Trump targeted the spending after an audit showed that former President Joe Biden’s $7.5 billion investment in EV charging has only produced 7 stations in two years.
minute read
ADVERTISEMENT
Washington State has found itself in the midst of an electric vehicle (EV) policy contradiction that raises serious questions about the consistency—and hypocrisy— of its Democratic leadership’s virtue signaling. On one hand, Attorney General Nick Brown is co-leading a lawsuit against the Trump administration for halting federal EV infrastructure funds. On the other, state lawmakers are advancing legislation that appears to penalize Tesla, a company critical to the very EV future the state claims to champion.
Attorney General Nick Brown’s lawsuit, filed Wednesday alongside 16 other Democratic attorneys general, seeks to restore more than $1 billion in electric vehicle infrastructure funding that President Donald Trump’s administration has frozen. Washington alone stands to lose over $71 million from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, which was created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in 2021.
Trump targeted the spending after an audit showed that former President Joe Biden’s $7.5 billion investment in EV charging has only produced 7 stations in two years.
Brown accused the Trump administration of engaging in an “illegal claw-back,” asserting that it undermines congressional authority and jeopardizes critical economic development. “Washingtonians are switching to electric vehicles at one of the highest rates in the nation,” Brown said. “They deserve safe, reliable infrastructure.”
The lawsuit reflects Washington’s aggressive clean vehicle mandates, including the one requiring that all new passenger cars be zero-emission by 2035, and it has consistently ranked in the top five for EV adoption.
Yet, just days after proclaiming the importance of EV infrastructure, the state’s House passed Substitute House Bill 2077—legislation that critics say directly targets Tesla, the EV market leader.
The bill introduces a complex set of excise taxes on zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) credits, which Tesla dominates. The tax structure includes a 2 percent tax on sold ZEV credits, a 10 percent tax on banked credits, and an additional levy of up to 50 percent on pooled credits.
While supporters argue the revenue will be used to improve EV affordability and expand infrastructure, the bill’s design disproportionately impacts Tesla, which holds 54 percent of the state's ZEV credits despite accounting for less than 10 percent of vehicle sales. Critics, including six Democrats who broke ranks to oppose the bill, argue the legislation punishes success, especially the kind that helps meet the state’s climate goals.
The contradiction is glaring. On one hand, Attorney General Brown demands that the federal government honor its commitment to fund EV infrastructure, portraying Washington as a leader in clean transportation. On the other hand, the state legislature appears eager to penalize the company that has done more than any other to drive EV adoption.
The justification? Tesla allegedly benefits too much from the ZEV credit system, which lawmakers claim creates an “unfair financial windfall.” But this rationale ignores the fact that the credit market was designed precisely to reward overcompliance—a mechanism that allows legacy automakers to offset their emissions by purchasing credits from companies like Tesla.
State Rep. Jeremie Dufault (R-Selah) didn’t mince words during debate: “This bill taxes one company in Washington state. That is the wrong direction for tax policy, especially when the proponent is an outspoken political advocate.” Others suggested the legislation is a not so thinly veiled political rebuke of Elon Musk’s recent affiliations with the Trump administration and federal deregulation efforts through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The bill sets a concerning precedent: punishing companies not for harming the environment, but for succeeding too well under the rules that were meant to encourage innovation. Tesla didn’t create the ZEV credit system—it excelled within it. If Washington lawmakers now seek to retroactively penalize that success, they risk undermining the very incentives that have driven EV advancement.
Meanwhile, if Tesla passes on the cost of these new taxes to credit purchasers, as is likely, it could increase the price of compliance for other automakers, ultimately slowing the pace of EV adoption. State Rep. Travis Couture warned, “I think there’s going to be more F-150s on the road as a result of this bill.”
Democratic-controlled Washington can’t have it both ways. It can’t sue the federal government for undermining EV progress while simultaneously targeting one of the key drivers of that progress. If AG Brown is serious about ensuring Washingtonians have access to reliable EV infrastructure, he must also acknowledge that vilifying Tesla in the name of “fairness” only hampers the state’s green transition.
The message from Olympia seems muddled: defend the EV revolution—unless it makes Elon Musk too much money.
Attorney General Nick Brown’s lawsuit, filed Wednesday alongside 16 other Democratic attorneys general, seeks to restore more than $1 billion in electric vehicle infrastructure funding that President Donald Trump’s administration has frozen. Washington alone stands to lose over $71 million from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, which was created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in 2021.
Trump targeted the spending after an audit showed that former President Joe Biden’s $7.5 billion investment in EV charging has only produced 7 stations in two years.
Brown accused the Trump administration of engaging in an “illegal claw-back,” asserting that it undermines congressional authority and jeopardizes critical economic development. “Washingtonians are switching to electric vehicles at one of the highest rates in the nation,” Brown said. “They deserve safe, reliable infrastructure.”
The lawsuit reflects Washington’s aggressive clean vehicle mandates, including the one requiring that all new passenger cars be zero-emission by 2035, and it has consistently ranked in the top five for EV adoption.
Yet, just days after proclaiming the importance of EV infrastructure, the state’s House passed Substitute House Bill 2077—legislation that critics say directly targets Tesla, the EV market leader.
The bill introduces a complex set of excise taxes on zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) credits, which Tesla dominates. The tax structure includes a 2 percent tax on sold ZEV credits, a 10 percent tax on banked credits, and an additional levy of up to 50 percent on pooled credits.
While supporters argue the revenue will be used to improve EV affordability and expand infrastructure, the bill’s design disproportionately impacts Tesla, which holds 54 percent of the state's ZEV credits despite accounting for less than 10 percent of vehicle sales. Critics, including six Democrats who broke ranks to oppose the bill, argue the legislation punishes success, especially the kind that helps meet the state’s climate goals.
The contradiction is glaring. On one hand, Attorney General Brown demands that the federal government honor its commitment to fund EV infrastructure, portraying Washington as a leader in clean transportation. On the other hand, the state legislature appears eager to penalize the company that has done more than any other to drive EV adoption.
The justification? Tesla allegedly benefits too much from the ZEV credit system, which lawmakers claim creates an “unfair financial windfall.” But this rationale ignores the fact that the credit market was designed precisely to reward overcompliance—a mechanism that allows legacy automakers to offset their emissions by purchasing credits from companies like Tesla.
State Rep. Jeremie Dufault (R-Selah) didn’t mince words during debate: “This bill taxes one company in Washington state. That is the wrong direction for tax policy, especially when the proponent is an outspoken political advocate.” Others suggested the legislation is a not so thinly veiled political rebuke of Elon Musk’s recent affiliations with the Trump administration and federal deregulation efforts through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The bill sets a concerning precedent: punishing companies not for harming the environment, but for succeeding too well under the rules that were meant to encourage innovation. Tesla didn’t create the ZEV credit system—it excelled within it. If Washington lawmakers now seek to retroactively penalize that success, they risk undermining the very incentives that have driven EV advancement.
Meanwhile, if Tesla passes on the cost of these new taxes to credit purchasers, as is likely, it could increase the price of compliance for other automakers, ultimately slowing the pace of EV adoption. State Rep. Travis Couture warned, “I think there’s going to be more F-150s on the road as a result of this bill.”
Democratic-controlled Washington can’t have it both ways. It can’t sue the federal government for undermining EV progress while simultaneously targeting one of the key drivers of that progress. If AG Brown is serious about ensuring Washingtonians have access to reliable EV infrastructure, he must also acknowledge that vilifying Tesla in the name of “fairness” only hampers the state’s green transition.
The message from Olympia seems muddled: defend the EV revolution—unless it makes Elon Musk too much money.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments