▶ 0:55:32Entitled rules of the road, examining legislation to modernize the clean air acts mobile source requirements. This hearing continues the committee's efforts to modernize the clean air act to reflect the modern landscape of air emissions and trends. At the core of the clean air act is the idea that we can protect our environment without sacrificing economic growth.
▶ 0:55:56But it's been decades since congress updated the act, causing many of its outdated provisions to become burdensome and counterproductive to its original goals. That's why this committee is considering nuanced and tailored updates to improve the clean air act. Today, we will consider ten pieces of legislation that aim to provide common sense updates to title two of the clean air act, which governs mobile sources. I welcome feedback from our witnesses and others as the committee considers these bills.
▶ 0:56:24I also would like to thank representative fedorchuk and representative langworthy for their work on these bills and their leadership in modernizing the mobile source provisions of the clean air act. The witnesses we will hear from today have extensive experience with the challenges presented by out-of-date provisions and are well suited to explain their impact. I look forward to their testimony on the discussion, drafts and legislation. I'm particularly interested in testimony that relates to the continued use of the california waiver in the clean air act.
▶ 0:56:56One of the bills we will consider today epitomizes the concerns of the committee. The locomotives act, introduced by representative lamalfa and championed by representative obernolte, illustrates the problematic outcomes associated with the waiver.
▶ 0:57:10In 2023, the california air resources board proposed a rule that would ban the operation of any locomotive 23 years or older from operating in california, unless it is running on a zero duration.
▶ 0:57:27The proposed rule, issued in was withdrawn before the current administration took office, but it would have effectively prohibited 67% of the locomotive fleet from entering california and accessing two of the nation's largest ports. Under this proposal, trains would be required to stop at the california border or any state that might adopt these standards and wait for a compliant train to collect their cargo. Increasing transit time and cost.
▶ 0:57:56These disruptions to our national rail system would also impact national security, causing delays and operational breakdowns. Two of the largest rail carriers in in the united states estimate that they would each have to pay the state of california $800 million annually in compliance costs. Basically, rail would be economically infeasible in california, and these costs would be passed along to american consumers.
▶ 0:58:22This is especially worrisome because under the clean air act, the california rule would become national in scope. Two thirds of the locomotive fleet would be prohibited from operating in california by 2030, and even more states could have adopted this approach under the clean air act. I have real concerns with allowing the state of california to set national emission standards for trains, cars and all other mobile sources, especially given its track record of green new deal policies and ev mandates.
▶ 0:58:52Our vast nation depends on a complex and healthy transportation system. California should not dictate national policy. Congress needs to do its job and modernize the existing statute. We must revise existing law to meet modern life. If we do not, our nation's families will pay the price. I thank the members of this committee who are leading these efforts, and I hope my colleagues will take this opportunity to engage in positive discussions about the legislation before the committee today. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:59:23Chair. Now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from new york, Mr. tonko, for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chair. And the transportation sector is a major source of air pollution. It is often cited as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in our country. And even despite progress over the past 50 years to reduce traditional pollutants, our vehicles continue to spew particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and other toxic toxic emissions.
▶ 0:59:51More than 150 million americans live in areas that fail to achieve federal air quality standards. That pollution imposes tremendous costs on them, including a $150 $150 billion worth of annual health care costs and lost productivity. The clean air act exists to protect americans from this life threatening and economy, burdening pollution.
▶ 1:00:15And when the law has been allowed to work to provide long term regulatory certainty and drive technology innovation, americans have benefited tremendously. Investments in research have enabled the development of pollution control technologies, including selective catalytic reduction, that have improved fuel economy and allowed liquid fuels to become less polluting.
▶ 1:00:35Zero emission vehicles have also seen major improvements in performance and cost reductions in recent years, which has also reduced pollution and lowered american's dependance on fossil fuels. Today, thanks to president trump's unnecessary war with iran, american drivers are feeling pain at the pump. Gasoline is over $4.25 per gallon and diesel is well over $5.
▶ 1:01:01Americans have already spent $51 billion more on gasoline and diesel since the beginning of trump's war, and many of those costs are being passed on to people, regardless of whether or not they drive through higher grocery prices and other increases to their cost of living. Reducing america's dependance on volatile fuel markets is exactly why a steady, long term transition away from polluting vehicles is so economically beneficial.
▶ 1:01:27Epa's own analysis of its repeal of clean vehicle standards confirms this. By keeping americans dependent on fuel, the fossil fuels, it will cost us some $1 trillion more in gasoline by 2055. Unfortunately, over the past 18 months, we have seen a very concerning trend at epa and among republicans in congress to upend the clean air act. Proven track record of delivering cost effective public health improvements and economic benefits.
▶ 1:01:56In february, epa rescinded the endangerment finding and repealed all greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles. Epa has also announced a reconsideration of 2024 standards for traditional pollutants. These and other recent vehicle standards have reduced fuel consumption and enhanced efforts to grow a competitive domestic industry to build advanced vehicles, batteries and emission control technologies.
▶ 1:02:24This regulatory upheaval is on top of republicans enactment of last year's big ugly bill, which repealed incentives for zero emission vehicles, making it harder for americans to afford new and used clean cars and insulate themselves from oil price spikes. Electric vehicles have 60% lower fuel costs and significantly lower maintenance costs. And yet the majority seems committed to making it more difficult for people to buy affordable, american made evs.
▶ 1:02:53Undermining clean air act protections is not the answer, especially at this time of trump's gas hike. Americans wallets are under pressure and efforts to double down on proposals that undermine fuel economy and pollution standards. Like many of the bills before us today, will all but ensure americans continue to purchase unnecessary amounts of fuel at over $4 per gallon, while also needing to access more health care for the additional air pollution they will breathe.
▶ 1:03:23While I have concerns with most of the bills being considered today, I would like to express my support for h.r. 2140, congresswoman matsui's bill to authorize epa's dera program. Dera has a long track record of success, using incentives to take the most polluting vehicles off the roads and lower costs for americans. This is an example of the type of bipartisan bill that we should be advancing to reduce air pollution and deploy new, innovative technologies. With that, Mr. chair, I thank you again.
▶ 1:03:52I look forward to today's discussion. And with that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from kentucky, for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. weber. I want to thank the chairman, palmer, the full committee of the committee for holding this hearing and thank to our witnesses for being here. Since last year, the environment subcommittee has been examining ways to modernize the clean air act by reducing burdens and costs associated with building new energy generation, advanced manufacturing needed infrastructure while continuing to protect the environment and health and human health.
▶ 1:04:22Today, we're taking another step in our efforts to modernize the clean air act by examining ten pieces of legislation that would update our vehicles, engines and other mobile sources of air pollution are regulated. Nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy duty diesel trucks have decreased by more than 92% over the past 25 years, but important safety and cost benefit concerns have come to light following epa emission control requirements that have been imposed on diesel engines.
▶ 1:04:50These requirements can cause trucks, busses and other heavy duty vehicles to slow down or stop working entirely. Epa administrator zeldin recently issued guidance on ways farmers and truckers can improve safety and reduce costs as an interim step. But we we will be considering today several potential legislative fixes that will provide a more durable solution for farmers, truckers and others who rely on heavy duty diesel engines to keep our economy running.
▶ 1:05:14Today, we're also examining legislation to rein in california's attempts to impose an electric vehicle mandate on the railroad industry, which would have devastating consequences for interstate commerce. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how these bills on today's agenda would eliminate overly burdensome requirements that drive up transportation costs and limit choices for drivers and consumers. And thank you, Mr. chair, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. The gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:05:39Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from new jersey, for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I wish I could say we were coming back from the memorial day recess to address the high gas prices american families are facing this summer, but instead, republicans are choosing to put forth a slate of bills that I think are only going to make matters worse, gas prices hit a four year high around memorial day weekend, and my republican colleagues remain content to just sit back and do nothing while trump continues to wage
▶ 1:06:10His reckless war of choice in iran. If the strait of hormuz remains closed, gas prices are projected to continue to soar and diesel prices are also skyrocketing, having increased nearly 50% since the start of the war. The impacts are being felt by our farmers, home builders and manufacturers, as well as the truck, rail and freight industries.
▶ 1:06:30Increased fuel costs are being passed on to american consumers through higher prices for groceries and other goods, and this is on top of price hikes from trump's disastrous tariffs. So it's no wonder that in april, inflation rose to a three year high. And yet trump says he does not think about american's financial situation.
▶ 1:06:49Adding insult to injury, since the start of the war, republicans big oil buddies earned a $40 billion boost in profits, while hard working americans have spent more than $51 billion more on gasoline and diesel fuel. And to make matters worse, the trump administration has repealed the landmark endangered, finding the legal foundation of federal climate protections.
▶ 1:07:11And with this repeal, the administration is also repealing all clean vehicle standards, forcing americans to rely on higher polluting vehicles that could cost them over $1 trillion more at the pump. Now, the transportation sector is the largest source of climate pollution in the united states, threatening public health and welfare through increased exposure to extreme heat, ground level ozone, extreme weather events, wildfire smoke and more. Passenger vehicles.
▶ 1:07:37Heavy duty trucks and locomotives also emit particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds into the air, leading to respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and even premature death. And these are serious health consequences that would be avoided with long standing would have been avoided with long standing clean air act standards. But today, we're considering bills that undercut these clean air protections and force americans to use even more fuel while increasing pollution. For example, h.r.
▶ 1:08:05Six 200 attempts to eliminate cost saving, efficient and innovative technology that helps save american families money at the pump. There's also a discussion draft that would block restrictions on idling school busses, wasting fuel, and exposing children to dangerous air pollution. Then there's h.r. 3194 that attacks states abilities to meet air quality, public health and climate goals by blocking them from setting more protective standards for older, dirtier locomotives in use today.
▶ 1:08:34And republicans are also dredging up a bill that would further drag us backwards in cleaning up and modernizing our transportation sector. In stark contrast, we have. We also are considering h.r. 2140, the diesel emission reduction act, led by representative matsui, which reauthorizes a long standing bipartisan program to cut pollution from legacy diesel engines.
▶ 1:08:56And through the dera program, epa administers grants and loans to projects that help replace and retrofit dirty diesel engines around the country. Epa estimates that dera projects help generate 8 billion in health benefits between 2008 and 2018, and I am pleased that that is that this bill is up for consideration. And the success of dera demonstrates the importance of investing in clean technologies.
▶ 1:09:20Cleaning up the transportation sector helps americans save on fuel costs while cleaning up the air that we breathe and come, and combating the climate crisis. So, in fact, the average electric vehicle driver pays roughly the equivalent of 1 to $2 per gallon, while everyone else is spending over $4 at the gas station right now. So at a time when americans are hurting financially, we should be looking to cut costs for hardworking families.
▶ 1:09:46And I am disappointed that the republican bill seek to block these cost effective policies in favor of doubling down on american's reliance on volatile and expensive fossil fuels. With that, Mr. chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. We will now conclude with member opening statements. The chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members opening statements will be made part of the record.
▶ 1:10:11We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. The witnesses will have the opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by a round of questions from members. Our witnesses for today are fred ferguson, president and ceo of the american bus association. Catherine garcia, clean transportation for all campaign director, sierra club. Jacqueline, is it gabe?
▶ 1:10:39Is that how you say that? Okay. Uh, president and ceo of truck and engine manufacturers association and james condie that what I can do. James, uh, partner, boyden gray p llc. Uh, we appreciate you all being here today. I now recognize Mr. ferguson for five minutes to give his opening statement. Mr. ferguson. >> thank you, Mr. weber. Mr. palmer, ranking member tonko and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
▶ 1:11:07My name is fred ferguson, and I serve as the president and ceo of the american bus association. We represent the private motorcoach, charter, bus and group travel industries across north america. I'm here to offer support for the bipartisan busses act, sponsored by subcommittee member representative langworthy. There is currently no uniform federal idling standard for commercial passenger vehicles.
▶ 1:11:31As a result, states and municipalities have adopted a patchwork of varying local restrictions that interstate operators must navigate daily. The busses act would set a uniform idling floor using epa guidance to promote safety and eliminate this patchwork. This debate is not about whether unnecessary idling should be reduced. Our industry supports cleaner air, newer equipment, lower emissions and limited idling.
▶ 1:12:02The question is whether local governments should be allowed to punish federally regulated passenger carriers for the limited engine operations, and the need to keep people safe while complying with federal regulations. A motorcoach is not a passenger car. It is a federally regulated commercial passenger vehicle carrying our seniors, students, workers, military personnel, tourists, and people with disabilities.
▶ 1:12:29These vehicles rely on engine operation to build air pressure for braking systems, suspension systems, passenger doors, wheelchair lifts, and hvac to keep passengers and workers comfortable. Federal law requires drivers to conduct pre-trip inspections and confirm the vehicle is safe before it moves.
▶ 1:12:49That requires the engine to run, and a sufficient pre-trip inspection can take anywhere from 15 minutes and sometimes more, depending on the features of the bus. The busses act also supports passengers and employee health. Many modern motorcoaches are sealed passenger environments in extreme heat, cold or humidity. Air flow and cabin temperature are directly connected to passenger and workforce health.
▶ 1:13:19This point is not coming just from us or from our passengers. This week, smart, a union representing professional motorcoach operators and transportation workers serving new york city and the greater region, sent a letter raising serious concerns about the operational workforce and safety impacts of new york city's idling enforcement framework.
▶ 1:13:42In parts of the city, motor coaches face a zero minute idling rule, and in other parts of the city, they have between 1 and 3 minutes of idling time. Neither reflects the reality of safely placing a federal, federally regulated passenger vehicle into service or promoting safe conditions inside the cabin.
▶ 1:14:02Similarly, transit busses, taxi cabs, rideshares, trains, planes all other movers of people are not subjected to the same idling regime as the private motorcoach industry, which calls into question some of the benefits the underlying program may create. New york city's system has also become a bounty program.
▶ 1:14:25According to public reporting, the city has paid many individuals over $500,000 per year through its citizens idling complaint program. This program targets the private motorcoach industry for doing their job and complying with federally regulated rules. Busses are part of the environmental solution. A full motorcoach can remove as many as 35 cars from the road. It reduces congestion.
▶ 1:14:55It moves people efficiently and provides one of the cleanest forms of passenger transportation in the country, according to research. There's less carbon emitted per passenger mile by motorcoach than all other forms of mass transportation, including trains, planes, vanpools, ferries and even transit busses. Lastly, busses bring business. Motorcoach travel generates approximately $158 billion in total economic output.
▶ 1:15:24We support $50 billion in wages and contribute over $27 billion in taxes to federal, state and local coffers, a significant contrast with some of the other operators of busses that don't pay any taxes at all. The busses act. It's a safety solution. It does not eliminate anti-idling laws. It does not authorize unlimited engine operation, and it does not weaken clean air goals.
▶ 1:15:52It establishes a reasonable federal floor while preventing bounty style enforcement mechanisms tied to bus operations. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. >> miss garcia. You're now recognized for your testimony. >> good afternoon, chairman palmer, ranking member tonko and members of the subcommittee for environment.
▶ 1:16:18My name is catherine garcia, and I am the director of sierra club's clean transportation for all campaign. I live with my family in washington, D.C. and I'm the mother of a six year old son. I am honored to speak on behalf of our millions of members and supporters today, particularly those who experience severe air quality issues living near highways, ports and rail yards.
▶ 1:16:42These freight hubs are often located where black, latino and low income people breathe in toxic pollution from diesel trucks and busses. Every day at the sierra club, we're focused on accelerating the nation's vehicle fleet to cleaner cars, trucks and busses and trains, and our bedrock environmental law. The clean air act, is crucial to this work. I urge congress to protect and uphold the clean air act protections.
▶ 1:17:13Today, I'm here to discuss the importance of urgently addressing three crises that are impacting our members affordability, air quality and climate. The tools we have for addressing these issues is meaningful implementation of vehicle emission standards. The vehicle standards are most successful when paired with manufacturing investments that create jobs here in the us, and purchasing incentives that drive demand.
▶ 1:17:42When federal agencies were working to implement the inflation reduction act, we saw overwhelming support by industry and experienced a manufacturing renaissance that meant good jobs in your states.
▶ 1:17:59Folks in michigan, texas, nevada, california, kentucky, georgia and ohio were benefiting from record job growth in clean energy, clean vehicle and battery manufacturing and charging infrastructure assembly until last year, when president trump and his administration made it clear that he wanted to prioritize his big oil buddies over the economic, welfare and health of americans.
▶ 1:18:27Last year, president trump and the epa repealed crucial standards that would steadily increase the availability of cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles with republican support. He also made it more expensive for the general public, fleet owners, school districts and transit agencies to transition to cleaner vehicles that are cheaper to own and operate.
▶ 1:18:53Since february, the war in iran has caused a massive increase in the price of gasoline, which, according to a pew research survey, found as the biggest concern among americans about the war. Gas and diesel prices have increased and it's caused a ripple effect in our economy by shifting their focus and producing affordable, cleaner cars and trucks for the us market, manufacturers can help shield drivers from disruptive fuel price increases.
▶ 1:19:19Here in the us, drivers are eager to purchase electric trucks by daimler and volvo and cars from ford, gm and toyota. If they were more affordable. Congress you can help by upholding the clean air act, reinstating incentives, pushing back on the administration's rollbacks, and holding manufacturers accountable to deliver for businesses and families.
▶ 1:19:44The american lung association reports that nearly half of american children live in counties that received a failing grade for air pollution. Congress should fund programs that protect children. The bipartisan diesel emissions reduction act, also known as dera, has broad support across stakeholders and should be reauthorized since it has a long history of delivering cost effective health benefits across the country.
▶ 1:20:12Last year, congress overturned vehicle standards that states implement to protect their residents from harmful pollution, and this year, the epa proposed a two year delay for criteria pollutant standards for cars and trucks. And I actually testified this morning at that epa hearing, which continues tomorrow, combined with some of the proposed legislation discussed here today, sustained attacks on clean transportation will continue to make kids sick.
▶ 1:20:44Decades of relentless lobbying by the oil industry has slowed clean vehicle innovation, which has resulted in the transportation sector becoming the largest source of carbon pollution. President trump's egregious rollback of the greenhouse gas vehicle standards earlier this year means more polluting vehicle, more polluting vehicles for decades to come, and will continue climate driven extreme weather.
▶ 1:21:10Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> miss gelb, you're now recognized for your testimony. >> thank you. Chairman, ranking member tonko and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the truck and engine manufacturers association. I am jacquelyn gelb, president and ceo of ema, which represents the leading manufacturers of heavy duty diesel engines and commercial vehicles operating in the united states.
▶ 1:21:40Our members build the trucks, engines and equipment that move freight harvest crops, construct infrastructure, support emergency response, empower essential sectors of the american economy. We have worked closely with congress, epa and our customers for decades to develop technologies that achieve dramatic environmental improvements while maintaining the performance, durability and affordability that our customers depend upon.
▶ 1:22:07Today, I would like to discuss the critical role that diesel exhaust fluid or death and selective catalytic reduction, known as scr, play in achieving the near zero emissions performance of modern diesel engines, and why congress should support efforts to improve the customer experience while preserving these environmental gains. 25 years ago, epa adopted a groundbreaking rule requiring more than a 90% reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy duty diesel engines.
▶ 1:22:39Meeting those standards required unprecedented technological innovation and nearly a decade of the development and implementation by manufacturers. The technology that makes those reductions possible is scr. Scr uses def, a simple mixture of high purity urea and deionized water to convert smog forming nitrogen oxides into harmless nitrogen and water vapor before they leave the tailpipe. The results have been extraordinary.
▶ 1:23:09Modern scr systems routinely achieve greater than 90% nox conversion efficiency. According to the us, epa, advanced diesel engines equipped with scr technology have contributed a 76% reduction in nox emissions from on highway vehicles and a 42% reduction from off road equipment.
▶ 1:23:29Since these standards were implemented together, those reductions account for nearly 79% of the nation's total reduction in smog forming nox emissions during that period. Importantly, scr has delivered more than cleaner air. It has also improved fuel efficiency by allowing engine manufacturers to optimize combustion while cleaning emissions downstream.
▶ 1:23:53Scr technology has reduced fuel consumption and lowered operating costs for truck fleets, farmers, contractors, and equipment owners across the country. This is one of the rare environmental technologies that simultaneously delivers cleaner air, better performance, and lower fuel use. However, scr can only work when death is available.
▶ 1:24:14A typical heavy duty diesel engine uses just 2 to 4 gallons of death for every hundred gallons of diesel fuel consumed without death, emissions can increase significantly, effectively reversing decades of environmental progress. That is why epa requires manufacturers to provide warnings when death levels become low, and ultimately to limit engine performance if those warnings are ignored.
▶ 1:24:38While the goal of these requirements is understandable, experience has shown that some inducement strategies can create unintended operational burdens. Truck drivers, farmers and contractors have reported situations where equipment can become stranded far from service stations, creating delays, costs and potential safety concerns. Over the past year, ema has worked constructively with epa to develop practical improvements to these requirements.
▶ 1:25:04Epa's guidance, issued in august 2025 and in january and march of this year, provides manufacturers with greater flexibility to reduce operational disruptions while still ensuring def is on board, and emission systems continue to function as intended. Manufacturers are already implementing updates consistent with that guidance. For that reason, we welcome the committee's efforts to codify epa's common sense approach to the diesel emission fluid flexibility act.
▶ 1:25:33We believe it strikes the right balance between environmental benefits and operational efficiencies. We also strongly support reauthorization of the diesel emissions reduction act, or dheera. Dheera has a proven record of placing safer and cleaner vehicles on the road. It remains one of the most effective and bipartisan clean air programs in the federal government. In closing, the story of scr and def is a story of american innovation.
▶ 1:26:01Together, manufacturers, regulators and customers have achieved dramatic reductions in diesel emissions while improving fuel efficiency and maintaining the productivity our economy requires. As congress considers changes to def related requirements, we encourage a balanced approach that preserves those environmental gains while improving the real world experience to the men and women who rely on this equipment every day. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. >> chair recognizes Mr.
▶ 1:26:31Connolly for five minutes for his testimony. >> chairman. Ranking member, members of the subcommittee. My name is james connolly and I'm a partner at the law firm boyden gray llc, a boutique law firm founded by former white house counsel and clean air act lawyer extraordinaire c boyden gray. I have been working on title two issues for over a decade now. Title two is nearing retirement age. It goes back back 60 years to the 1965 motor vehicle pollution control act.
▶ 1:26:58That year, martin luther king marched to selma and the united states sent the first ground troops to vietnam in 1965. Four and five american families already owned at least one car. These cars were affordable, and some were powerful. Just the year before, ford had released the iconic 19 64.5 mustang. These cars were cool, but not clean. They spewed black clouds of hydrocarbons, soot and nitrogen oxides.
▶ 1:27:25They had no catalytic converter, no computerized engine controls, no oxygen sensor, and no fuel injection. And they use leaded gasoline, a potent neurotoxin. Diesel. Heavy duty trucks were dirtier. The result was smog. Photochemical smog was a particularly serious problem in the los angeles basin because of the area's sunlight, bowl like geography and wind patterns, la is prone to photochemical smog.
▶ 1:27:48As judge janice rogers brown memorably put it in the 1960s, the air in los angeles and the los angeles basin was so thick with smog that a mountain, or even a nearby mountain range could simply disappear. Those days are well behind us. Since 1970, manufacturers have reduced smog, forming emissions from new cars and trucks by over 99%. Leaded gasoline has disappeared from the pump.
▶ 1:28:12Severe smog advisories, which used to plague la have dropped to near zero, and some title two has accomplished its goal. We have clean cars and trucks, but the bureaucracies empowered by title two keep moving the goalposts to justify ever more expensive regulation.
▶ 1:28:29During the last administration, epa and california attempted to use title two to shift the entire transportation sector to electric vehicles, including everything from sedans to freight trucks that need to carry tens of thousands of pounds and travel hundreds of miles per day. These standards were out of touch with reality. Even by epa's accounting, they would have cost over $1 trillion and delivered negligible improvements in actual air quality for americans.
▶ 1:28:55Fortunately, congress stepped in and passed bipartisan legislation to block california's electrification mandates. This failed regulatory push has resulted in one of the greatest misallocations of capital in U.S. history, with over $100 billion in write downs in electric vehicle investments. So far. This regulatory overreach is a good inflection point to reform title two. Here are three suggestions for congress. First, title two needs to be cleaned up.
▶ 1:29:22Title two is over 100 pages long and contains many outdated provisions and programs pertaining to vehicles and fuels. In the 1970s or 1990s, congress should repeal provisions that have outlived their purpose. Second, california's waiver needs to be reformed. The extreme smog that justify the highly unusual waiver in the 1960s is a thing of the past.
▶ 1:29:42In my view, congress should simply repeal california's waiver authorities going forward for future model years, placing california on an equal footing with every other state consistent with the principle of equality among the states. Third, title two should clearly prohibit epa from considering electric vehicles when setting standards for internal combustion vehicles, seismic industrial policies should be debated and enacted, if at all, by this body and not epa. I welcome your questions.
▶ 1:30:13>> I thank all of you for your testimony. We will now move to the question and answer portion of the hearing. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio, the chairman of the energy subcommittee, Mr. latta, for five minutes for his questions. >> well, thank you, Mr. chairman, and thanks to our witnesses for coming before the subcommittee today. Mr. konda. Last congress we passed the cares act, which seeks to prevent the epa from implementing any future vehicle emissions regulations that would mandate certain technologies or engine types.
▶ 1:30:43We have heard testimony today claiming the current administration is solely responsible for the decrease in electric vehicle purchases. Would you expand on your point about the auto manufacturers write downs and what this is about americans interest in buying certain cars unless the government mandates them or takes the alternative away? >> uh, sure. So I can speak to the point that for that manufacturers are not selling electric vehicles because of a change in policy.
▶ 1:31:12I don't think that's frankly true. I think their started underwriting their investments. And, uh, the sales started flatline even while the mandate was still in place. So even by 2024, when the mandate was finalized, all these investments were already collapsing. And frankly, because there's no consumer demand. So there's a niche market for electric vehicles, you know, luxury cars in certain areas of the country, but it's just not something that's going to take off in this country, at least in the foreseeable future.
▶ 1:31:42>> well, he made a point when you said about consumer demand. And one of the things I've always said is I think that the american people should drive whatever they want. If they want to drive an internal combustion engine or they want to drive an ev, that's up to them. But the mandates come from washington usually don't turn out very well for the consumer. Let me continue. Mr.
▶ 1:32:01Konda, you also stated in your testimony that the environmental protection agency, under the last administration, weaponized clean air act under section 202 a, the four powertrain changes. Do you believe it's appropriate to use this section to eliminate new motor vehicles from. With this type of authority? >> no. Absolutely not. And we're in litigation on that precise question.
▶ 1:32:24In several cases, this is a major question of the kind that the supreme court has been clear as committed to this body, to congress, and epa cannot, without clear authority, mandate an entire shift to a new, uh, you know, to electrification of the whole motor vehicle fleet. We had the same issue exactly in west virginia versus epa, where the supreme court said, you can't mandate a shift from coal to, uh, solar and wind. The same issue applies here.
▶ 1:32:53So it's illegal. And we're glad that president trump is stopping it. >> thank you. Uh, repealing mandatory state level inspection and maintenance programs for motor vehicles could allow states to determine whether vehicle vehicle inspections are appropriate for their air quality needs and save consumers time and money through inspection fees, repair requirements, and administrative burdens.
▶ 1:33:15In northeast ohio, there are seven counties required to participate in e check program, which is a vehicle emissions inspection program that requires certain vehicles to undergo emissions testing every two years before registration renewal and not picking on you. Uh, but again, Mr. conner, regarding ohio's e check program that exists primarily because of the federal clean air act requirements, how much flexibility and cost savings would ohio consumers gain? The federal inspection maintenance mandate was eliminated.
▶ 1:33:47>> I don't have precise numbers for you on that. Um, but I'm sure it would be very helpful. Uh, I know that states all have an incentive to meet the clean air act requirements because otherwise there are certain regulatory burdens that are applied to them. So I think states can can do what they think is best in this area to improve their own air quality without federal mandates. >> well, thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you very much.
▶ 1:34:13>> gentleman yields chair now recognizes the ranking member, the gentleman from new york, Mr. tonko, for five minutes for his questions. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Uh, miss gelb, is it correct that selective catalytic reduction systems are not the norm 25 years ago? >> um. That's true. You know, when we started, as part of my testimony 20 years ago to working on the regulation, really focused on not new nox standards and moving into greenhouse gas one and greenhouse gas two for trucks.
▶ 1:34:44That's where we started to see scr coming to the marketplace. And it was to be able to balance the fuel efficiency requirements of what our customers needed to be able to be successful, as well as meet our federal emission standards. >> as you indicate, those past two decades, epa has set those ambitious standards to reduce nox and other pollutants from heavy duty vehicles.
▶ 1:35:03And during this time, vehicle, engine and emission control manufacturers have made major investments in r&d, developing new and improved technologies to comply with epa's requirements and address this environmental challenge. This is a great example of american ingenuity at work, but we have only been successful because there was long term regulatory certainty through a clean air act requirement, pushing technology development forward.
▶ 1:35:30So, miss gelb, is it accurate that these vehicles with selective catalytic reduction systems actually use less diesel fuel? >> yes. That's correct. Thank you for the question. You know, this is this is a technology that's been in place for our industry. Our industry is, to your point, has invested billions of dollars to bring it to the marketplace. It's also a technology that continues to be improved. I want you to think of our manufacturers as constantly thinking through continuous improvement, right?
▶ 1:36:00They want to bring technology to the marketplace that, um, you know, first gives them time to bring it from a durability standpoint, being able to test and validate that, but also making sure that it works for our customer. Our customer is, is a business. I want you to think of it's a truck fleet, right? It's a, it's a farmer. It's someone who's out on a construction site. Our equipment needs to be able to work for them. It needs to give them a benefit. It needs to work for their operations. They need to see operational savings.
▶ 1:36:29And so the ability to save save fuel have being more fuel efficient. Save fuel is something that is going to give them that operational benefit where they want to go and purchase the newest and cleanest truck on the road. >> well, that cost reduction is about $0.40 per gallon of diesel per gallon of diesel. And, um, so progress was made. But if a vehicle is not properly supplied with diesel exhaust fluid, can that actually result in higher nox emissions? >> uh, yes it could.
▶ 1:36:57Um congressman, you know that that is also, you know, when these, um, this technology has been engineered by our manufacturers, it's been engineered over a period of time for it's now fully integrated into the system of that piece of equipment. So just as we think of powertrains as the transmission and the engine are linked to each other, the scr system is the exact same way. Um, you know, this is not a bolt on technology. It's not something we can take on, something we can take off.
▶ 1:37:26So having death, making sure that that system works properly, um, gives some fuel savings, but it's also making sure that it's taking care of the components, the health of the components. >> so there is a challenge then of relying upon vehicle operators to make certain the equipment is being used correctly. And the public health and environmental benefits of these systems are being fully realized, which is why inducements are necessary. I know there will be members that will say, well, look how much progress we have made in reducing vehicle emissions.
▶ 1:37:56Our cars are clean enough already, but it's clear that if we fail to enforce clean air act rules, that progress progress can quickly be eroded and evaporated. So, miss garcia, there are still many people, especially those living near ports and highways and distribution centers that are dealing with high levels of pollution. Why is it critical for these communities that we maintain strong clean air act public health protections that do indeed promote innovation?
▶ 1:38:27>> thank you for the question. Yes. Um, so one of the things that I want to point out here is that for decades, every time industry has engaged in rulemaking, they have exaggerated the cost that it would cost for transitioning to a cleaner type of vehicle. Um, just, for example, in the 1970s, um, my fellow panelists here, Mr.
▶ 1:38:52Conde mentioned that in the 70s, before catalytic converters, there was a terrible smog problem in the in the la basin. That is true. But those manufacturers in the 1970s argued with epa and demanded that the vehicle regulation be weakened and dragged their feet until they continued until epa was successful with passing regulation. And now we have catalytic converters in combustion vehicles.
▶ 1:39:22Um, this is the same story we have seen decade after decade after decade. Manufacturers have continued to push back against regulations. So given that we have distribution centers all over the country, we have highways dividing communities. We have homes in the shadows of overpasses. The clean air act has not gone far enough. We need stronger regulations. And as you mentioned, we do need certainty as we speak.
▶ 1:39:50Members of the community are telling, um, telling epa that we need to continue to uphold the clean air act, and we need to uphold and implement the standards that are in place. >> I thank you for that. And with that, Mr. chair, I yield back. Madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas for his five minutes of questions. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 1:40:19I would certainly say we got an upgrade, Mr. conde. In 1967, amendments to the clean air act allowed the federal government to raise preemption for the state of california. While this may have been necessary at the time, your testimony highlights that california's waiver is presently outdated. And I'll say way outdated. Can you explain to what california's current waiver authority impacts the emission standards and regulations in other states, as well as interstate commerce at large? >> yes.
▶ 1:40:48So in 1967, congress enacted a particular waiver authority that's pretty unique, that allows california to set emission standards within its state. But then in 1977, congress further amended the act to allow other states in the country to adopt california's standards. And this in practice means that california has a veto over manufacturer production decisions in about one third of the market, which effectively means the whole national market. So that gives california enormous regulatory authority.
▶ 1:41:19>> absolutely it does. And is there something to be said that all of these regulations serve more so to drive the cost of vehicles, as well as freight and delivery and fuel higher than it has such a small impact on curbing emissions in a small way? Is that safe to say? >> that is very safe to say. >> Mr. ferguson. Would you agree with that? >> yes, I would. >> okay. Thank you for that. Um, I'm going to come back to you, Mr. condie, I think is where I'm going next.
▶ 1:41:48I, um, have a district along the gulf coast of texas, uh, that is home to several key waterways. We have seven ports, a lot of manufacturing, a lot of refineries on the gulf coast of texas. Uh, we serve as a lifeline to not only our energy, our country's energy export trade, um, and also import in a lot of things and import a lot of trade in there in the gulf coast of texas.
▶ 1:42:16Uh, as such, our inland waterways remain an absolutely crucial linchpin to our nation's transportation sector. Can you explain some of the effect that california mission waivers could have, even on ocean faring vessels? >> yes. So california has a rule requiring ocean going vessels to essentially electrify when they stop at the port of los angeles, for example.
▶ 1:42:42And and the ports in california account for about 40% of the freight moved in the country. So pretty much every ocean going vessel moves through california. And, and essentially that requires vessels, even foreign flagged vessels to adopt equipment to electrify that they currently don't have and spend millions of dollars just to dock at the port of los angeles.
▶ 1:43:05>> and can you imagine the amount of paperwork and the expense from a legal document, whether there's attorneys involved, I think, or any other attorneys on the panel? Okay. So you're safe right now. So imagine the amount of paperwork that's involved in trying to make sure that all of these other vessels, these companies, whether they're from the united states or they're from, as you pointed out, in ocean flagged vessel rather than, uh, from across the seas, if you will. What about the amount of expense? What does that do to the price of the goods?
▶ 1:43:37>> it it has a substantial increase in the cost there because it's not just california, but there's also similar european regulations that are out now that are making it extremely difficult. >> yeah. >> to be a global company. >> well, I appreciate that, Mr. ferguson, I'm coming back to you. Thank you for being here today. You highlighted the significant investment in technological advances in cleaner equipment than motor coaches now utilize.
▶ 1:44:00For instance, you mentioned that, quote, since 2000, nitrogen oxide emissions from motor coaches have declined by approximately 98%, which is a significant industry achievement compared to previous decades. However, certain state regulations talking about california now, we're going to move over to new york city, for example, continue to alter those very standards that y'all are aiming for. What does the future hold for y'all's industry? That's a texas word, y'all.
▶ 1:44:28What does the future hold for y'all's industry if there's no uniformity and found with respect to motor coach emissions? >> well, a modern motor coach, you know, you all may not know it's it's a $650,000 piece of equipment, highly technological, highly innovative and not cheap and to, to, to procure vehicles to manage your fleet.
▶ 1:44:52You need significant capital at your disposal and to deploy your capital, you need long term certainty. And what's happened, you know, with carb in california is different engine model year requirements have gotten out of whack where we have an epa standard that requires one set of capital expenditure plannings that california, through some of their regulations, have completely changed.
▶ 1:45:18And california, similar with shipping, is a huge market for motor coaches. >> okay, I appreciate that, madam chair, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mr. pallone for his five minutes of questions. >> thank you. Uh, my questions are of miss garcia.
▶ 1:45:40A number of the bills considered today, I believe, would actually drive up expensive fuel use while undermining critical clean air act public health protections, as I said in my opening statement. So first question, Mr. garcia, what do higher fuel prices mean for americans and how are these costs rippling through our economy, if you will? >> thank you for the question. Um, as I mentioned in my testimony since february.
▶ 1:46:09President trump's war has caused a massive increase in the price of gasoline. Drivers are dreading the trip to the gas station and calling it pain at the pump today, on average, gas is over 4.26 per gallon and diesel is about 5.41 cents per gallon.
▶ 1:46:29The persistent fuel price increase has had a ripple effect across the economy, impacting the widespread market for manufactured goods such as cars, medical supplies, clothing and household items. Even more troubling, big oil is using geopolitical chaos as cover to drive prices up and deliver massive windfall profits to their shareholders.
▶ 1:46:52From groceries to housing to rising fuel costs and utility payments, families are paying more for everything, and transportation is the second highest household expense after housing in much of the country. The cost of transportation is determined by the necessity of owning and paying for fuel, insurance and maintenance, and these expenses are adding up every year, paying placing a significant burden on working families.
▶ 1:47:20And I'll note earlier in the year, epa initiated a rulemaking to roll back the cafe standards, the fuel economy standards. This is actually making it so drivers are paying more per gallon per, um, per mile that they drive.
▶ 1:47:39And so at a time when fuel costs are skyrocketing and many people would choose to pay, um, pay less for gas, they would choose to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. They would choose to have an electric vehicle. It's actually harder for them because manufacturers are not delivering on that demand. >> but republicans have you know, I say they've waged a war against homegrown clean energy policies and technologies that lower costs for americans.
▶ 1:48:08So, I mean, you know, look no further than the repeal of all clean vehicle standards, which you've already talked about. So let me ask you, how do these how do strong, clean vehicle standards and incentives help cut costs for americans? >> yeah. Thank you for the question.
▶ 1:48:24Um, essentially, um, when the previous administration initiated the stronger regulations, um, the regulations that were in place starting in 2021 that actually encouraged manufacturers to steadily increase the amount of fuel efficient vehicles and even electric vehicles at that point.
▶ 1:48:48Um, the people that are buying electric vehicles and are driving plug in hybrids, they're spending less for getting around town. They have less maintenance costs and, um, generally have more money saved. Um, at the end of each week, instead of this pain at the pump that we're seeing today. >> so I mean, my point that I keep making is that, uh, you know, consumers save money if they're using clean vehicles.
▶ 1:49:18Meanwhile, prices keep going up because of the iran war, the trump administration. And, um, I think it's important reduce american's dependance on fossil fuels in general, because the geopolitical, geopolitical risks, uh, cleaning up our air. Um, and, you know, we should be working to restore and expand common sense measures.
▶ 1:49:41Like, you know, what, what you mentioned with clean vehicles just for the not only for cost purposes, but for the sake of health and the, and of our community. So unfortunately, many of the republican bills discussed today go in the opposite direction, in my opinion, and I fear that americans are going to pay the price. So thank you for your testimony. I yield back. Mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mr. joyce from pennsylvania for his five minutes of questions.
▶ 1:50:12>> thank you for holding this important. >> hearing today. And to our panel for testifying. During the biden administration, we saw unprecedented attacks on consumer choice in vehicles putting into place emission requirements so stringent that they created de facto electric vehicle mandates. In addition, california attempted to use their unique clean air act waiver to require a phaseout of internal combustion engine vehicles. Americans >> across our country.
▶ 1:50:42In states that followed california, standard were faced with california bureaucrats attempting to ban them from purchasing affordable, reliable vehicles based on radical principles rather than the reality of what the consumer wanted and what the consumer could afford. Thankfully, congress successfully blocked these efforts with c with three cras, including my legislation disapproving of california's advanced clean cars two standard.
▶ 1:51:11However, there is ongoing concern that future administrations and regulations could once again impose unrealistic standards that harm consumer choice. Mr. ferguson, in your testimony, you speak about how motorcoaches provide transportation service in rural areas, rural areas like I represent in central pennsylvania, where rail or air op air options are often not the first choice.
▶ 1:51:39Do you agree that electric vehicle mandates apply to motor coaches would rather further limit transportation options, specifically in rural areas? >> I do agree. You know, the running cost for an electric motor coach is about double the cost of a regular motor coach. >> and who's going to incur that increased cost. >> well local business owners and ultimately their customers. And you know the the primary.
▶ 1:52:06>> going to potentially limit their ability to take a motor coach ride, maybe to get on a coach and come to washington, dc. >> well, you have the kind of the theoretical and the cost, but the reality is operating interstate motor coaches, you know, you're not on a closed loop. You're not in an airport circuit. You're not on even a transit route where charging can be more predictable. You know, when you have 55 passengers in the back and you're stopping for food, you know, where are you going to charge up? And how long is that charging going to take?
▶ 1:52:32And how long can your passengers wait as they're trying to get to field trips and school events and sports games? What are they going to do while you're, you know, filling up? So I don't think our industry is anti electric vehicle. In fact, there's a lot of alternative propulsion technologies that we're interested in. It's all about that lead time of adoption and allowing. >> it's about the cost as well. >> absolutely. And I think costs over time can become more predictable and manageable.
▶ 1:52:59But the market needs to dictate those decisions, not, you know, government. >> Mr. ferguson, do you agree when jurisdictions like new york and like california impose these mandates, that it has an impact across state lines, impeding the ability for what you were just talking about, for motor coach operators to provide that necessary transportation, those sporting, those sporting event trips, those field trips. Does this impede that?
▶ 1:53:27>> we've got current research that shows 35% of east coast motor coach operators, including many in pennsylvania, are reducing trips into new york city because of the cost of complying with their regulatory regime. On average, it's about $50,000 in new costs that our small businesses are having to either swallow themselves or pass on to their customers. >> Mr. conde, you discussed the successful bipartisan efforts to block california's ev mandate.
▶ 1:53:55In your opinion, did the successful passage of these cras do enough to prevent future attacks on consumer choice? >> it's a very helpful start. And we we appreciate congress's action there, but it is not sufficient. Uh, I know that, you know, if there is a second, uh, biden 2.0 administration, they're going to try the same moves again.
▶ 1:54:18We're going to see the same capital misallocations and the same regulatory history happen once again, unless the supreme court clears up this issue, which we will ask it to do. But, you know, if the supreme court does not definitively decide this issue, we could use legislation to clear up and make sure that the next administration can't try the same move again.
▶ 1:54:38>> this committee has already taken positive steps to protect consumer choice and to push back on the burdensome regulations and the bills under consideration today represent a much needed modernization of the clean air act. Thank you. With the remaining time I yield back. >> the gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mr. ruiz from california for his five minutes of questions. >> thank you.
▶ 1:55:05I represent california's 25th congressional district, uh, the coachella valley, imperial valley, san jacinto valley pass area. Uh, these are communities where public health is a daily emergency. Quite honestly, with the contamination of the air, because according to the american lung association's state of the air report, imperial county ranks 13th in the nation for ozone pollution and 18th for annual particular particulate matter.
▶ 1:55:32Um, the coachella valley riverside county often gets a grade of f during their report cards as well. The imperial valley is one of the most polluted areas in the country. The calexico el centro hebrew corridor is already failing federal air quality standards, and in some stretches, particulate level runs ten times higher than what the federal government considers safe to breathe.
▶ 1:55:54Uh, diesel trucks on the I-10 and the state route 111 cargo traffic through the calexico port of entry and dust blowing off farm fields have pushed pollution to levels that are not marginal violations. They are a public health emergency.
▶ 1:56:12As of 2019, asthma related pediatric emergency room visits and hospitalizations in imperial county were double the california state average, and the county's overall asthma hospitalization rate has remained nearly twice the statewide rate ever since. Imperial county also records amongst the highest rates of childhood asthma, hospitalizations and emergency department visits anywhere in california. So I have to do, uh. So I have to be honest about what I see in the bills before us today.
▶ 1:56:42Several of these proposals, including the choice and automobile retail sales act and the state emissions authority act, would undermine california's long standing congressionally granted authority to set vehicle emission standards stronger than the federal floor. California has held this waiver authority since the original clean air act was signed into law more than 50 years ago. It exists because california's air quality challenges are unique due to its geography, the population, the traffic, and the suffering of communities.
▶ 1:57:12These bills would be a step backward for public health at exactly the moment, we need to be moving forward. I'm also concerned about the proposals that provide blanket exemptions under the clean air act for requirements of inducement related diesel engine rates, and to create carve outs for engine idling restrictions. Diesel exhaust is a known carcinogen. The health costs of diesel pollution fall disproportionately on low income communities, rural communities and communities of color.
▶ 1:57:41Communities that I represent. Rolling back the tools manufacturers, states and localities use to reduce diesel pollution is not modernization like my republican counterparts push for. It is regression. Miss garcia. The communities I represent bear some of the worst pollution burdens in california. And as I just outlined, many of these bills would lead to increased diesel pollution. What would that mean for the health of frontline communities like those in the imperial and coachella valleys?
▶ 1:58:11>> thank you for that question, congressman. Um, I'm glad you mentioned, um, um, I know that you were a doctor and, um, health is very, very important to you and to all parents. Um, when my son was one, we were living here in dc and he had a severe fever and difficulty breathing. We took him to the emergency room and he had rsv. It was so scary because he was born a preemie.
▶ 1:58:38And I was as I was holding him, I was terrified. And the doctor gave him a breathing treatment at that time. And I, I do this for a living. I, I advocate for the clean air act and for strong standards and for moving forward on, um, holding manufacturers accountable. And I truly feel that no parent should feel helpless as their child is struggling to breathe.
▶ 1:59:05Um, so that is a reason why california was given the authority to set stricter standards and the federal government. >> if I may. Um. Communities that live near high pollution in high pollution areas next to I ten live on average, ten years less. So this is not a joke. This is not theoretical.
▶ 1:59:34This is not about political partizan messaging around this fake so-called mandates that that don't exist. This is about people living ten years less on average. That's the public health impact that the impact on people's lives.
▶ 1:59:57And I can tell you, many folks on both sides of the aisles would rather live ten years more with their grandchildren and their family than deal with these cuts in protections to their health. Thank you. And I yield back. >> the gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mr. carter of georgia for his five minutes of questions. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank all of you for being here.
▶ 2:00:28This is extremely important. Um, hearing and, uh, talking about modernizing, modernizing the clean air act in respect to the mobile source pollution sources, uh, let's face it, the clean air act is a significant piece of legislation. It's historic, landmark piece of legislation, and it was certainly needed in the 1960s, but it hasn't been updated since then. And it needs to be updated. We know that. We've learned that there needs to be some real changes made to it. Um, because it is showing its age.
▶ 2:00:58We don't we don't have leaded gasoline anymore. We don't have vehicles without catalytic converters or oxygen sensors. And all of that has changed and changed the situation that, that we live in now. So we need to update this. Um, since 1970, smog forming emissions have been reduced by 99%. And that's significant.
▶ 2:01:21And we need to update the clean air act to, to, to, to, to meet those standards that are that are there today. Mr. condie, let me ask you, in your testimony, you discussed the need to clean up title two to outdated provisions and programs that were designed for vehicles and fuels from decades ago. What are the consequences if we don't do that? What if what are the consequences if we leave title two as they are? >> there's a lot of confusion.
▶ 2:01:51So a lot of attorneys are going to be making a lot of money pouring over pages that are no longer relevant to the actual public. So it has a lot of costs to businesses who are just trying to figure out what the law is and what it means. >> good. Mr.
▶ 2:02:03Ferguson, you brought up some pretty interesting points in your testimony, particularly regarding the challenges of bus operators that that they face in places like new york city, routine operational activities that are needed for passenger safety and even ada compliance are now being weaponized and expanded through predatory citizen complaint programs similar to what you just referred to. Mr.
▶ 2:02:28Ferguson, what can we do in congress to ensure that bus operators are not taken advantage of for simply doing their job and working to keep passengers safe? >> well, the bipartisan busses act, which has been spearheaded by Mr. langworthy and Mr. gottheimer, is a is a great place to start.
▶ 2:02:45It gives operators the framework to complete their pre-trip safety inspections to to allow time to get the systems, the sensors, the lifts, everything up and running as it should, which promotes and encourages safety in the operation of a motor coach, which on average takes about 35 individual cars off the road. >> is this the bus that you're referring to? >> yes, sir. >> good.
▶ 2:03:08It seems to me like some of these oppressive policies stem from our outdated clean air act, and may actually lead to less bus travel and put more cars on the road. We could shoot ourselves in the foot, wouldn't you agree? >> absolutely. And we've seen 35% of our operators in the east coast are reducing trips into new york city because of this idling enforcement program, which, as I stated in my testimony, does not apply to transit or other movers of people such as taxicabs or rideshares.
▶ 2:03:37Only the private motor coach industry is targeted under this program. >> are there any other type of, um, real world impacts that out of touch local anti-idling standards that are having on motorcoach operators? >> well, I think, um, the long term predictability of regulation allows, in the case of the motorcoach industry to see 90, 98% reductions in, in nox and other particulate matter that's happened over a long period of time through public private partnerships.
▶ 2:04:07And so I think that the message is predictability, you know, partnerships, being able to understand the rules of the road allow us to innovate and to, to use the, the power of the free market to solve some of these problems. And that's what we've seen thus far. There's a new engine year coming out in 2027, where you're going to see continued improvements in the sustainability and efficiencies of these engines.
▶ 2:04:31>> well, you know, I would agree and and, and I would submit that, you know, I, I'm I'm somewhat offended that you would think that we don't want clean air. We all want clean air and we all want, but we want to be smart about this. And, and we want to have policies in, in place that apply to today and are applicable to today, as opposed to 1960 when they were written. So I think all of you for being here. And I thank you, madam chair, for this opportunity to address a very important issue.
▶ 2:05:03And that is, you know, we we want to come up with new policies, but at the same time, we need to be looking at these existing policies and how we can make them better and smarter. Thank you. And I yield back. >> the gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mr. peters of california for his five minutes of questions. >> thank you, madam chair. Uh, since the passage of the clean air act, uh, the emissions of common air pollutants have dropped 77%, while gdp and job growth have grown by 200%.
▶ 2:05:29Um, and the environmental protection agency has estimated that the central benefits of the law exceed its cost by a factor of more than 30 to 1. It's a key example of our ability to balance economic growth and still have environmental protection. And I just want us to be conscious that throughout the history of this bill, these conversations were had, um, by folks who said, you know, we really can't make these restrictions or we will suffer great economic harm.
▶ 2:05:55Um, and I think these trades have been, have proven that they've not only supported economic prosperity, they supported innovation and supported better health. So I want to keep that in mind. And miss garcia, you referred to, uh, the clean air act as a bedrock environmental law. I just want to say that I often hear every law referred to as a bedrock environmental law. There are two. They are the clean water act and the clean air act.
▶ 2:06:22These are the these are the bills that actually substantively prohibit the emission of pollution into the environment that can risk public health and safety. And I think we should really keep that in mind. These are really important. Um, and yet, like all the environmental laws, they didn't come to us from moses on tablets. We have to look at them and we have to revise them as and modernize them. And so a couple of you have made points I think are good. I think, Mr. ferguson, your point about a minimum idling time is something we should look at. The only thing is, I want it to be a.
▶ 2:06:51I want it to be enforceable. It seems to me that these drafts take some of that away, but I think we could probably close that gap. I thought your point about deaf was something we should take seriously. And, um, and we can work a, an answer around that.
▶ 2:07:07Um, but I just want to keep, keep in mind that, um, everybody's been complaining for decades that we can't possibly comply and it often works out that we can, um, so let's work together on real fixes that I think we can, we can tailor and that can be, um, can meet our moment. I do want to say that there are other issues that we ought to be able to, to address too.
▶ 2:07:28Um, it over the past, over a year, over the past year, um, while they were waiting for grid connection, uh, elon musk's x, a data center in memphis, tennessee, was powered by over 30 gas turbines, none of which had a single clean air permit. That's enough energy to power over a quarter million homes at their second data center in southaven, mississippi. They now have 40, and they seem to continually truck in new turbines that have not been permitted.
▶ 2:07:56These turbines emit up to 2000 tons of harmful air pollutants into the atmosphere annually, operating with no transparency, no restrictions, and flouting the clean air act entirely. Because I was somehow able to categorize these turbines as mobile sources because they were on trailers, but they're fixed. They're connected to a fixed supply of natural gas, meaning that they're absolutely not mobile. Um, and the epa guidance came out this year that reiterated that these types of turbines are not mobile sources.
▶ 2:08:24Miss garcia, how much clearer does the law need to be on this issue? Are we seeing this in other parts of the country? >> so as you mentioned, um the generators are absolutely not mobile sources, mobile sources. And they're not temporary sources either. Conveying them as either mobile or temporary does a real disservice to the clean air act. And as we saw, causes real harm to the communities around those data centers and that are looking to flaunt the law.
▶ 2:08:51The law is very clear in this aspect, but we need actual enforcement, something that many states and this epa is just refusing to do. No one should get a free pass to violate the law and pollute the air, endangering the lives of the people right next door is unacceptable. >> yeah. I do also want to just talk for a minute about innovation. Um, in industry consumers, we've talked about this in the context of methane, are tired of the regulatory ping pong between republican and democratic administrations.
▶ 2:09:21It's impossible to invest without clear laws, create newer, cleaner and smarter products. And I would just call out the cares act one, for one example, would block epa from finalizing vehicle emission standards that would mandate the use of specific specific technology or, quote, result in limited availability of new motor vehicles. That is so broad and vague that it could hamper epa's ability to promulgate any future rules in the future.
▶ 2:09:46Now, none of these bills are going to get 60 votes in the senate, so the administration will be forced to do them unilaterally, and then democratic president will unwind them. Um, I do think we should work in this this room on real fixes. Um, and meanwhile, with respect to cars, china is building 20 electric vehicle dealerships in canada and looking to open car manufacturing plants in mexico. All this talk about dissing electric vehicles is ignoring that that is where the world is going.
▶ 2:10:15And we should be leading, not giving it away. And I yield back. >> the gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from iowa for her five minutes of questions. >> uh, thank you, madam chair, for holding this important hearing. And I also want to thank our witnesses for being here today. It's interesting to hear my colleagues speak. So I agree with representative buddy carter that, uh, we have regulations that were put in place almost half a century ago and need to be modernized.
▶ 2:10:42And I also agree with, uh, representative peters, uh, that sometimes we hear that a regulation will, uh, be so onerous that it will, uh, eliminate an industry. And so I think that what we're hearing is that there's actually bipartisanship here on capitol hill.
▶ 2:11:01Um, so america's farmers rely on dependable vehicles, equipment and transport, transportation networks to plant, harvest and deliver food, fuel and fiber to consumers across the country. Yet many of the clear acts, mobile source regulations were developed decades ago, as was iterated, and have become increasingly complex, costly, and disconnected from the realities of modern agriculture requirements related to emissions controls, engine technologies and vehicle standards can increase
▶ 2:11:32Equipment costs, reduce reliability and challenging operation operating conditions, and create unnecessary downtime during critical planting and harvest seasons. And when your profit margin is next to thriving. Mr. candy, how can congress modernize provisions of title two to protect the environment while ensuring regulations are tailored to minimize cost on consumers and producers?
▶ 2:11:56>> so I think codifying the recent guidance on def by the epa administrator would be a very good place to start. I know we represent a lot of farmers, and that's a big issue for them. >> well, speaking of des mike kelly, the cost of farm equipment is something that impacts farmers across my state and the nation. How might current proposals on diesel emissions fluence or def impact the cost of farm equipment? And what would happen if we eliminated the def requirement for farm equipment?
▶ 2:12:26>> thank you for the question. So as I've said, manufacturers have been investing in this technology, validating this technology, and to the point that you made earlier, if it's in the forefront of the manufacturers minds, making sure that equipment works for their customers, we do not like our equipment to fail. We know how important our equipment is to our customers with making sure that is working for their business for them.
▶ 2:12:51You know, we've been working on this technology for so long, it now is fully integrated into that system. So the pure elimination of death can impact the operation of that system as well as the emissions side of it.
▶ 2:13:05So we want to make sure that when we're looking at where, where can we make sure that we have the robustness for that technology to work, that we're balancing, making sure the system is going to be protected because we don't want a situation where we have catastrophic failure at all for our equipment. Our customers make an investment in this equipment for them. Um, and so we want to make sure it's going to work for them, that it holds its value, but want to make sure that they have a positive experience from the operator side.
▶ 2:13:34And that really is trying to understand what's making sure their equipment works. >> and the epa. January 20th, 20 2026 guidance clarified that temporary repair procedures may be used when necessary to diagnose or repair equipment, provided the equipment is returned to proper functioning before being returned to service. Has that clarification improved the ability of farmers and technicians to diagnose and repair equipment? >> it has, and I'd also look at the other two guidances that epa has put out as well.
▶ 2:14:00Um, the august guidance from last year, which is now starting to be implemented and available to our customers from our manufacturers, is really trying to make sure of what you spoke about those severe d rates, making it so that they don't get stuck in the field in the middle of planting season or harvest season. Um, as well as for trucks too, we don't want them stranded on the side of the road.
▶ 2:14:24It's making sure that they can have their notified that there's a potential inducement here, but they're able to get back, finish the job and get back to a safe place with that equipment so it can be serviced and put back into operation. >> and farmers have asked for greater ability to diagnose and repair equipment in the field.
▶ 2:14:42To your point, epa's approach gives them more practical repair flexibility while preserving the same equipment, architecture, financing assumptions and resale value expectations that support today's equipment market is that balance equipment owners have been seeking. Is that the balance they've been seeking or does more need to be done? >> um, you know, from our standpoint, it's, uh, we, we want to make sure that they're able to make sure that equipment works for them, they're able to address it quickly.
▶ 2:15:10Um, and from our standpoint, we see the epa guidance being able to provide the flexibility from the manufacturer side to address it, but also making sure that it's improving that. Operator experience. >> thank you so much. I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields. The chair now recognizes miss barragan for her five minutes of questions. >> thank you, madam chairwoman.
▶ 2:15:33Um, I represent the port of los angeles, and I'm proud of the standards that we put in to help protect our community and help clean up the air there. Um, one of my my colleagues on the other side, um, want to go after the port. Um, I would welcome them to come to the port and see what we're doing. They want to talk about higher costs. We should look at the policies that they're supporting that are resulting in higher costs across the country.
▶ 2:15:59Um it is it is true that in the port of la, um, we have had an effective regulation to reduce ship pollution at the ports and that's the plugin system. And so I'm proud of that. And um, you know, there's, there's other ways that ships can come into our port, uh, even if they haven't, uh, put in the, you know, the technology, he mentioned it, they can also install devices to capture their emissions.
▶ 2:16:26And in the long term, these ships are actually saving money from all of the, the fuel. They would be burning, just idling there. So, um, it's something that we, that I support miss garcia, um, in communities across my district, which includes the port parents can see and smell freight pollution from nearby rail operations. California has been working to clean up rail emissions because no child should have to breathe that dirty air just because they live near a rail yard.
▶ 2:16:53How would the locomotives act, undermine those efforts and affect public health in communities like mine? >> thank you for the question. Um, this proposal would give industry a pass at modernizing their technology and the efforts to reduce emissions from decades old, outdated rail technology.
▶ 2:17:19Um, and in fact, sierra club has been pushing for cleaner trains for many, many years. Um, we have shined a light on the inexcusable delay for updating rail technology. And one of the things that is clear to me, um, doing a landscape of where rail technology is around the world, um, this is not an issue of technology. This is an issue of prioritization.
▶ 2:17:47And this is a prioritization challenge. If we were to invest in updating rail technology and electrifying rail, that would have huge benefits for populations that are living around rail yards. Um, and particularly the rail yards and the corridors between the ports and, and throughout the, um, los angeles region. Um, we can deploy electric rail.
▶ 2:18:12Um, and I, we strongly, strongly, um, endorse moving and advancing and modernizing rail. And in fact, the international energy agency endorses electric rail to reduce fossil fuel consumption. >> and in my district, we have a pacific harbor line. They've been a national leader in deploying zero emissions locomotive technology at the ports of los angeles and long beach.
▶ 2:18:41So, I mean, what does this tell you about potential for cleaner rail operations when companies have the right incentives and support? >> yeah, absolutely. And, um, there was incentives in the inflation reduction act. There's been incentives and grants as part of dera that have updated and modernized, um, locomotive equipment. So the technology is there. We just need to prioritize and, and, and push, um, the, the industry to, to advance.
▶ 2:19:11>> great. Thank you, miss garcia, the discussion draft bill on bus idling would stop state and local governments from enforcing bus idling limits for up to 15 minutes. The other side is for states rights when it's inconvenient for them. But not not on this one. Um, I can understand Mr. ferguson's point about certain situations where commercial busses need to idle for a limited amount of time, but I believe that is up to state and local governments to strike the right balance based on specific situations they deal with.
▶ 2:19:39Um, I know that in california, we we have actually exemptions in our idling. Um, there are no exemptions at all in the bill we're looking at. Even utah has um a, a idling law and they have exemptions as well. This federal one we're looking at has nothing. Does that make any sense to you. >> it does not make any sense. And I think there can be an approach to take a smarter approach to, to fixing the issue.
▶ 2:20:08Um, we certainly agree that um as Mr. ferguson said, um busses are the most sustainable mass transit option. And we certainly want to encourage more people to take busses. Um, but this is the wrong approach. And in fact, um, what, when I look at idling, I think about the folks that are waiting at the bus terminals, the bus depots. Um, Mr.
▶ 2:20:34Ferguson mentioned that in the bus there's protections for the people that are waiting on the idling bus, but certainly not outside of the bus. >> great. Thank you, I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields. The chair now recognizes miss lee of florida for her five minutes of questions. >> thank you, madam chair. We can all agree that clean air and clean water are non-negotiable.
▶ 2:21:00But our regulations are intended to be a means to an end, not an end in themselves. And every regulation should be grounded in reality and tied to a clear environmental objective. Uh, we should also review them regularly to ensure that they remain current and relevant to the contemporary landscape. And so I thank all of you for being here today to help us in that endeavor. Mr. conde, I'd like to start with you.
▶ 2:21:28I'd like to go back to the discussion of, uh, california's waiver authority and the kind of impact that that has having on the national market when manufacturers essentially have to build or manufacture to california specs. Uh, and the effect that that has on regulatory costs in other states. So I am from florida, and we are the third largest auto market in the country with 23 million residents, uh, millions of vehicles purchased every year.
▶ 2:21:57Can you help us understand what repealing that waiver authority would mean economically for states like florida? >> yeah. So there's no question that since california began its regulatory push to electrify everything in about 2012, car prices have exploded. They've increased by 50%. The median car price has increased by 50% since 2012, while incomes have only increased by half as much.
▶ 2:22:23So cars are becoming increasingly less affordable as automakers have to invest in sort of failed electrification policies. I think if california was out of the picture, consumers would be able to buy the cars they want and they would become more affordable. We've already seen that. In fact, prices have started to fall because of president trump's deregulation. So, uh, I think cars would become more affordable to average middle class floridians. >> thank you. And, Mr.
▶ 2:22:49Ferguson, I'd like to follow up on your testimony about motor coaches and in particular there too. This is an important industry in my state. According to the american bus association foundation data, florida's motor coach industry generates 7.5 billion in economic output and supports 43000 jobs.
▶ 2:23:09Now, of course, we don't have a regulatory system like new york, and it's doubtful that we ever would, you know, particularly in a state like mine, where not maintaining a climate controlled environment can can much of the year be very dangerous?
▶ 2:23:27Uh, but I'm interested in you describing for us what this kind of limitation on idling, what this kind of regulatory burden has not just on the motor coach operators, but also on the affordability of motor coach service for passengers. >> yeah, it's it's important to highlight that motor coaches are regulated by the federal government. So the crux of the problem is the federal regulations require operators to do certain things.
▶ 2:23:54It doesn't matter if they're in new york or florida, there's certain baseline things they have to do to promote safety, such as a pre-trip inspection that takes more than zero minutes, takes more than one minute, takes more than three minutes, takes about 15 minutes. And in certain localities, we are unable to complete those pre-trip inspections without violating a local ordinance. And so for operators who many of whom are based in new york and maybe come to florida or come from florida and go up to new york, they're crossing state lines.
▶ 2:24:24They're going into different jurisdictions. The ability to comply with federal requirements and local requirements is a conflict. And so how do we resolve that? And that's what the bipartisan busses act would do. And ultimately, we are focused on passengers, the drivers and and in the grand scheme of things, taking cars off the road. Because when people are traveling by bus, there's up to 35 less cars. And the innovation in these engines are extremely advanced.
▶ 2:24:53And so that is why busses, as was just noted by the sierra club, are the most sustainable way of traveling in mass transportation. >> that's an important point for us to highlight about your testimony is that while certainly it it shares it illuminates the challenge of an overly burdensome regulatory landscape, both for for industry and for passengers.
▶ 2:25:21You also have highlighted that we are undermining an industry that supports good, clean transportation methods at the same time. Isn't that right? >> and the reality is, operators who are having to comply with the new york example, um, you know, they're based in new york, but they're also based in florida. And you know, when, when dollars are going to, uh, to fines and to pay the citizen bounty program, that's fewer investments in their own workforce.
▶ 2:25:50Academy bus is a great example where in one day in new york, they had $120,000 in fines. And they're a great operator from new york all the way down to florida. >> thank you, Mr. ferguson. We >> the gentlelady yields. The chair now recognizes Mr. soto from florida for his five minutes of questions. >> thank you so much. You know, modernizing the clean air act to me means achieving meaningful progress in protecting clean air. According to epa, the transportation.
▶ 2:26:19Now 28% of most of the. Most of any sector for greenhouse emissions. But I also think it has the greatest potential, uh, to continue to bend the curve. We see in florida, we've had extreme hurricanes and and heat as a result of rising, uh, amount of greenhouse gases, uh, gases, nearly $4 right now in central florida, which is a dollar more than it was a year ago. And diesel rose to 580. So I'm Mr.
▶ 2:26:46Ferguson, sorry for what you're dealing with there with the with the diesel prices there, among others, you know, in gas powered vehicles are going to be available for the foreseeable future. Uh, and so will diesel. Uh, nonetheless, there are many reasons for us to encourage more hybrid and electric vehicles, hydrogen powered trucks and more, uh, so that we can continue to clean our air, uh, and give americans more opportunities to be able to buy electric or hybrid vehicles and manufacture these
▶ 2:27:17Vehicles in the nation, you know, in the sunshine state, 20% of the new vehicles purchased were hybrids or evs last year. Uh, it's something that shocks a lot of people. I but we can do better on that over time. Miss garcia, we saw the, the ev, uh, incentives lapse. Uh, how important it is, is it to get those ev tax credits back? And what do you think about adding hybrids as part of it? >> um.
▶ 2:27:47>> so I think it's extremely important to get those incentives back. And, um, and there are incentives for evs and plug in hybrids. Um, and this actually brings up a previous point that I wanted to make, um, in terms of the regulations, um, in, in california, as well as the previous federal regulations, those were not a mandate.
▶ 2:28:12They actually did include plug in hybrids and they were common sense approaches to transitioning from all fossil fuel vehicles over to cleaner vehicles. Um. >> thank you, Mr. garcia. My time is limited. I appreciate it. And I think that's the the idea that we want to incentivize these things. We're giving americans options. A few years ago, I went to korea and drove a hydrogen powered vehicle, and one of my colleagues drove a tractor trailer that was hydrogen powered.
▶ 2:28:41We see hyundai has a 250 mile range vehicle, 20 minute recharge. Toyota announced with high road last year to deploy hydrogen fuel cell trucks, volvos and road testing. And daimler is working with cummings and freightliner in indiana and oregon on a new hydrogen powered trucks mike kelly. How far away do you think we are? We. As we get to the next ten, 20 years and seeing more hydrogen powered, um, truck, both engines and on the road.
▶ 2:29:12>> thank you for the question. Um, the big issue of just in any technology transition for our industry, no matter what it is, whether it's a new clean diesel engine, battery, electric hydrogen fuel cell, hydrogen ice, um, you know, from the standpoint, it's making sure that that technology is going to meet the operational needs for our customers. But also when we start talking about alternative, um, technology, battery electric hydrogen, making sure the infrastructure is in place. >> sure.
▶ 2:29:39And hydrogen is really probably has much more promise for the tractor trailers. It looks like at this point. >> it offers an opportunity to be able to go a longer, a longer distance. Um, we have manufacturers members that are looking at it that have, are doing the research to see if it's something that they could bring to the market that the market and our customers would like. >> sure. This is progress over time. I appreciate it and I yield back. >> the gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes herself for five minutes of questions.
▶ 2:30:10Um, thank you all for being here today. And thank you, chair guthrie, for, uh, including one of my bills in the hearing, the bill, which advances, uh, efforts to ease pressures on farmers, manufacturers and truckers across the country. I agree with others who have stated that the clean air act, the clean water act, those are non-negotiable. Those are bipartisan issues.
▶ 2:30:33And I'm very proud to say that my state of north dakota is one of only a handful of states that have never violated the national ambient air quality standards. Never. And that's despite being a the third largest oil and gas producer in this country, uh, a leading producer of electric power and exporter and a, uh, ag producer that leads in 13 different ag products in this country. So we are very much a deliverer of products.
▶ 2:31:03And we still meet the ambient air quality standards. Uh, our, my. Constituents insist on it, but in my state where agriculture drives our economy and long haul trucking connects our communities, regulatory burdens on diesel engines have real consequences and costs for my constituents.
▶ 2:31:30Uh, today's hearing includes bills to protect north dakota families by providing more flexibility for emissions regulations. Uh, and I think that this is long overdue and very appropriate that we're looking at these things. This is not these are not fictitious mandates. These have very real consequences.
▶ 2:31:43I just recently met with a whole group of north dakota farmers who sat in a round table discussion with me, and each one of them could talk about examples of being stuck in the field with the tractor that was turned off de-rated to that point, they really couldn't move because of the deaf emissions issues and the sensor issues. So, Mr. gelb, can we talk a little?
▶ 2:32:08Miss galp, can we talk just a little bit about what some of these regulations are doing? What are some of the issues encountered from the use of def, and how has the administrator, zeldin, and epa taken a pragmatic approach to fixing these? >> sure. Thank you very much for the question.
▶ 2:32:24You know, I would say before the epa guidance had been published last year, you know, our customers, your farmers and your district would run into issues where that equipment, if they had received an inducement, a notification of that.
▶ 2:32:39There was an issue with a sensor, low def quality, um, not enough def, um, in the sense of, you know, they could, they could run into a place of exactly what you said the equipment would stop running for them, it would shut down and it would happen pretty quickly. It would be a severe d rate of what we, what we call it for the industry. Post the august guidance. >> go ahead.
▶ 2:33:03>> I was going to say with with epa's august guidance, they've been able to take the approach, and we were very supportive of this as the manufacturers of. Where it gives a slower ramp down into that, um, ability for the equipment to shut down. It gives more notices. They have longer periods of time now to where it doesn't happen in a short period of time, a time they aren't going from, let's say, from a place of where they were in the middle of planting, planting their crop, and then suddenly it stops.
▶ 2:33:31They're able to finish that job and they're able to get that equipment back in back home to be able to be serviced. >> thank you. What are the practical risks of leaving these guidance documents? Uncodified and what would statutory clarity mean for diesel engine users and and manufacturers moving forward? >> absolutely. So, um, Mr. ferguson has mentioned this a couple of times, but it's the most important thing for our customers and for manufacturers is regulatory certainty.
▶ 2:34:00Um, so being able to design to something that we know that standard is going to be in place, but that also gives certainty to our customers, to your, your constituents, if making sure that they know what's going to be the requirement for tomorrow is the same, same, same requirement for today. >> thank you, miss gale. I yield the remainder of my time, and I. The chair now calls on my friend Mr. carter from georgia for his five minutes of questions.
▶ 2:34:30>> louisiana this time louisiana. >> sorry, Mr. carter. >> thank you, ma'am. Uh, thank you, madam chair, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. I represent louisiana, where some of our communities are breathing, some of the nation's most polluted air. Parts of our state already bear disproportionate burden of industrial emissions and vehicle pollution. Add to that toxic load every day.
▶ 2:34:51Diesel trucks, aging cars, and any fishing engines pump nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matters into the air that our children breathe. This isn't just a louisiana problem. Right now. Nearly half of all children in america live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution. These kids face higher rates of asthma, reduced lung development, and long term cardiovascular harm conditions that follow them for their entire lives.
▶ 2:35:21Strong vehicle pollution standards are one of the most effective tools we have to change that. They cut the tailpipe emissions, driving those health crises. Vehicle emission standards have saved families money. At a time when the president's reckless war on iran has sent gas prices skyrocketing since the clean air act, vehicles efficiently require efficiency. Efficiency requirements took effect.
▶ 2:35:50Americans have saved hundreds of billions of dollars in fuel costs as cars and trucks have become dramatically more fuel efficient, meaning every trip to the gas station costs less than every tank of gas goes further than would have before the standards took effect. Cleaner vehicles mean healthier kids and lower fuel costs. Weakening those standards doesn't hurt. The environment just doesn't hurt the environment. It hits our families in their lungs and in their wallets.
▶ 2:36:19Miss garcia, one of our witnesses on today's panel, claimed that the biden area clean vehicle standards would have delivered negligible improvements in air quality. What does that even mean? Negligible. Does that mean just a little bit better? Isn't a little bit better better than a little bit worse?
▶ 2:36:41So should we have a race to the bottom, or should we try to always improve air quality, even if it's incremental? Uh, what, what would you like to say about that? About that statement? >> thank you, Mr. congressman.
▶ 2:36:57Um, so I think one of the things that we're seeing with the epa and these rollbacks, these severe rollbacks, is that when they actually do the do the math, and they're looking to see how this would affect the economy, how this would affect business. They aren't actually taking into account what this would mean for health.
▶ 2:37:18And in fact, president trump does not even care about americans in the fact that the epa has removed health benefits from even being a part of the equation. So when epa does its analysis, it doesn't look at what how many lives would be saved, how many fewer hospital visits would be would would occur after this rollback is implemented.
▶ 2:37:46So as you mentioned, um, children are the most, most vulnerable of our population. They're exposed to toxic pollution every day. For example, when they go to school. Many of the busses are diesel. Um and when they're walking and playing and exercising outside, they're exposed to these poisonous fumes. So I, um, wholeheartedly agree. And, um, I think the epa should be taking into account health benefits when they're analyzing these rollbacks. Um, for the sake of our children.
▶ 2:38:17>> uh, my district is home to some of the largest ports in america. I'm very proud of that. While we're thankful for these jobs, the facilities provide the trains, trucks and industrial equipment needed to move the cargo every day, also have air quality impacts. Diesel engines can also operate for 30 hours or more, leaving millions of older, dirtier engines in use. Can you talk about how programs like the diesel emission reduction act provides both health and economic benefits for communities like mine?
▶ 2:38:45Because we shouldn't have this as an either or proposition. We can have both. We can have economic viability while still promoting healthy communities. >> absolutely.
▶ 2:38:58Um, and, and part of the preparation for this hearing, um, I did evaluate many years, there's a legacy of dera grants that have helped communities switch from diesel transport, refrigeration units to all electric units to switching from switch locomotives to tier four locomotives, um, and replacing dirty diesel school busses to electric busses.
▶ 2:39:26Um, and so across the country, we are seeing the benefits and what that means for communities. It's less fuel costs and it's more modernized, um, transportation options. So all in all, um, dera is a great solution for moving this forward. >> thank you very much, madam chair. I yield. >> the gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mr. evans of colorado for five minutes of questions. >> thank you to the chair. Ranking member.
▶ 2:39:54Thank you, of course, to our witnesses for coming today to talk about this. And let's talk about unintended consequences. Um, I'm going to read from a cbs news story here again, cbs, not fox news, cbs from two months ago talking about gas prices in california. Um, the story says it's talking about higher gas prices, higher. The headline is california gas prices are the nation's highest, but there's no proof of price gouging. Here's why.
▶ 2:40:22And then when you read the story, it says, um, state officials say they have found no evidence of illegal price gouging. Instead, two refineries shut down, taking nearly 20% of the state's refining capacity. California is now outsourcing outsourcing to asian refineries to make more of california's special blend gas. And I want to come back to that point.
▶ 2:40:46Environmental standards aren't as strict in asia, and then the refiners have to ship that gas back to california, halfway around the world. Uh, which the story says here, in addition to increased pollution, transporting the gas across the pacific can take weeks, which results in higher costs and greater volatility.
▶ 2:41:02And so I want to I wanted to read that to kind of level set about what we're talking here, which one of the specific pieces of legislation, the local legislation, the locomotives act, talks about yet another one of these loopholes by which states like california or in my case, colorado, try to dictate national standards around the environment and do those california standards, the special gas blend here that we talked about designed to reduce emissions, do they actually reduce emissions or do they
▶ 2:41:32Have the unintended consequence of actually increasing emissions while also increasing costs? And so my first question to miss gelb is going to be to you. Um, colorado, my home state, sixth most heavily regulated state in the nation, coming in closely behind california. I've seen the results that this heavy regulatory burden has on the economy of colorado and people's ability to make a living.
▶ 2:41:58Uh, we've seen, we just read what the, what these california regulations, the impact it has on californians. So the locomotives act that we're talking about closes yet another loophole by which blue states like california and colorado can try to force rail carriers to comply with california standards.
▶ 2:42:16And so, miss gelb, the question to you is, does that actually would these california standards projected across the nation, would that actually protect the environment, or does that have the potential to result in what we just talked about, more unintended consequences that actually increase pollution by driving transportation, manufacturing in the economy out of the united states to, as it says here, places like asia, where the environmental standards are lower, you get more emissions, more pollution,
▶ 2:42:47And we still lose the economy. So I know that's a long question, but does closing this loophole help us actually protect the environment by preventing these negative unintended consequences? >> thank you for the question. I can tell you, in this space for our industry, we we actually are a very small industry in regards to how many engines and equipment that we sell, trucks being one of them, agriculture being another, another one there.
▶ 2:43:10But from our standpoint, if when we always work on our regulations, we want a national standard, um, trucks are a prime example of that. Those trucks cross state lines multiple times a day. Your state has one of the toughest, um, inclines for a truck on highway truck to be able to move, move our nation's freight.
▶ 2:43:32So the ability to have a standard to where it's one national standard is something that we always strive to make sure for our industry, we have the certainty, but also it's something that works best for our customers. >> thank you for that. So it sounds like having that one national standard and not allowing states like california and colorado to make a patchwork, uh, is going to be able to save consumers money, be able to make sure that the economy isn't strangled under regulatory burden.
▶ 2:43:59And again, as we read in the story, potentially has the ability of actually decreasing emissions by keeping that stuff in the united states, where we have better environmental standards. >> we always like harmonization for our regulations, whether in california or epa. So we have one standard for our industry. >> thanks for that. I got 37 seconds here, Mr. conde. Uh, this last one will go to you. Um, does things like restricting engine idling for school bus.
▶ 2:44:24Does that actually move the needle on air quality or should we look at other things like maybe preventing wildfires and reforming the exceptional events under the clean air act to actually follow the science and find ways to actually reduce air pollution? 10s. >> I think preventing wildfires is huge. Uh, just to give you a data point there, light duty vehicles only account for 1% of pm emissions, while wildfires account for a much >> a bigger portion of pm emissions.
▶ 2:44:53So I think it's very important. >> thank you for that. I'm out of time and yield back. >> the gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mr. landsman from ohio for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, madam chair. I'll be quick because we got to go vote. But, um, uh, my wife and I have two kids. They're 14, 16. They use the public transit system now.
▶ 2:45:16Um, but obviously when they were younger, I guess not obviously, but they, they used the, a private, you know, they company that worked with the school district. So they've been on both and, uh, the idling question is, you know, one that I think about in the context of my kids and everyone else's kids, right? You know, and we want to make sure that we're being smart about these policies. And so I, I appreciate the bipartisan hearing.
▶ 2:45:44Hopefully we get to a bipartisan place. The these busses are, for the most part, diesel engines. And you got kids sitting on the busses, including mine, and the time in which the busses idling, they are breathing in the air. And so the idling rules. Mr. ferguson, you represent these bus companies. You'd agree that the idling rules are good. Yeah.
▶ 2:46:17Generally speaking. >> uh, operators do not want their drivers idling endlessly because that's also money going out the door as well. >> right. It's more fuel also bad, you know, in terms of the asthma, I mean, it just costs riders more and it costs families more. Um, a kid with asthma, it's very expensive. It's also heartbreaking. Uh, and then, you know, the school districts, they pay more.
▶ 2:46:42The, the question is, is like, are these idling laws extreme or are they putting folks out of business? And I, I'm this isn't a leading question, I swear. Do you have companies in some of these states that you're frustrated with where busses are bus companies are going out of business or it's becoming too expensive.
▶ 2:47:03>> it's becoming an an operational challenge for the driver because the question becomes, do I pay attention to the federal regulation that requires this, or do I follow that requires that? >> but isn't it's not that complicated because they just do the state, right? I mean, whatever is the whatever the whatever requires them to idle less. That's what they're going to do. No.
▶ 2:47:28>> in the case of the federal regulation, you know, their operating status, their ability to operate is granted by the feds. And if they're doing things that harm their federal compliance, that could jeopardize their, you know, long term future as an operator. Yeah. So it's clarity is what we're looking for. And, and unlimited idling, as I said in my testimony, is not very bad here. >> to want to do that.
▶ 2:47:52And it does seem to me that the choice would be, I, I'm an idle last because one, it's better for my own health. It's better for my company. It's better for the kids. And, you know, I suspect that's where most are. But you don't there's no companies going out of business because of this. >> what's happening is fewer trips. In the case of new york, fewer companies going into new york, and the cost of compliance is going up.
▶ 2:48:17And so I think taken against the basket of higher diesel costs, higher insurance costs, you know, all of those collection of hits that could absolutely put companies out of business. >> but they haven't yet. No one's gone out of business yet. I hear what you're saying, but this isn't, uh, this isn't a question of, uh, you know, whether or not it's really undermining these businesses.
▶ 2:48:40I think there's a question of, you know, how, uh, how do we want to manage this so that we're protecting these kids, uh, and the drivers. Uh, miss garcia just was, as it relates to the idling rules and kids. I mean, the, the asthma piece is a big deal.
▶ 2:49:01I mean, how expensive if we were to pull back and just say, you know, we're going to have this one standard and we're not going to have states be able to decide because each state is a little different. The asthma rates go up or down. >> asthma rates would go up. >> and, you know, much more expensive. >> yeah. Well, are you talking about the the health costs of asthma. Yes, absolutely. The the health costs would go up. >> I think the challenge for me is and I think Mr.
▶ 2:49:30Peter said this, I think there is an opportunity to figure out a path forward. It's going to require democrats and republicans sitting in a room and having these conversations, which does not happen that often. And it's folks on this committee, uh, that have to sit in a room and say, okay, what is going to make the most sense? I hope that's the direction in which we go. That said, I'm going to always think about my as, as anyone would, we're going to think about our kids first. That's going to be the biggest priority. Thanks, I yield back.
▶ 2:50:01>> thank you. Uh, all time is expired on the floor for votes. So we are going to have to draw this hearing to conclusion. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. Uh, members may have additional written questions for you. I'll remind members they have ten business days to submit additional questions for the record, and I ask that the witnesses do their best to submit responses within ten days. Upon receipt of the questions, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
▶ 2:50:32Without objection, that will be the order. Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you all. All right.