Imagine a Vermont where before Ben & Jerry’s could sell a single pint of Cherry Garcia, they had to first sell eight pints of low-fat, high-fiber kale sorbet—whether anyone wanted them or not. Sound absurd? Of course it does. But that’s exactly the kind of command-economy logic the state is now imposing on truck and auto dealers under its so-called “Clean Cars and Trucks” rule.
Beginning in model year 2026, Vermont will require that 35% of all new cars delivered to dealerships be electric vehicles (EVs). In the heavy truck sector, some dealers are now reporting a chilling twist: for every diesel truck they want to sell, they must first sell an electric one—despite the fact that few customers are buying them. This isn’t encouragement. It’s coercion.
Writer and policy analyst Rob Roper recently highlighted how this mandate is already causing ripple effects for Vermont dealers and warned that it could lead to job losses, lost tax revenue, and even increased emissions. But the problem goes deeper than just bad economics—it touches the very foundation of constitutional limits, market distortion, and trust in representative government.
The state is not simply nudging the market toward electric vehicles—it is actively dictating the terms of commerce for a narrow set of private businesses. This raises profound legal, constitutional, and economic questions.
Where Is the Authority?
Nowhere in the Vermont Constitution does it say the state can force a business to sell one product in order to gain permission to sell another. In fact, several articles in Vermont’s foundational document argue against such authority.
Article 1 guarantees Vermonters the inherent and unalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property. That includes the right to run a lawful business without being coerced into selling a product that may be unwanted, unprofitable, or technologically unready. Article 7 further declares that government should be for the common good—not for the benefit of any “set of men,” such as, say, favored manufacturers of electric vehicles.
The idea that the state can tell a truck dealer what they must sell—regardless of demand—before they’re “allowed” to sell what customers are actually asking for is more than just overreach. It’s arguably unconstitutional.
Regulatory Targeting: A Class-Action in the Making?
This policy doesn’t apply broadly. It singles out one narrow sector—auto and truck dealers—for a quota system no other industry in Vermont is subject to. Grocery stores aren’t told they must sell eight loaves of gluten-free bread before stocking a loaf of white. Hardware stores aren’t required to move a certain number of electric snowblowers before they’re allowed to sell gas-powered ones.
Why the selective punishment?
From a legal standpoint, this opens the door to a potential class-action lawsuit, especially if dealerships or fuel distributors can show financial harm, interference with commerce, or discrimination in enforcement. Equal protection, economic liberty, and due process arguments would all be in play. One can only wonder why such a challenge hasn’t already been filed.
Market Signals? What Are Those?
In the real world, businesses succeed or fail by how well they read and respond to market signals: consumer demand, price sensitivity, infrastructure readiness, and product performance. Governments can regulate markets, but when they start overriding them, they risk causing distortion, waste, and backlash.
Vermont’s EV quotas are deaf to market signals. They assume that if you simply remove the option to buy a gasoline or diesel vehicle, consumers will obediently switch to electric. But that’s not what’s happening.
People aren’t buying EVs at the required pace because:
- The charging infrastructure isn’t ready, especially in rural areas.
- The vehicles remain too expensive for many working-class Vermonters.
- The technology doesn’t yet meet the performance needs of truckers or people who drive long distances.
- And increasingly, a certain segment of the population has determined they want to vandalize them.
That last point may seem fringe, but it matters. In a culture increasingly defined by ideological backlash, EVs have become politicized symbols. A product that makes some feel virtuous now puts others on edge—or worse. That’s not an endorsement of that behavior, but a recognition of reality. You can’t mandate social harmony any more than you can force market readiness.
Cherry Garcia Math: Let’s Play It Out
Let’s return to the Ben & Jerry’s example. A pint of their ice cream contains about 1,100 calories and, by the company’s own reporting, generates approximately 1.5 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e) in production and distribution. Multiply that across thousands of pints shipped via diesel-powered refrigerated trucks, and the carbon cost is significant—arguably higher than the emissions from the very trucks Vermont is trying to regulate out of existence.
So why doesn’t the state impose food quotas to reduce caloric emissions? Why not ban high-fat ice cream or require eight units of low-carbon vegan fare before one premium pint can be sold?
Because people would revolt. The absurdity of that policy is immediately obvious—yet when it’s applied to diesel trucks and EVs, we’re told to accept it as the price of “progress.”
A Government That Doesn’t Trust Its Citizens
At the core of this issue is a disturbing philosophy: the belief that Vermonters cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. That dealerships cannot be trusted to sell what people want. That families cannot be trusted to choose the right vehicle for their needs. That markets cannot be trusted to evolve without being bullied.
But what’s even more troubling is that this isn’t even driven by voters. It’s being dictated by an expertocracy—a class of unelected bureaucrats, consultants, and special interest groups who claim to know what’s best for everyone else. These are the people whispering in the ears of lawmakers, drawing up the mandates, and insulating themselves from the consequences.
When governments stop listening to the market and start imposing rigid, ideologically driven mandates crafted by “experts,” they aren’t just taking sides—they’re taking control. That’s not clean energy. That’s a command economy run by committee.
It’s time Vermonters demand a return to representative, constitutional, and economically sound governance—before we all find ourselves mandated into misery by people who will never feel the effects of the rules they impose.
Somewhere along the way to Montpelier, a few of our elected neighbors seem to have lost sight of reality—or the communities they were chosen to serve.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontPolitics #EVmandates #LocalControl
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply