Photo by Rathaphon Nanthapreecha on Pexels: https://bit.ly/3eMZlC1
Americans for Tax Reform joined a coalition of 28 groups in a letter asking Congress to support a resolution to overturn the Biden-Harris administration’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate.
H.J. Res. 136 was introduced by Congressman John James (R-Mich.) and has since gained 128 cosponsors. This Congressional Review Act resolution would express congressional disapprove of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking entitled “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles.”
The EPA’s regulation would force two-thirds of all new vehicles to be electric by the year 2032, restricting consumer choice and raising costs on Americans. If H.J. Res. 136 passes, this regulation can be overturned and consumer choice in the vehicle market can be restored.
Read the letter here or below:
September 19, 2024
Dear Representative,
The undersigned organizations write to support disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of the Environmental Protection Agency Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Year 2027 and Later Light-Duty Vehicles. This rulemaking is beyond EPA’s authority, seeking to impose a de facto electric vehicle mandate on American consumers.
This rule on tailpipe emissions standards is a massive overreach, using a novel application of EPA motor vehicle authorities in an attempt to force a transition in the motor vehicles market to products that align with the ideological preferences of the Biden administration. This rule is a de facto electric vehicle mandate. Congress has not given EPA the authority to require the purchase or production of certain types of motor vehicles or outlaw the purchase or production of other types of vehicles. Congress has not given EPA the authority to require the purchase or production of electric vehicles. EPA’s attempt to infer such power is contrary to longstanding administrative practice and contrary to recent Supreme Court precedent.
EPA openly stated that the intent of this rulemaking is to force a transition to electric vehicles. In this rulemaking and press announcements surrounding it, EPA repeatedly made clear that the intent of this rulemaking is to transition the motor vehicles market to electric vehicles, pollution reduction is merely an aside. For example, the first sentence of EPA’s press release announcing the rulemaking states “Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new proposed federal vehicle emissions standards that will accelerate the ongoing transition to a clean vehicles future.” The rulemaking itself extensively focuses on trends in electric vehicle manufacturing and announced plans from automakers and state governments regarding electric vehicles. But EPA’s mandate from Congress is to reduce criteria pollutants from vehicles, not to pick and choose what type of vehicles can be sold. EPA cites an executive order from the Biden administration as impetus for this de facto electric vehicle mandate, but an executive order does not create new authority.
EPA’s statutory authority is to control emissions of vehicles, not to require the manufacture and sale of entirely different vehicles. Congress has not directed EPA to force the adoption of electric vehicles, EPA is claiming this mandate unilaterally. The Clean Air Act directs EPA to reduce pollutant emissions from vehicles themselves, by for example requiring emissions control devices like catalytic converters. Electric vehicles are entirely separate products, they are not an emissions control device for internal combustion powered vehicles. EPA is thus for the first time seeking to mandate substitution of a different product in order to comply with its tailpipe emissions standards. This is a novel application of existing authority, and is frankly illegal. This illegality is made clear by an alternative scenario where EPA mandates the use of mass transit rather than individual motor vehicles. This would certainly reduce emissions from motor vehicles, but would be transparently beyond EPA’s regulatory authority.
EPA is attempting to hide its illegal electric vehicles mandate behind a “fleetwide” average. EPA is setting fleetwide average standards for vehicles rather than setting individual standards for specific classes of vehicles as a means of hiding its de facto electric vehicle mandate. While these two actions may appear indistinguishable in many applications, the distinctness is put on clear display by the EPA’s rulemaking. Setting fleetwide average standards at reasonable levels allows for the inclusion of new emissions control technologies in new vehicles. This has a similar effect to setting a reasonable emissions standard for each specific class of vehicles.
However, setting a fleetwide average at an unreasonably low level, as this rulemaking does, disguises that there is no means of compliance through new control technologies, the only means of compliance is transitioning to a different product. If EPA set the same unreasonably low standard for a given class of vehicles, it would effectively outlaw that class of vehicles. If EPA were to directly say that a class of vehicles was illegal and require that an alternative replacement must be purchased, that would be clearly acknowledged as beyond EPA’s authority. Congress has given the EPA no such power. But using the “fleetwide” average set at an unreasonably low rate, EPA can pretend it is not outlawing the manufacture or sale of any class of products, while it is effectively requiring carmakers to produce and sell an alternative product (electric vehicles) as that is the only way to comply with the unreasonable low standard. But hiding behind a “fleetwide” average to attempt to disguise this kind of impermissible mandate does not suddenly give EPA the power to impose such a mandate.
This EPA rulemaking is clearly beyond the scope of the regulatory power granted to the agency by Congress. While this overreach will be litigated in the courts, a positive CRA decision now would ensure that consumers are protected today, rather than wait years for the issue to work its way through the court system.
Sincerely the undersigned,
Thomas J. Pyle, President, American Energy Alliance
Tim Chapman, President, Advancing American Freedom
Isaac Orr, Vice President, Always On Energy Research
Bob Carlstrom, President, AMAC Action
Phil Kerpen, President, American Commitment
Myron Ebell, Chairman, American Lands Council
Margaret Byfield, Executive Director, American Stewards of Liberty
Richard Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government
Brent Gardner, Chief Government Affairs Officer, Americans for Prosperity
Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
Jeffrey Mazzella, President, Center for Individual Freedom
Craig Rucker, President, CFACT
Daren Bakst, Director of the Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Jerry Simmons, President/CEO, Domestic Energy Producers Alliance
Kristen A. Ullman, President, Eagle Forum
Craig Richardson, President, Energy & Environment Legal Institute
Beatrice Lam, Secretary, Fueling California
Cameron Sholty, Executive Director, Heartland Impact
James Taylor, President, Heartland Institute
Ryan Walker, Executive Vice President, Heritage Action
Jon Sanders, Director, Center for Food, Power, and Life, John Locke Foundation
Jason Hayes, Director of Energy & Environmental Policy, Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Brandon Arnold, Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union
Donna Jackson, Director of Membership Development, Project 21 Black Leadership Network
Paul Gessing, President, Rio Grande Foundation
James E. Enstrom, PhD,MPH, President, Scientific Integrity Institute
Frank Lasee, President, Truth in Energy & Climate
Kathleen Sgamma, President, Western Energy Alliance