A bill from House Republicans is targeting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to issue Clean Air Act waivers for California that could lead to major restrictions or even bans on gas-powered vehicles.
Those waivers are a live issue. Last month, the California Air Resources Board asked the Biden administration for one so it can ban the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035, in line with a decision the board made last year.
The administration gave California the nod for a ban on new diesel-powered heavy-duty trucks. That prohibition begins in 2036.
The state enjoys a carveout for vehicle emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act because of its historical issues with smog.
Today, 17 other states representing about 40 percent of the national car market follow California’s vehicle standards to at least some degree.
Republicans worry the rest of the country may ultimately have to follow a Golden State gas-powered vehicle ban, thanks to its unique powers under the Clean Air Act. That’s why they’re trying to tie the EPA’s hands by revising that law. The bill would apply to waivers as far back as the start of 2022.
H.R. 1435, the “Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act,” was just one of four legislative measures from Republicans that lawmakers discussed during a June 22 House hearing.
Yet, the California waiver bill may be the most consequential, judging by the staunch opposition of one top energy Democrat.
“In my opinion, this bill runs counter to the intent of the Clean Air Act, which is a model of cooperative federalism with decades of successful partnership between EPA and states to protect Americans from dangerous air pollution,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Pallone has served in Congress for three-and-a-half decades. He’s also a well-established face on the energy committee. In recent sessions, he has alternated between chairman and ranking member.
On June 22, the New Jerseyite said Congress had chosen to let California “set separate and more protective” standards.
He asked the EPA’s witness, Joseph Goffman, about the likely impact of that bill if it became law.
“It could limit California’s or, more precisely, EPA’s authority to grant a waiver to California,” Goffman replied.
“As you know, states like New Jersey have voluntarily chosen over the history of the Clean Air Act to exercise the option that the Clean Air Act gives them to adopt California’s standards,” the attorney and bureaucrat continued.
June 22 marked the second day of House testimony from Goffman, a veteran D.C. Democrat now with the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. Biden has nominated him to lead that office against the opposition of Republicans.
On June 21, Goffman testified before the oversight committee regarding the EPA’s proposed rules for tailpipe emissions, which the agency predicts will lead to the large-scale adoption of electric cars within the decade.
Among other things, he answered Rep. Pat Fallon’s (R-Texas) question about why he declined to attend a May 17 hearing of that same committee.
“For my part, as with many things, it was primarily scheduling,” Goffman answered.
However, his official EPA calendar was empty from April 1 onward, including on May 17.
The Epoch Times has reached out to the EPA seeking comment.
‘Forcing These Vehicles’ A Mistake: Johnson
While Pallone suggested the bill would run contrary to Congress’s intent, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) had a different perspective.
“Congress never directed California to dictate America’s vehicle emissions,” he said during the June 22 House hearing.
He and his Republican colleagues defended the four bills under consideration, including on the grounds of preserving consumer choice amid the push from some for a far-reaching energy transition.
“None of the bills being considered today prevent electric cars or trucks from being driven on our roads if people want them. But forcing these vehicles on long-distance-driving rural Americans–and, for that matter, many urban-dwelling Americans who don’t have garages and driveways to charge these cars–is simply wrong,” Johnson said.
Goffman said the Biden administration did not yet have an official stance regarding the four proposed bills.
Yet, when describing the California waiver bill, he seemed favorably disposed to state rather than federal control.
While the norm under the Clean Air Act is to give states considerable control, “the regulation of new motor vehicle emissions is an exception,” Goffman said.
Yet, “even here, Congress made a move back toward the state role by expressly giving California authority to set separate standards,” he continued.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) was less circumspect in voicing his opinion.
“I believe EPA is working to fulfill its obligation to protect public health in a manner consistent with both the latest science and the law. The four bills under consideration today would undermine EPA’s efforts,” he said, later adding that “leadership by California has benefited so many Americans.”
EPA Uncertain If California Could Force National Policy
Goffman provided less-than-decisive answers on what California’s latest move could mean for trendsetting nationwide when questioned by Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa.). Joyce introduced H.R. 1435 in March.
“Do you agree that a ban on internal combustion engines affecting seventeen states and over 40 percent of our domestic market would be a de facto national policy?” Joyce asked, referring to the possible downstream effects of an EPA waiver for California’s 2035 gas-powered car ban.
“I’m not sure,” Goffman responded.
He carefully appealed to the past when pressed on whether a massive, multi-state ban on gas-powered cars was compatible with the production of internal combustion engine vehicles for states that don’t follow California’s lead.
“My understanding is historically auto manufacturers have striven to avoid making more than just one national fleet,” Goffman said.
