This Will Change EVERYTHING. Biden's 7-Year Proposal

According to a powerful lobbying organization for the oil and gas sector, the proposed EPA regulations pose a serious threat to gasoline-powered automobiles and would effectively enact a ban.

By 2030 and 2032, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to implement an emissions rule requiring automakers to have 67% of their new car fleets be electric vehicles. The Washington Times has written about this initiative.

WATCH: Church Leaders PRAYED you’d never see this…

“This proposal seriously misses the mark,” stated Mike Sommers, the American Petroleum Institute’s president and chief executive.

“While not an explicit ban on internal combustion engines, this proposal is a de facto ban that will eliminate competition, distort the market and restrict consumer choice, while being potentially more costly to taxpayers.”

A significant trade association in the auto sector, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, has also voiced resistance to the regulation.

“These levels are substantially higher than what the auto industry indicated was achievable,” it said in comments submitted to the EPA, adding that “these proposed rules effectively require an additional 10-fold sales increase in a mere eight years.”

The committee admitted that, despite consumer desire for electric vehicles, there is currently insufficient infrastructure and funding to support a market glut of EVs.

The pricing and accessibility of residential and public charging infrastructure will have a significant impact on customers’ purchasing decisions. Customers’ choices will be highly influenced by the cost and accessibility of home and public charging infrastructure. This demands for further efforts at the state and local levels to simplify building rules, permitting procedures, and winning approval from public utility commissions. This necessitates greater state and municipal initiatives to simplify building rules, permitting procedures, and obtaining public utilities commission approval.

“Recent analysis indicates all of these are in much shorter supply than needed to meet EPA’s ambitious proposal by 2032,” the group wrote.

“And, despite government investments, there is no clear pathway to meet the totality of those needs in the timeframe considered in the proposed rulemaking without significant impacts to automakers, workers, consumers and ultimately the availability of vehicles that meet the needs of individuals, families and businesses across the country.”

The proposed rule is fiercely opposed by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources because, in their opinion, it represents an excessive level of governmental control.

“EPA’s fact sheet states the proposed standards would contribute ‘toward the goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius ….’ The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently told EPA it may not expand its federal regulatory reach beyond what Congress has given it authority to implement,” the department wrote.

“The U.S. Congress has not established this 2 degrees Celsius goal under the requirements of [the] Clean Air Act, and this goal is not found in a promulgated regulation.”

“It is evident that EPA lacks clear authority from Congress to require a generation-shifting approach to reduce vehicle emissions. Therefore, DANR does not think EPA has clear authority to implement these proposed emission standards and views this effort as federal overreach,” it wrote.