options of how to track those miles, such as paying for a block of miles in advance, odometer readings, or using GPS technology to record miles driven. If drivers choose the latter option, a third-party provider places a GPS-equipped plug-in device in their car, and the device uses vehicle data to determine in-state miles driven and fuel consumption. In order to protect drivers’ privacy, Oregon state law mandates that only the total weekly miles driven may be reported to the Department of Transportation. Personal data not delivered to the Department of Transportation is encrypted and destroyed on a set schedule, in accordance with Department of Transportation policy and OReGO program requirements laid down legislatively. This information cannot be sold or traded without the driver’s express consent.

Utah’s Road Usage Charge program operates similarly, although it is only for electric vehicle drivers. The program’s voluntary participants can pre-select their privacy settings, and a transponder run by a third-party service provider is installed in the vehicle. The third-party system sends monthly total miles driven to the Department of Transportation without disclosing additional data unless tied to a criminal investigation.

Several other states are exploring variants of these programs. Delaware and other east coast states are exploring mileage-based user fees in a series of pilots. California also conducted a road-usage charge pilot program, but legislators have not decided whether to continue the program.

It is also important to note what GPS technology does and does not do. GPS satellites do not necessarily track cars (or phones, etc.) that have receivers. It is the GPS receiver itself, whether in a cell phone or transponder, that tracks its own position in relation to a satellite. But unless the receiver is equipped with reporting capability, the device’s location is not shared with the satellite.

Protecting drivers’ privacy is a serious concern, and reporting of personal or location-specific data should only be allowed when explicitly agreed to by drivers. Further, while it offers the potential for the most accurate measuring of a driver’s miles logged, a GPS-based option must continue to be one of several options for reporting miles. In the next post, I’ll talk about a third method of pairing funding for road maintenance with miles driven.

The post Funding Roads by Miles Traveled—There’s an App for That appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A more accurate proxy for a road-damage fee would seem to be one based on the number of miles a vehicle is actually driven and the weight of that vehicle. How could such a system be implemented?

One of the simplest ways to assess how much someone has driven is by taking an odometer reading.

There are several ways this could be done. Drivers could self-report their odometer readings either as part of the annual registration process or at any other established time. Alternatively, a recording device could be plugged into the diagnostics port of most vehicles to measure the miles driven. This is the method employed by several states that have initiated road usage charge programs. As drivers pay for the miles driven, they are then reimbursed for the gas taxes they paid to travel those miles.

Recording miles traveled through odometer readings poses no threat to driver privacy, as even when a device is used to record mileage it does not track the vehicle’s movement.

There are a couple disadvantages to calculating miles traveled through odometer readings. This method could be impractical and arguably unfair for people who frequently drive out of state, as they would be charged for those miles too. In addition, many older cars don’t have a diagnostic port, and thus wouldn’t be able to accommodate a device used to track their miles.

Reading odometers is straightforward and raises no privacy issues; for those who don’t do much driving out of state, it has a lot of advantages. In the next post I’ll discuss one of the more controversial methods of measuring miles driven.

The post Think Miles, Not Gallons, to Fund Missouri’s Roads appeared first on Show-Me Institute.