[House Report 118-169]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress  }                                               {  Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session    }                                               { 118-169

======================================================================



 
               PRESERVING CHOICE IN VEHICLE PURCHASES ACT

                                _______
                                

 September 1, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1435]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1435) to amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the 
elimination of the sale of internal combustion engines, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Committee Action.................................................     6
Committee Votes..................................................     6
Oversight Findings and Recommendations...........................    10
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures    10
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................    10
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    10
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    10
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    10
Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings......................    10
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    11
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits.......    11
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    11
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    11
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    11
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    12
Minority Views...................................................    15

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 1435 is to amend the conditions 
contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA) under which the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must 
deny a State a waiver for vehicle emissions laws. Specifically, 
H.R. 1435 adds a requirement that the EPA cannot grant a waiver 
if the State directive ``directly or indirectly'' limits the 
sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal combustion 
engines.

                  Background and Need for Legislation


                             CLEAN AIR ACT

    Title II of the CAA addresses mobile (transportation-based) 
sources of air pollution emissions via the tailpipe by seeking 
to reduce pollutants from both on-road and non-road vehicles 
through vehicle emission standards, as well as transportation 
fuel through fuel controls on gasoline and diesel. The title 
calls for air pollutant emission standards applicable to new 
motor vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, and nonroad vehicle 
engines that address air pollutants such as particulate matter 
(PM), nitrous oxide (NOx), and greenhouse gases (GHGs).
    Within Title II, CAA section 202(a) provides EPA with the 
authority to set emission standards for new motor vehicles, 
``after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to 
permit the development and application of the requisite 
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of 
compliance within such period.'' EPA is required to consider 
issues of technological feasibility, cost of compliance, and 
lead time.\1\ EPA may also consider other factors, including 
the impacts of potential standards on emissions of air 
pollutants, the impacts of such standards on public health and 
welfare, the impacts on the automotive industry, the impacts on 
the vehicle purchasers and consumers, oil conservation, energy 
security and other energy impacts, safety, and other relevant 
considerations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 
and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles,'' 88 Fed. Reg. 87, May 
5, 2023.
    \2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While Title II of the CAA generally pre-empts states from 
adopting their own emission standards for new motor vehicles or 
engines, CAA section 209(b) provides the EPA Administrator with 
the authority to grant a State's vehicle emission standards an 
exemption to federal preemption, subject to three conditions. 
California is the only state eligible for a waiver under CAA 
section 209(b), because California adopted emission standards 
for new vehicles prior to the enactment of the CAA. In terms of 
the specific conditions, the EPA Administrator shall grant 
California a waiver unless: (1) the EPA was arbitrary and 
capricious in determining that the State's standards are at 
least as protective of public health and welfare as federal 
standards; (2) California does not need the standards to meet 
compelling or extraordinary conditions; or (3) the State's 
standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not 
consistent with CAA section 202(a).
    CAA section 177 allows additional States to avoid 
preemption of their vehicle emission standards if they adopt 
California's exact motor vehicle emission standards under 
certain conditions. States are not required to seek EPA's 
approval to adopt California's standards under CAA section 177. 
As of today, 17 States and the District of Columbia are 
referred to as ``Section 177 states'' that have passed state 
laws adopting California's Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) criterial 
pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission regulations.\3\ Of 
that group, 15 States and the District of Columbia are poised 
to adopt California's Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulations 
as well.\4\ The Section 177 states represent 40.1 percent of 
U.S. new light-duty vehicles sales.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See ``California Section 177 States,'' California Air Resources 
Board, May 13, 2022.
    \4\Id.
    \5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      CALIFORNIA'S WAIVER REQUEST

    On August 25, 2022, the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB) voted to approve its Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) 
regulation.\6\ California recently submitted a request for a 
waiver for ACC II under CAA section 209(b). The State's 
regulation requires an increasing number of zero-emission 
vehicles, including battery-electric, plug-in hybrid electric 
vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to meet strict air 
quality and GHG emission standards.\7\ It also effectively bans 
the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 
requiring all new vehicle sales to be zero-emission vehicles by 
2035.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See ``Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations: All New Passenger 
Vehicles Sold in California to be Zero Emissions by 2035,'' California 
Air Resources Board.
    \7\Id.
    \8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A change of this nature would constitute a dramatic change 
in vehicles driven regardless of consumer demand. As recently 
as 2021, data for light-duty vehicle registrations in the 
United States demonstrates that Americans chose a diversity of 
engine types and car classes to meet their needs. Specifically, 
93.8 percent of these registrations were for cars powered by 
gasoline or ethanol/flex fuel, 0.33 percent operated on diesel 
or biodiesel, almost 0.02 percent were hybrid vehicles, and 
0.008 percent were plug-in hybrid or battery electric 
vehicles.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See, ``Vehicle Registration Counts by State,'' U.S. Department 
of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         ELECTRIC VEHICLE COSTS

    American consumers are directly impacted by the cost of 
vehicles. According to Kelley Blue Book, the average price of 
an EV is $65,291, which is $17,197 more than the average price 
of an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle.\10\ Insurance 
for an EV is also $44 more expensive per month or $528 more 
expensive per year than insurance for gas-powered cars.\11\ 
Pricing is especially important, because access to a car is 
tied to improved economic outcomes for low-income households. 
During a Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and 
Critical Materials hearing, Mr. Nunes of the Breakthrough 
Institute testified that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See ``Electric Car FAQ: Your Questions Answered,'' Kelley Blue 
Book, October 31, 2022.
    \11\See ``Electric car insurance 2023 guide,'' Policygenius, 
December 29, 2022.

          EVs today are more expensive to purchase up front 
        than [ICE] powered vehicles. Moreover, this price 
        disadvantage doesn't fully capture the state of the EV 
        market. In 2011, the inflation adjusted price of a new 
        EV was nearly $44,000. By 2022, that price had risen to 
        over $66,000. EV prices aren't just going up; they are 
        rising faster than inflation and, as Breakthrough's 
        analysis suggests, faster than ICE vehicle prices. 
        Should the government nevertheless implicitly mandate 
        EV adoption, an approach recently adopted by the [EPA], 
        it would risk worsening existing inequities in new 
        vehicle ownership while also encouraging some 
        households to continue driving older, more polluting 
        ICE vehicles for longer than they ordinarily would, 
        potentially hindering emissions reductions efforts.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\See Written Testimony of Ashley Nunes, Director of Federal 
Policy, Climate, and Energy, The Breakthrough Institute, before the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 26, 2023

    Additionally, any Inflation Reduction Act funding intended 
to subsidize the final purchase price and thus the growth of EV 
sales among certain Americans ends in 2032 when EPA's rule--
mandating two-thirds of new motor vehicles sold be EVs--becomes 
fully effective.
    The costs do not end with the upfront purchase price. 
Fueling one's new electric vehicle engine is also an expense of 
consequence. A study by the Anderson Economic Group (AEG) found 
trucks cost about the same to fuel and charge, while entry and 
midlevel cars and SUVs cost more to charge at home and in 
public than they do to fuel at a gas station.\13\ AEG found the 
cost to charge an entry-priced ICE cars and crossovers was 
``around $9.78 per 100 purposeful miles,'' but an entry-priced 
EV charged mostly at home was $12.55 and an EV charged mostly 
at commercial charging stations was $15.97.\14\ In addition, 
AEG found the cost to charge mid-priced ICE cars and crossovers 
was ``approximately $11.08 per 100 purposeful miles,'' but a 
mid-priced EV charged mostly at home was $12.62 and an EV 
charged mostly at commercial charging stations was $16.10.\15\ 
In the luxury segment, consumers of electric vehicles charged 
mostly at home paid around $13.50 per 100 miles, as opposed to 
the $17.56 for the ICE version.\16\ However, EV owners paid 
slightly more for commercial charging ($17.81).\17\ This study 
was based on the latest information on gas and residential 
electricity prices, commercial charging prices, tax rates on 
fuel and electric cars, fuel economy details, and more to 
compare the cost of fueling versus charging for 100 miles of 
driving. Moreover, unlike studies that only compare gas and 
electricity costs, the AEG study amortized other costs, like 
charging installation and EV registration fees, as part of the 
cost of home charging, as well as time spent driving to and 
waiting at a station as a cost part of commercial charging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\See ``Some Cars Cheaper to Fuel with Gas than Electric in 
2023,'' Anderson Economic Group, August 1, 2023.
    \14\Id.
    \15\Id.
    \16\Id.
    \17\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EV consumers are faced with a myriad of hidden costs in 
addition to the vehicle and fuel itself. If consumers choose to 
install a charging station at home, J.D. Power estimates that 
the price could be as much as $50,000 depending on labor and 
existing electric wiring.\18\ Focusing on charging equipment 
specifically, Level 2 chargers are the most common at-home EV 
charging stations and cost an average of $1,200 to $2,500 per 
charger.\19\ Another significant cost of EV ownership is the 
cost of battery replacement. If not covered under warranty, 
consumers would have to pay between $5,000 and $20,000 to 
replace an EV battery.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See ``How Much Does It Cost to Install an EV Charger?'' J.D. 
Power, December 11, 2022.
    \19\Id.
    \20\See ``Updated: Electric Car Battery Replacement Costs,'' 
Recurrent Auto, March 26, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     ELECTRIC VEHICLE FUNCTIONALITY

    There is also the issue of vehicle range and functionality. 
An EV's driving range and electric car mileage per charge 
varies, but typically drivers can expect the median of 234 
miles in a single charge--factors that can affect an EV's 
range, including weather, battery size, and towing weight.\21\ 
Conversely, the median range of gasoline vehicles in the United 
States is 403 miles per fill-up. The Subcommittee on 
Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials received 
testimony from the President of the Minnesota Automobile 
Dealers Association (MADA) that in colder weather areas the 
``need to defrost and heat a vehicle can reduce the batteries 
range by as much as 40%''\22\ citing a study by J.D. Power and 
Plugshare that found ``cold places that receive nasty winter 
weather . . . can experience significant declines in [vehicle] 
satisfaction.''\23\ The head of MADA also testified that EVs 
have a limited towing capability--a significant problem for 
contractors, farmers, loggers and miners, stating ``[t]owing 
anything with any weight to it dramatically reduces the 
potential vehicle range even in ideal weather conditions.''\24\ 
Also, there are 55,509 EV charging stations in the United 
States,\25\ while the National Association of Convenience 
Stores reports that there are more than 150,174 fueling 
stations across the United States.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\See ``FOTW #1221, January 17, 2022: Year 2021 All-Electric 
Vehicles Had a Median Driving Range about 60% of Gasoline Powered 
Vehicles,'' Vehicles Technology Office, Department of Energy, January 
12, 2022.
    \22\See Written Testimony of Scott Lambert, President, Minnesota 
Automobile Dealers Association, before the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, June 22, 2023.
    \23\Id.
    \24\Id.
    \25\See ``Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations,'' Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, August 
21, 2023.
    \26\See ``U.S. Convenient Store Count,'' National Association of 
Convenience Stores, February 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          CONSUMER PREFERENCES

    Data from a study by Cox Automotive noted that consumer 
interest in EVs is not translating into purchases of EVs. Cox's 
report found the unsold inventory of EVs in the United States 
grew from Memorial Day Weekend 2023 to June 26, 2023 with most 
EV models at more than a 100 days' supply, which was more than 
twice the rate of gas-powered and hybrid vehicles.\27\ The 
unsold inventory was 171 percent higher than what is considered 
``normal and ideal'' for auto dealers.\28\ Specifically, 90,953 
EVs were sitting on dealership lots across the country during 
that 30-day period.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\See ``Path to EV Adoption: Consumer and Dealer Perspectives,'' 
Cox Automotive, June 2023.
    \28\Id.
    \29\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1435 is necessary to prevent California's law from 
creating a de facto national effort to ban or otherwise 
eliminate the sale of new internal combustion engine cars and 
light trucks through the involvement of Section 177 states.

                            Committee Action

    On June 22, 2023, the Subcommittee on Environment, 
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials held a hearing on H.R. 
1435. The title of the hearing was ``Driving Affordability: 
Preserving People's Freedom to Buy Affordable Vehicles and 
Fuel.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from:
           Joseph Goffman, Principal Deputy 
        Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. 
        Environmental Protection Agency;
           Chet Thompson, President and CEO, American 
        Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers;
           Neil Caskey, CEO, National Corn Growers 
        Association;
           Scott Lambert, President, Minnesota Auto 
        Dealers Association; and,
           Genevieve Cullen, President, Electric Drive 
        Transportation Association.
    On July 12, 2023, the Subcommittee on Environment, 
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials met in open markup 
session and forwarded H.R. 1435, without amendment, to the full 
Committee by a record vote of 13 yeas and 8 nays.
    On July 27, 2023, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1435 without 
amendment, favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 
26 yeas and 22 nays.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the 
record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during 
the Committee consideration:


                 Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII, the Committee held hearings and made findings that 
are reflected in this report.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee 
finds that H.R. 1435 would result in no new or increased budget 
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or 
revenues.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, at the time this 
report was filed, the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not available.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general 
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to amend 
the conditions under which the EPA Administrator under the 
Clean Air Act must deny a State a waiver for vehicle emissions 
laws.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of 
H.R. 1435 is known to be duplicative of another Federal 
program, including any program that was included in a report to 
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the 
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

              Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII,
    (1) The following related hearing was used to develop or 
consider H.R. 1435:
           On June 22, 2023, the Subcommittee on 
        Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials held 
        a hearing on H.R. 1435. The title of the hearing was 
        ``Driving Affordability: Preserving People's Freedom to 
        Buy Affordable Vehicles and Fuel.'' The Subcommittee 
        received testimony from:
                    Joseph Goffman, Principal Deputy 
                Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, 
                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
                    Chet Thompson, President and CEO, American 
                Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers;
                    Neil Caskey, CEO, National Corn Growers 
                Association;
                    Scott Lambert, President, Minnesota Auto 
                Dealers Association; and,
                    Genevieve Cullen, President, Electric Drive 
                Transportation Association.
    (2) The following related hearing was held:
           On Wednesday, April 26, 2023, the 
        Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and 
        Critical Materials held a hearing entitled, ``Exposing 
        the Environmental, Human Rights, and National Security 
        Risks of the Biden Administration's Rush to Green 
        Policies.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from:
                    Mark Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan 
                Institute;
                    Ashley Nunes, Director of Federal Policy, 
                Climate, and Energy, Breakthrough Institute;
                    Daniel Simmons, Vice President for Policy, 
                Institute for Energy Research; and,
                    Trevor Higgins, Senior Vice President, 
                Energy and Environment, Center for American 
                Progress.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee 
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. At the time this report was 
filed, the estimate was not available.

       Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits

    Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the 
Committee finds that H.R. 1435 contains no earmarks, limited 
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 of H.R. 1435 provides that the Act may be cited 
as the ``Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act.''

Section 2. State standards

    Section 2 of H.R. 1435 contains three parts:
          (1) First, the section amends CAA section 209(b), the 
        conditions under which EPA can grant a waiver to a 
        State for motor vehicle emission standards, by adding a 
        requirement that the EPA cannot grant a waiver if the 
        State directive ``directly or indirectly'' limits the 
        sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal 
        combustion engines.
          (2) Second, the section prevents EPA from considering 
        State standards amended after the date of enactment of 
        this bill as having qualified under an existing waiver.
          (3) Third, section 2(b) revokes any CAA section 
        209(b) waivers that California received between January 
        1, 2022, and the date that H.R. 1435 becomes law if the 
        State standard ``directly or indirectly'' limited the 
        sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal 
        combustion engines. As drafted, the Committee 
        understands that Section 2(b) could apply to 
        California's Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean 
        Cars I, Advanced Clean Trucks, Heavy-Duty Vehicle 
        Engines Emission Warranty and Maintenance, Nonroad 
        Engine Pollution Control Standards regulations,\30\ and 
        the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\See ``Vehicle Emissions California Waivers and 
Authorizations,'' Environmental Protection Agency, August 4, 2023.
    \31\See ``Recent Actions Taken by OAL on Proposed Regulations,'' 
Office of Administrative Law, State of California, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                             CLEAN AIR ACT




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE II--EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOVING SOURCES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Part A--Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                            state standards

  Sec. 209. (a) No State or any political subdivision thereof 
shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the 
control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor 
vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require 
certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to 
the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new 
motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial 
retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor 
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.
  (b)(1) The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity 
for public hearing, waive application of this section to any 
State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase 
emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor 
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, 
if the State determines that the State standards will be, in 
the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and 
welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such waiver shall 
be granted if the Administrator finds that--
          (A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and 
        capricious,
          (B) such State does not need such State standards to 
        meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, [or]
          (C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement 
        procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of 
        this [part.] part, or
          (D) such State standards directly or indirectly limit 
        the sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal 
        combustion engines, as such term is defined in section 
        63.9375 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as in 
        effect January 1, 2023.
  (2) If each State standard is at least as stringent as the 
comparable applicable Federal standard, such State standard 
shall be deemed to be at least as protective of health and 
welfare as such Federal standards for purposes of paragraph 
(1).
  (3) In the case of any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle 
engine to which State standards apply pursuant to a waiver 
granted under paragraph (1), compliance with such State 
standards shall be treated as compliance with applicable 
Federal standards for purposes of this title.
  (4) The Administrator may not determine that any State 
standards amended after the date of enactment of this paragraph 
are within the scope of a waiver granted under paragraph (1) 
before the date of enactment of this paragraph.
  (c) Whenever a regulation with respect to any motor vehicle 
part or motor vehicle engine part is in effect under section 
207(a)(2), no State or political subdivision thereof shall 
adopt or attempt to enforce any standard or any requirement of 
certification, inspection, or approval which relates to motor 
vehicle emissions and is applicable to the same aspect of such 
part. The preceding sentence shall not apply in the case of a 
State with respect to which a waiver is in effect under 
subsection (b).
  (d) Nothing in this part shall preclude or deny to any State 
or political subdivision thereof the right otherwise to 
control, regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or movement 
of registered or licensed motor vehicles.
  (e) Nonroad Engines or Vehicles.--
          (1) Prohibition on certain state standards.--No State 
        or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or 
        attempt to enforce any standard or other requirement 
        relating to the control of emissions from either of the 
        following new nonroad engines or nonroad vehicles 
        subject to regulation under this Act--
                  (A) New engines which are used in 
                construction equipment or vehicles or used in 
                farm equipment or vehicles and which are 
                smaller than 175 horsepower.
                  (B) New locomotives or new engines used in 
                locomotives.
        Subsection (b) shall not apply for purposes of this 
        paragraph.
          (2) Other nonroad engines or vehicles.--(A) In the 
        case of any nonroad vehicles or engines other than 
        those referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
        paragraph (1), the Administrator shall, after notice 
        and opportunity for public hearing, authorize 
        California to adopt and enforce standards and other 
        requirements relating to the control of emissions from 
        such vehicles or engines if California determines that 
        California standards will be, in the aggregate, at 
        least as protective of public health and welfare as 
        applicable Federal standards. No such authorization 
        shall be granted if the Administrator finds that--
                  (i) the determination of California is 
                arbitrary and capricious,
                  (ii) California does not need such California 
                standards to meet compelling and extraordinary 
                conditions, or
                  (iii) California standards and accompanying 
                enforcement procedures are not consistent with 
                this section.
          (B) Any State other than California which has plan 
        provisions approved under part D of title I may adopt 
        and enforce, after notice to the Administrator, for any 
        period, standards relating to control of emissions from 
        nonroad vehicles or engines (other than those referred 
        to in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1)) and 
        take such other actions as are referred to in 
        subparagraph (A) of this paragraph respecting such 
        vehicles or engines if--
                  (i) such standards and implementation and 
                enforcement are identical, for the period 
                concerned, to the California standards 
                authorized by the Administrator under 
                subparagraph (A), and
                  (ii) California and such State adopt such 
                standards at least 2 years before commencement 
                of the period for which the standards take 
                effect.
        The Administrator shall issue regulations to implement 
        this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

    We oppose H.R. 1435, legislation to prevent the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 
granting a waiver of federal preemption under the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) for any California vehicle emissions standard that 
``directly or indirectly limit[s] the sale or use of'' vehicles 
with internal combustion engines and directs EPA to revoke 
already-granted waivers that do not comply with this vague 
metric. This would put existing waivers dating back to 2013 in 
jeopardy, upend the entire clean vehicle supply chain, and 
create uncertainty for the U.S. automotive industry. This bill 
is a direct attack on over 50 years of Congress and EPA 
recognizing California's ability to voluntarily adopt those 
standards to protect their citizens from dangerous air 
pollution and climate change.

                               BACKGROUND

    Congress and EPA have viewed California as a leader in 
reducing air pollution for decades due to its unique air 
pollution challenges, and as the first state to regulate 
tailpipe emissions from vehicles back in 1966.\1\ This is 
reflected in Section 209 of the CAA, which requires EPA to 
grant California waivers so it can set vehicle emissions 
standards that are more protective than those set by EPA at the 
federal level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\California Air Resources Board, History (ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/
history#::text=In%201966%20 California 
%20established%20the,Air%20Resources %20Board%20was%20established.) 
(accessed Aug. 25, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, Section 177 of the CAA allows other 
pollution-burdened states to voluntarily adopt any California 
emissions standard that has been granted a waiver from EPA. 
Section 177 authority has allowed over a dozen states to adopt 
California's low-emission vehicle (LEV) or zero-emission 
vehicle (ZEV) standards and reap the environmental and public 
health benefits of the more stringent standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\The International Council on Clean Transportation, Benefits of 
Adopting California Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations Under Clean Air 
Act Section 177 (May 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1435 seeks to erase decades of historic progress on 
addressing air pollution from the transportation sector, 
driving innovation, and protecting public health.
    The bill would put existing waivers dating back to 2013 in 
jeopardy. The Majority seeks to retroactively reverse nearly a 
decade's worth of clean vehicle standards, choosing polluters 
over people, instead of building upon the industry's innovation 
and where market trends are leading. Recently, the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB) and truck and engine manufacturers 
announced the Clean Truck Partnership to cut dangerous 
pollution from the heavy-duty transportation sector and assure 
a path to zero-emission trucks. However, if enacted, H.R. 1435 
would revoke existing waivers and block any future waivers 
related to this historic agreement.
    The Majority claims H.R. 1435 is necessary to prevent 
California from creating a de facto national ban on new 
internal combustion engine cars and light trucks. This 
reasoning is short-sighted and fails to recognize market demand 
for EVs, the public health and environmental benefits of moving 
towards zero-emission vehicles, states' rights, and where auto 
industry innovation is already heading. American demand for EVs 
is already outpacing supply, as EV demand increased by 350 
percent from 2020 to 2022, and the EV market share increased by 
377 percent from 2020 to the first quarter of 2023.\3\ Auto 
manufacturers are also leading the way, with Ford having 
announced an investment of $3.7 billion in its Michigan, Ohio, 
and Missouri factories to manufacture both electric and 
internal combustion engine vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Consumer Reports, Excess Demand: The Looming EV Shortage (Mar. 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, H.R. 1435 sends the wrong signal to our 
domestic vehicle manufacturing industry. Industry desires 
predictability, regulatory certainty, and long-term stability. 
During a Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and 
Critical Materials legislative hearing on H.R. 1435, the only 
witness representing the vehicle manufacturing industry 
testified that the disruption and uncertainty that would ensue 
from this bill, ``. . . would work against U.S. market 
leadership and consumers' access to EV choices.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Testimony of Genevieve 
Cullen, President, Electric Drive Transportation Association, Hearing 
on Driving Affordability: Preserving People's Freedom to Buy Affordable 
Vehicles and Fuel, 118th Cong. (June 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The detrimental impacts of H.R. 1435 would extend well 
beyond California, to any Section 177 state that chose to adopt 
California's standards. Combined, these states represent more 
than 40 percent of new vehicle sales.\5\ Thus, by making 
egregious changes to the CAA Section 209 waiver authority, the 
bill directly infringes upon states' rights to make regulatory 
decisions that fit their needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          SUMMARY OF H.R. 1435

    Section 2(a) of H.R. 1435 amends CAA Section 209(b) by 
adding that the EPA Administrator shall not grant a waiver of 
federal preemption if the state standards ``directly or 
indirectly limit[s] the sale or use of'' vehicles with internal 
combustion engines, providing a destructively vague metric. 
Additionally, the section prevents EPA from determining any 
state standards are within scope of existing waivers after the 
date of enactment--blocking California from amending existing 
waivers to avoid the bill's requirements.
    Section 2(b) of H.R. 1435 requires the EPA Administrator to 
revoke all waivers granted after January 1, 2022, if the state 
standard ``directly or indirectly limit[s] the sale or use of'' 
vehicles with internal combustion engines, requiring the EPA 
Administrator to revoke already-existing waivers that do not 
comply with this vague metric.

                               CONCLUSION

    H.R 1435 disregards decades of legal precedent, upends the 
CAA's Section 209 waiver process, and imperils the 
technological advancement in the transportation sector. Instead 
of joining Democrats in addressing dangerous air pollution, 
strengthening domestic vehicle manufacturing supply chains, and 
driving innovation, the Majority is choosing to help their 
polluter friends at the expensive of public health, 
technological innovation, states' rights, and a stronger, 
cleaner economy for American families.
    For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views 
contained in the Committee Report.
                                         Frank Pallone, Jr.
                  Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce.