news

Today, U.S. Reps. Bob Latta (R-OH5), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL12), John Joyce (R-PA13), and 155 of their House colleagues, including Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA23), House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA1), Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-NY21), and House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA5), sent a letter to President Biden in opposition to a forthcoming waiver request from the state of California that will ban the sale of new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, or gas- and diesel-powered vehicles. 

This ban raises serious questions regarding the reliability of an already-stressed electric grid, the need to generate additional power, the accessibility of critical minerals needed for increased electrification, and the role of the government in consumer choice. 

“Earlier this year, America’s energy regulators warned states about elevated risks to the reliability of our electric grid and the increased threat of brown and black outs,” said Latta. “Instead of heeding those warnings, California politicians are pursuing stifling new regulations to ban gas- and diesel-powered cars by 2035. This effort will extend far beyond California’s borders and will make it more difficult for Americans to get to work, drop their kids off at school, and travel to visit loved ones. We cannot forget, California recently alerted residents to substantially reduce their energy consumption, and now, they are contradicting themselves by forcing folks to become more reliant on the electric grid through the mandatory transition from traditional vehicles to electric-only vehicles. These actions are misguided and will further exacerbate the strain on our grid. California’s proposal is wrong; we must stand up now to preserve the reliability of our nation’s electric grid and the rights of Americans to choose the vehicles they want to drive.” 

“California’s proposal is another example of liberal elitists being detached from the real constraints on the energy grid and the average American consumer,” said Bilirakis. “This summer we already saw California’s energy grid struggle to meet growing energy demands, and these proposed regulations would only exacerbate that strain. With the higher-than-average cost of an EV vehicle, the average Californian might find themselves not only unable to afford a new EV vehicle, but even if they are, potentially unable to keep it reliably charged due to brown or black outs. All Americans should have the freedom to choose which vehicle makes the most sense for their particular circumstances and budgets, and the EPA should not enable the Californian elite to set a precedent that could have negative impacts on all Americans.”

“California’s discriminatory waiver request would set a costly and dangerous precedent”, said Joyce. “Americans should not be coerced into making purchases they cannot afford, and they should be free to drive the roads built with their tax dollars in the vehicles they otherwise would choose to drive. This heavy-handed proposal picks winners and losers, and I am proud to stand with my colleagues in urging the EPA to deny this outrageous request.”

Background

On August 25, 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to place stringent new requirements on automakers that would effectively ban the sale of new ICE cars and light trucks by 2035 in favor of so-called “zero-emission vehicles” (ZEV), like plug-in hybrid, full battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. For the state of California to move forward with implementation, it will need to obtain a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption provisions from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CARB has readily admitted that this action will extend beyond its state borders, with 17 other states bound to follow California’s standards. This would constitute 40 percent of the entire nation’s new car sales.

Read the complete letter here and below:

Dear President Biden:

On August 25, 2022, the State of California’s Air Resource Board (CARB) approved new regulations that would require 35 percent of all new light-duty vehicle sales to be electrified by 2026, followed by a 100 percent requirement by 2035. This means that by 2035, automakers would be prohibited from selling new vehicles that contain conventional internal combustion engines (ICEs). For this ban to go into effect, California will need to obtain from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a waiver of Clean Air Act (CAA) preemption provisions. We urge you to reject California’s forthcoming request for this waiver due to widespread concerns for the negative impact it will have on the electric grid, the need for additional power generation, the overreliance on foreign adversaries for critical minerals, and the right of Americans to choose for themselves which vehicles they wish to drive.

It is disconcerting that California is attempting to ban ICE vehicles when there have already been real world examples showing California’s grid will not be able to handle the increased electric load. For example, in early September, the California Independent System Operator, which manages the grid, sent a Flex Alert to residents asking them to reduce their electricity use. This included a call to set thermostats higher and avoid plugging in major appliances. Under the new ban on ICE vehicles and with the goal of full electrification, California residents may face a future where they will be unable to get to work, shop for groceries at the local market, or pick up their kids from school because they will be unable to charge their vehicles when they want or need.

These grid reliability concerns are so obvious that they cannot be ignored. Clearly, the goal of CARB’s new regulation is to put California on a path towards full electrification of the on-road fleet, which would mean the state would need to be able to generate enough electricity to continuously charge 30 million registered vehicles. If the state’s electric grid is currently struggling to handle more demand for electricity, how will it be able to integrate the additional 2,250,000,000 kWhs it will need to charge its fleet (average 75 kWh electric vehicle battery)?

In addition to the severe challenges this action would present to the electric grid, it also fails to account for market realities. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were just under 276 million registered vehicles operating in the United States in 2020. Through April of this year, just over 2.3 million plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have been sold cumulatively in the United States. If the United States did go to an all-EV fleet, as California would like, then where is the plan to convert, recycle, or dispose of the 276 million registered vehicles that are already on the road? How will California stifle the preferences of Americans that would like to purchase new ICE vehicles due to their accessibility, affordability, and reliable infrastructure? These questions need answers.

Proponents of an all-EV fleet have also failed to address questions over the overreliance on hostile nations like China for the critical minerals that are necessary for the manufacture of EVs, charging stations, and batteries. In fact, China controls more than 70 percent of the world’s lithium-ion battery production. While we have long supported the increased exploration and mining for critical minerals within the United States, it seems the loudest supporters of EVs are also the loudest critics of building up our nation’s capacity to secure the materials right here at home. This will help shorten supply chains, which were exposed for their vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic, and reduce the United States’ reliance on China, especially at a time when the latter is projecting military aggression in the South China Sea. Unless the intention is to make it more difficult for Americans to travel and commute, it would be simply impossible to phase out ICE vehicles without addressing these critical mineral concerns.

These issues represent a small sample of the reasons why the EPA should reject California’s request for a waiver of the CAA presumption provisions. Not only are there technical and logistical barriers, but also philosophical concerns with telling the American people what products they can and cannot buy. We urge you to consider these concerns and allow them to inform EPA’s final decision on the waiver.

###