Great Power Reclamation

Chapter 2864: Interest comes first
In today's era, the rapid development of new energy vehicles is profoundly reshaping the automotive industry, and the rise of new energy vehicles has attracted widespread attention.

Ye Feng's Future Progressive Party, for the sake of the warrior group, naturally strongly advocates and promotes the development of the new energy vehicle industry. They believe that this is not only a necessary measure to deal with environmental challenges, but also the key to seizing the commanding heights of future economic development.

However, this stance has threatened the interests of traditional gasoline-powered vehicle manufacturers and related interest groups.

Seeing that they could not contain the rise of new energy sources, they instructed their members of parliament to begin implementing a series of restrictions on military fuel vehicles and engines.

This is an attempt to hinder the development of Warrior Motors, since new energy vehicles currently account for a small percentage of the market, and gasoline vehicles are still the mainstay.

If the Warrior Group is curbed in the area of ​​gasoline-powered vehicles, it will definitely be a heavy blow to the Warrior Group.

At the same time, it also targeted the Future Progressive Party, arguing that if this emerging party were defeated, the Warriors Group would completely lose its market in Europe and America.

In California, a relatively developed economy with a high level of environmental awareness, opposition lawmakers, together with some local traditional gasoline-powered vehicle manufacturers, pressured the state legislature to establish stricter emission standards and limits on engine energy consumption for gasoline-powered vehicles.

Their proposed bill stipulates that, within the next three years, the thermal efficiency of engines in gasoline-powered vehicles sold in the state must be increased by more than 20%, while the content of harmful substances in exhaust emissions must be reduced by 50%.

On the surface, these standards are intended to strengthen environmental protection, but in reality, with the current level of technology, traditional gasoline vehicle manufacturers need to invest huge amounts of research and development funds and time to meet these standards.

This will undoubtedly weaken their competitiveness in the market, while new energy vehicles are not subject to these restrictions.

Future Progressive Party (MPs) saw through the intentions behind the bill and strongly opposed it. They pointed out that such restrictions, which unilaterally target gasoline-powered vehicles and engines, constitute unfair market intervention, would damage the free competition environment of the market, and hinder the normal development of technology.

The two sides engaged in a heated debate in the state legislature. Future Progressive Party members cited the achievements of new energy vehicles in terms of technological breakthroughs and market acceptance, emphasizing that the transformation of the automotive industry should be promoted in a way that encourages innovation and fair competition.

Opposition lawmakers emphasized the urgency of environmental protection, accusing the Future Progressive Party of ignoring the severity of current environmental problems.

This debate has drawn widespread attention from all sectors of society, with supporters of both sides expressing their views through various channels, making the direction of the state's automotive industry policy highly uncertain.

In Michigan, a state with a strong industrial base and a significant traditional gasoline-powered vehicle industry, opposition lawmakers are taking a more direct and forceful approach.

They pushed the state government to introduce policies that subsidize new energy vehicles while significantly increasing taxes and fees on the production and sale of traditional gasoline vehicles, especially targeting foreign companies that mainly produce large-displacement engine gasoline vehicles.

The introduction of this policy has put many traditional gasoline-powered vehicle companies under tremendous operational pressure, and some small businesses are even at risk of going bankrupt.

Future Progressive Party lawmakers strongly condemned the policy, arguing that it was a "strangulation" of the traditional gasoline-powered vehicle industry, would lead to mass unemployment, and would severely impact the local economy.

Future Progressive Party lawmakers have proposed a more comprehensive industrial transformation plan, including providing subsidies for traditional gasoline-powered vehicle manufacturers to upgrade their technology and help them gradually transition to the new energy vehicle sector.

At the same time, we will strengthen support for the new energy vehicle industry chain and create more job opportunities.

However, opposition lawmakers did not accept this plan and continued to increase restrictions on traditional gasoline-powered vehicles in policy implementation.

The Future Progressive Party actively organized protests by relevant businesses and unions, escalating tensions between the two sides and significantly impacting Michigan's auto industry and social stability.

In Massachusetts, a state with a strong technological culture and a high acceptance of emerging technologies, opposition lawmakers have adopted a more covert approach to restricting fighter jets and their engines.

They have encouraged collaboration between the state government and universities and research institutions to invest a large amount of research funding in the development of new energy vehicle technologies, while significantly reducing funding for research on traditional fuel vehicle engine technologies.

This has put companies and research teams that originally had a certain advantage in the development of internal combustion engine technology in a difficult situation, and their research and development progress has been severely hampered.

Originally intended to curb the use of gasoline-powered vehicles and engines by soldiers, it has instead caused these local businesses to suffer undeservedly, which naturally leads to their protests. This has inadvertently helped the future Progressive Party.

Therefore, future Progressive Party lawmakers will seize upon this imbalance in the allocation of scientific research resources, which will lead to a "lame duck" in the technological development of the automotive industry and hinder the healthy development of the entire industry.

They called on the state government to re-examine its research funding allocation policy, emphasizing that while supporting the development of new energy vehicles, the improvement and upgrading of traditional fuel vehicle technology should not be neglected.

The Future Progressive Party is also actively collaborating with businesses and raising funds to support promising research projects on internal combustion engine technology, attempting to secure a place for traditional internal combustion vehicles in this technological competition.

In this contest surrounding the rise of new energy vehicles, the Future Progressive Party has consistently upheld the principles of fair competition and sustainable development, striving to balance the development of the new energy vehicle and traditional fuel vehicle industries.

Meanwhile, opposition lawmakers, influenced by traditional interest groups, have been using various restrictive measures to maintain the old industrial structure.

This contest is not only about the future of the automotive industry, but also has a profound impact on the economic development, employment situation, and environmental protection of various states.

In Pennsylvania, the traditional gasoline-powered vehicle manufacturing industry is a major pillar of the local economy.

The rise of Warrior New Energy has put unprecedented pressure on opposition lawmakers here.

They pointed the finger at the Future Progressive Party's new energy support policies, arguing that these policies "squeeze" out the market space for gasoline-powered vehicles.

In response, opposition lawmakers have proposed a bill requiring all new energy vehicle companies to pay a "balanced industry fund" to the state government to subsidize gasoline vehicle companies that are losing money due to declining sales.

They claim this is "to ensure employment stability," but anyone with a discerning eye can see that this is actually setting up barriers for new energy vehicles.

Future Progressive Party lawmakers immediately refuted the claim, arguing that it was "using unfair rules to protect outdated industries," and launched a protest in conjunction with workers and business representatives from the local new energy industry chain.

The two sides were deadlocked in the state legislature, which even sparked a nationwide debate on whether industrial transformation should sacrifice the interests of some people.

In Ohio, the focus is on infrastructure. The Future Progressive Party plans to add 500 new electric vehicle charging stations statewide, covering highway service areas and residential areas, which will require a significant portion of the state budget.

Opposition lawmakers rejected the proposal citing "financial constraints," instead proposing to prioritize the repair of aging facilities at gas stations for gasoline-powered vehicles.

It also emphasized that "currently, gasoline-powered vehicles still dominate the market, and building charging stations is a complete waste."

Even more covertly, they secretly pushed the state transportation department to revise the details of the car purchase subsidy.

Only those who purchase vehicles manufactured by local gasoline-powered car companies can enjoy the highest subsidy amount, while the subsidy threshold for new energy vehicles has been significantly raised.

Future Progressive Party MPs immediately seized on the loophole, exposing the vested interests behind the detailed rules with local gasoline and diesel vehicle companies, causing an uproar.

Ultimately, under public pressure, the subsidy details were forced to be revised, but the charging station construction plan was still shelved for six months.

The competition in Florida has a distinctly regional character. With its thriving tourism industry and massive rental vehicle market, Warrior New Energy's electric vehicles, thanks to their low energy consumption, have gradually captured a significant share of the rental market.

Opposition lawmakers, in conjunction with several large local gasoline-powered vehicle rental companies, have pushed for the enactment of a regulation.

New energy rental vehicles must undergo a "safety performance re-inspection" every quarter. The testing standards are three times stricter than those for gasoline vehicles, and the testing costs are high.

Their reasoning is that "new energy vehicle technology is not yet mature and needs to be more regulated," but in reality, they want to force new energy vehicle models out of the market by increasing operating costs.

Future Progressive Party lawmakers then joined forces with the rental industry association to use data to prove that the accident rate of new energy vehicles is lower than that of gasoline vehicles, and pointed out that the re-inspection regulations are "clearly targeted".

This contest ultimately evolved into a battle for "regulatory fairness," with the state Supreme Court even becoming involved and a focal point of the two parties vying for public support.

The power struggles in each state are like a mirror, reflecting the clash of interests and ideologies during industrial transformation.

The Future Progressive Party is trying to push the times forward, while the opposition is clinging to its vested interests.

The people caught in the middle are both beneficiaries of change and potential sufferers of the transitional pains; their attitudes often become the key factor influencing the outcome of the power struggle.

In Illinois, the landscape of the auto parts manufacturing industry has become a new focal point of contention between the two parties.

Warrior New Energy's motor and battery module production lines are constantly expanding, driving the rise of local new energy component companies.

Meanwhile, suppliers of core components for traditional gasoline-powered vehicle engines are facing a shrinking order situation.

Opposition lawmakers seized this opportunity to introduce a "Manufacturing Protection Bill" that would require new energy vehicle companies to source at least 60% of their components locally.

And it must include at least 20% of the components related to internal combustion engines—

This may seem like a way to protect local manufacturing jobs, but in reality it's forcibly binding new energy vehicles with the "burden of old industries."

Future Progressive Party MPs immediately refuted this logic:

"If a new energy vehicle company is forced to purchase components such as fuel injectors and piston rings that are unrelated to its own technology, it will either waste resources or drive up vehicle prices and weaken its competitiveness."

They joined forces with new energy component companies to lobby, emphasizing that "protecting the industry does not mean binding outdated production capacity," and presented data to prove that the number of jobs created by the new energy component industry has far exceeded the number of jobs lost by traditional engine component companies.

The debate between the two sides in the state legislature lasted for weeks, and the bill was ultimately shelved due to insufficient support.

However, the opposition then turned to local governments, indirectly demanding that new energy companies provide "technology transformation subsidies" to fuel component suppliers by adjusting tax incentive policies. The struggle continues in the shadows.

The battle in Georgia revolves around the “carbon emissions accounting rules”.

In recent years, the state has attracted many new energy vehicle companies to build factories. The Progressive Party is pushing to include the carbon emissions of new energy vehicles throughout their entire life cycle (including battery production and power sources) in the state's environmental assessment system, thereby highlighting their environmental advantages over gasoline vehicles.

However, opposition lawmakers, in conjunction with coal and oil-fired power generation companies, proposed a "revised accounting standard."

The requirement is to include carbon emissions from upstream coal-fired power generation for the electricity used by new energy vehicles with a "double weighting," while exhaust emissions from gasoline vehicles will only be calculated at "70% of the actual emissions."

This blatantly biased accounting method directly leads to a significant weakening of the "carbon emission advantage" of new energy vehicles in official data.

Future Progressive Party lawmakers angrily denounced this as "data-driven policy bias," and they joined forces with environmental organizations to release an independent accounting report that exposed loopholes in the rules and mobilized the public to put pressure on the state environmental protection agency.

This battle over "digital equity" plunged Georgia's environmental policies into a crisis of confidence.

Ultimately, under public pressure, the state legislature had to establish a third-party committee to redefine the accounting standards, but the struggle had already delayed the promotion of new energy vehicles in the state.

In North Carolina, the survival anxieties of the gasoline-powered vehicle repair industry have been turned into a political weapon by opposition lawmakers.

With the popularization of new energy vehicles, traditional auto repair shops are experiencing a decline in business due to a lack of motor and battery repair technology.

The opposition seized the opportunity to introduce a bill requiring all new energy vehicle companies to pay "technology transition compensation" to gasoline vehicle repair shops in the state.

A fee of $200 is required for each vehicle sold, and new energy vehicle manufacturers are mandated to disclose core maintenance technology data to "ensure fair competition in the maintenance market."

Future Progressive Party lawmakers pointed out that this is "forcibly shifting the costs of industry transformation onto innovative companies," and that disclosing core technologies is an infringement of intellectual property rights.

They proposed an alternative: the state government should take the lead in using a portion of the tax revenue from new energy vehicle companies to subsidize technical training at auto repair shops, rather than directly demanding compensation.

However, the opposition refused to compromise and even incited some auto repair shop owners to besiege the stores of new energy vehicle companies, creating public pressure.

The negotiation ultimately ended with a "compromise"—the compensation standard was reduced to $50, and only applied to established auto repair shops that had been in business for more than 10 years.

However, new energy vehicle companies are still required to partially disclose their technical data. Both sides claim to have "won a partial victory," but both harbor concerns about the future.

Behind every state-level power struggle lies a contest between old and new industries, as well as a clash between the two parties' development philosophies.

The Future Progressive Party is attempting to clear obstacles for the new energy industry, but it is facing layers of obstruction from traditional interest networks.

The opposition uses "protecting jobs" and "upholding fairness" as a pretext to package its demands, but in reality, it is delaying the pace of change.

The rise of Warrior New Energy is like a boulder thrown into a lake, and the ripples it creates are spreading to the economic fabric of every state, making this contest destined to be a long tug-of-war during the industrial transformation period.

In this endless game, Ye Feng also had a headache, because he had to promote the development of clean energy while protecting the current sales of warrior fuel vehicles.

In fact, many of the Future Progressive Party's current statements are contradictory, but which party isn't like that?

To put it bluntly, it's all for profit, including Ye Feng himself. If it weren't for the Warrior Group, he wouldn't be so concerned.

Thank you all for your votes! Salute! It's almost the end of the month, I need to...