No need for Calif. to have own rules

TO THE EDITOR:

Regarding Nancy Pfund's column, "Don't tie California's hands over EVs" (May 1): The ostensible purpose behind federal regulation of automobiles is to avoid a patchwork of state laws.

In the 1960s, California was given authority to adopt stricter emissions rules.

However, given the stringent standards now in place nationwide, the policy has outlived its usefulness.

While there have been remarkable developments in battery technology in recent years, the real impetus behind the niche market for electric vehicles has been massive government subsidies, as was pointed out by Keith Crain ("It is time to pull the plug," April 24). Moreover, EV customers are not typically called upon to pay road tax, bail out mass transit or provide artificial price support for the corn industry.

Yet Pfund, as an investor, feels we must do more.

She maintains that to "level the playing field," we need laws effectively forcing people to buy her product.

She claims the California mandate "creates jobs" and that EVs offer "no sacrifice for drivers," the implication being that no alternative jobs would exist if consumers were free to choose the type of vehicle that suits them.

And then there is the argument that EVs are "good for the planet." The true environmental impact of EVs depends on how and where the electricity is generated.

It has been a ruse of the California coastal elites for years that the only way to save the Earth is to pay them lots of money.

Nice work if you can get it.

NICHOLAS BENTIVEGNA, Ebensburg, Pa. The writer is an attorney and industrial designer with automotive clients. He is a former California resident.