“EPA is attempting to hide its illegal electric vehicles mandate behind a ‘fleetwide’ average…. Congress has not directed EPA to force the adoption of electric vehicles, EPA is claiming this mandate unilaterally.” -CRA Tailpipe Coalition Letter (below)
The public/citizen backlash against Energy Statism grows. The most recent victory came last week with House passage of a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, introduced by Reps. John James (R-Mich.) and Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho), against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed de facto electric vehicle mandate, “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Year 2027 and Later Light-Duty Vehicles“.
The vote was 215-191, with all but one Republican and eight Democrats in favor. Twenty-five members did not vote.
“The very idea that the federal government would try and kill off gas-powered cars should scare anyone concerned with basic freedoms in this country,” noted Daren Bakst , Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment. “EPA’s de facto electric vehicle (EV) mandate will hurt Americans, driving up prices and hurting mobility. It will especially hurt low-income households.”
A coalition letter dated September 19, 2024, explains why energy and mobility freedom is good policy–and mandates bad.
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,
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, 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
The post De Facto EV Mandate? Congress Votes NO! appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
https://ift.tt/YuHvJTj
September 23, 2024 at 01:09AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 