<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Michael <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> That is a good question.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The problem is there is no complete explanation and the way law makers are writing bills; they can’t seem to write them in plain English without loopholes or ambiguity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hybrids should be OK but they will probably get around to ban them in the future.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ron Fraser<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> michael king <michael.s.king@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 03, 2022 12:20 PM<br><b>To:</b> Ron Fraser <rfraser@bluefrog.com><br><b>Cc:</b> GARY WINBLAD <garywinblad@comcast.net>; Jim B <jbsyv@yahoo.com>; tigers@autox.team.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Tigers] The answer to a question that no one asked...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>On Monday, 3 October 2022, Ron Fraser <<a href="mailto:rfraser@bluefrog.com">rfraser@bluefrog.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Seems to me California and New York have already banned the sale of petrol engine by 2035. My 1<sup>st</sup> question would be how many of those politicians own an EV now? My guess, few.<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Ron isnt the ban petrol ONLY powered? I thought Hybrids would be allowed just banning pure fossil fuel new car sales?<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>-- <br>Regards<br><br>Michael King<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>