While supporters of electric vehicles point to them as less polluting and a tool to combat climate change, opponents have several arguments against the state’s proposal to require all vehicle sales be electric in 2035.

Opponents and proponents spoke Tuesday at a public hearing on Gov. Ned Lamont’s proposed regulation, based on the state’s 2022 Connecticut Clean Air Act and 2003 legislation that requires the state to follow California’s vehicle standards.

But while environmentalists and other supporters of EVs spoke about how Connecticut needs to have cleaner air, there were far more who spoke against the proposed rule.

Expense, safety, potential battery fires, reliance on raw materials from China and the Democratic Republic of Congo and free choice were mentioned by a number of speakers.

Even California came under fire, with speakers saying the Constitution State should not base its regulations on the Golden State’s, and one calling California a “communist cesspool.” 

According to Jerry Cunningham, who said he has worked in the energy industry his entire career, “electricity is not emissions-free. It may not come out of the tailpipe, but it is coming out of the power plant.”

He also said generation and transmission costs are excessive. “But the big issue environmentally is the mining and refining of these batteries,” he said. “And when I listen to the people in support of this proposal, what they’re saying is we are very happy to export our pollution overseas to other communities at risk, other communities that may be suffering from climate (change).”

Eric Treaster of Ledyard opposed the new rule because, he said, carbon emissions would not drop unless the state went fully to non-carbon-based energy.

“Electric vehicles, because they weigh about 40% more than a gas vehicle of the same size, are safe,” he said. “However, the safety comes from their weight, which places drivers of non-electric vehicles of the same size at risk.”

Treaster said the weight of EVs will cause roads to deteriorate and that the lack of a fuel tax would force other taxes to rise.

Ready for an electric car? What you need to know

“Electric vehicles are expensive, about 40% more than the equivalent gas-powered vehicle,” he said. “Such extra costs are regressive for most Connecticut residents.” That includes the cost of charging the vehicles. And, he said, charging EVs takes too long to be practical on the road.

Charles Rothenberger, climate and energy attorney with Save the Sound, said the proposed regulations “build on Connecticut’s longstanding commitment to reducing the harmful effects of motor vehicle pollution on our residents and addressing climate change. … I will say that, similar to California, Connecticut needs to adopt these more stringent standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.”

Rothenberger said Connecticut has not met the national air-quality standards for ozone. He said there are myths being spread about the rules.

“These regulations do not act as a ban on gasoline vehicles,” he said. “What they do is they require increasing percentages of so-called zero-emission vehicles to be sold into the Connecticut marketplace, including hybrid electric vehicles, which are part of this regulation.”

“There should be no fear about whether this is achievable,” Rothenberger said. “Indeed, all you have to do is ask the manufacturers of these vehicles, all of whom have announced quite aggressive plans to achieve full electrification of their fleets.” 

As of July 1, EV registrations in Connecticut are up 20% since Jan. 1, and 42% since July 1, 2022, according to data from the state Department of Motor Vehicles. 

According to the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the rule would require 90% cleaner emissions from internal combustion engines and that all vehicles sold in the state be electric by 2035. Also, DEEP said, the state is out of compliance with federal air quality standards.

Alan Shaw of Stamford said, “If EVs are so good, then the people will buy them on their own. If they’re bad, they have to be forced and coerced into buying them. And with the roots in California, should we really be looking at California’s mismanagement as something to aspire to?”

Christina O’Neill, an environmental planner from Wolcott, supported the proposal. “This is a common sense move for Connecticut that will mitigate climate change, reduce air pollution and serve the public good,” she said. 

“The American Lung Association gave half of Connecticut’s counties an F for high-ozone days,” she said. “One in every 10 adults in Connecticut has asthma. A recent report by the state DEEP found that transportation is the leading sector in greenhouse gas emissions. These scary statistics are billowing from the tailpipes of our gas-powered cars.”

O’Neill added that the cost of EVs will drop as auto dealers expand their markets in the state and that the electric grid can be upgraded with federal climate change funds.

John Overhiser of Southbury also spoke in favor of the regulations. “Many automakers have already decided to phase out internal combustion cars by 2035. That makes a lot of this opposition sort of moot,” he said. “And also the fact that our electricity generated to power these cars has the opportunity to get cleaner as the grid gets cleaner, and some of the best ways to power your car is with solar energy from your own roof.”

Bryce Chinault of the conservative Yankee Institute opposed the rule, saying, “According to NPR, extensive child labor is used, not to mention the energy-intensive machinery which runs on various forms of petroleum.”

Chinault added, “After the mining, these minerals must be shipped where they can be processed, the majority of which occurs in China, which is the planet’s largest carbon emitter, and it’s building coal-powered power plants every week. This mining, processing, manufacturing and shipping on diesel-powered cargo ships means an electric vehicle has emitted far more carbon to arrive at your home than a gas-powered car.”

Chris Herb, president of the Connecticut Energy Marketers Association, spoke about the collateral effect of banning gas-powered vehicles.

“Our motor fuel members own, operate and distribute fuel to approximately 1,000 retail locations around the state,” he said. “Our members own property in virtually every municipality, pay local and state taxes, employ thousands of people and play a vital role in Connecticut’s economy.”

He said the proposal “ignores the hundreds of mom-and-pop businesses that sell diesel and gasoline.”

Steven Lewis of South Windsor said EVs are “so much more efficient at turning energy into motion vs. combustion engine vehicles. Combustion cars lose 80% of their energy to inefficiency, whereas EVs only lose 11% of their energy. EVs emit no harmful gases that accelerate climate change and harm public health. They require little maintenance and are much more fun and safe to drive.”

Kim Libero of Cornwall, an earth scientist, urged, “Do not follow that communist cesspool California. Leave things to the free market. Remember consumers should have choice. Our legislature has been trending away from them. I oppose the mandate.”

She also spoke of the danger of fires from lithium batteries, which she said can start a fire in a garage during a heat wave.

Ruth Canovi of the American Lung Association, favored the rule. “We cannot ensure a clean air and a livable climate for all Americans without addressing the transportation pollution,” she said.

“We recently released a report called Zeroing In On Healthy Air, and it found that a transition to zero-emission transportation and clean energy in Connecticut could generate major public health benefits through 2050, including $13 billion in public health benefits, 1,250 avoided deaths, 27,400 avoided asthma attacks and 143,000 avoided lost workdays.”

The DEEP said Massachusetts, New York and Vermont have adopted similar rules since late 2022 and that Rhode Island, Maryland, New Jersey and New Mexico plan to adopt the new standards. 

Ed Stannard can be reached at estannard@courant.com.