The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
Chandler Dugal lives in the Augusta area and works as a paralegal. He is a graduate of the James Madison University Honors College, the University of Maine at Augusta’s paralegal studies program, and holds a master of public administration from Penn State University.
This week, seven unelected bureaucrats in Augusta will likely decide whether Mainers essentially surrender the freedom to eventually purchase vehicles of their choosing into the hands of 14 unelected bureaucrats more than 3,000 miles away. No legislation will be considered by the elected representatives of the people, nor will the measure appear on any ballot. A meager petition of 150 signatures (that’s an inappreciable 0.011 percent of our state’s population of 1,362,359) and seven appointed officials will make a sweeping determination for the rest of the state.
As House District 19 Rep. Dick Campbell noted in a recent opinion column in the Bangor Daily News, over 80 percent of the testimony and comment received during August’s public hearing and public comment period opposed the proposal. Public outcry has made it clear that the regulation would be very unlikely to survive legislative consideration or statewide referendum. Perhaps that overwhelming objection is why proponents of the vehicle ban seek to institute it via what seem like dubious rulemaking procedures and administrative fiat, rather than broad and traditional democratic means.
The petition to Maine’s Board of Environmental Protection seeks to reduce Maine’s greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out the introduction of new gas-powered vehicles into the state, consequently leading to more emission-free electric vehicle usage. However, these EVs tend to be more expensive, less reliable, and require a larger carbon footprint to manufacture than traditional vehicles. All of that is not to say that environmental protection and emissions reduction concerns are illegitimate, but it does cast doubt as to the wisdom of this particular proposal.
Of great concern is what looks like the outsourcing of certain key regulatory decisions to the California Air Resources Board. Specifically, the proposed regulation would eventually severely limit Mainers from purchasing, selling, leasing, renting, acquiring, importing or otherwise receiving any new vehicle “unless the vehicle has received a CARB Executive Order.” Although enforcement of the regulation will be carried out by local officials, approved EVs are to be designated by Californian regulators.
Reinforcing this provision, Section 3(B) of the regulation states that when conflicts arise between relevant Maine regulations and the California Code of Regulations, Title 13 of the California Code “shall prevail.” The most brazenly offense section to Mainers, Section 3(A) of the proposal, states, “For the purposes of applying the incorporated sections of the California Code of Regulations, unless clearly inappropriate, ‘California’ shall mean ‘Maine.’” I would think that all Mainers would find such substitutions to be “clearly inappropriate.”
I believe this is an unnecessary subordination of Maine’s regulatory sovereignty. This is not a “California-style” regulation. It is California regulation, with the most vital element of the regulation being established by 14 Californian administrators. At the very least, if Maine is to regulate new car sales to phase out gas-powered vehicles, the responsibility of approving vehicles for purchase should rest with our officials and not those located out of state.
Substantive flaws aside, it is the method of enactment that is most troubling to me here. I believe that sweeping market interventions that will affect the lives of Mainers should not be imposed through regulatory processes. Statute has essentially forced the hand of the Board of Environmental Protection to consider the petition, but not to pass it. I do not believe that the regulation should be approved, and, beyond that, our Legislature and governor should step in to amend or repeal the statutory language that allows such a small number of petitioners to force what may be imprudent regulatory action.
In my view, our norms of democratic and representative government obligate the Board of Environmental Protection to reject the proposal on principle; and I believe the petition’s merits serve only to condemn it further.
