House expected to consider legislation to block EPA’s ‘EV mandate’

This week the House is expected to consider a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) April 2024 rule that would radically change what new cars are available for sale. Specifically, the rule would rapidly decrease the supply of new gasoline-powered cars that automakers could produce and sell. This CRA resolution would protect consumers and industries from a de facto mandate that threatens to price more households out of the new car market and dramatically limit consumer choice.

Who wants to block the rule and what it would do

Reps. John James (R-MI) and Russ Fulcher (R-ID) introduced the CRA resolution, H.J. Res. 136. It targets the EPA’s rule establishing tailpipe emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles that would severely limit the production of gas-powered vehicles. According to the EPA, by 2032, 56 percent of new light-duty vehicles sold will be battery electric vehicles and 13 percent will be plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Less than 30 percent will be internal combustion engine vehicles. It is, in effect, an “EV mandate” for anyone that wants to sell or produce cars in the United States.

Why the rule is bad for Americans

The EPA’s vehicle tailpipe rule isn’t just a sweeping environmental measure; it is a central plan to effectively force a shift in the auto market that disregards basic freedoms, consumer preferences, and the importance of gas-powered cars. Congress never authorized the EPA to phase out production and sales of gas-powered cars. By effectively forcing automakers to produce mostly EVs (if they want to produce cars), the EPA has issued a rule that assumes the government knows better than consumers what type of vehicles they should drive.

Moreover, the rule ignores the real-world costs of such a transition. Compliance with this one EPA rule could total $760 billion, a staggering figure that is comparable to even the massive and controversial 2009 stimulus bill ($787 billion).

Further, EVs are still more expensive to purchase and maintain than gas-powered cars. According to data from Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric cars was $56,575 in August vs. gas-powered vehicles at $47,870. This burden will be felt disproportionately by low-income Americans, who are least able to afford either expensive electric cars or higher priced gasoline powered cars—a likely result of their rapidly shrinking supply.

Americans are not flocking to buy EVs for a variety of reasons, including high upfront costs, long charging times, limited availability of charging infrastructure, concerns about range anxiety, and a lack of vehicle options in some categories like trucks and SUVs. Consumer Reports found that electric vehicles had 79 percent more problems than gas-powered vehicles and plug-in hybrids had 146 percent more problems.

How this CRA resolution would kill the rule if enacted

If the CRA resolution passes both chambers and is signed into law, it would nullify the EPA’s tailpipe emissions rule. Additionally, the EPA would be prohibited from issuing any future rules that are “substantially the same,” ensuring that this type of regulatory overreach cannot happen again absent Congressional action. Granted, President Joe Biden would likely veto the resolution, but passing this resolution would send a clear message from lawmakers that they reject this extreme rule. It would also provide a compelling argument for inclusion of a policy rider in future spending bills to prohibit funding for the rule’s implementation and enforcement and would inform courts about what Congress thinks of the rule.

The importance of Congress pushing back

This rule represents an extreme and misguided attempt to control what Americans drive. House members are right to push back against the EPA’s regulatory overreach. Unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t be able to impose costly mandates that ignore the needs of everyday Americans and dismiss market forces. This type of agency abuse would have profound consequences for the economy, mobility, and consumer choice.

The CRA resolution offers lawmakers a chance to reclaim control and stop this harmful policy. The House should advance this resolution in a bipartisan manner, and the Senate should take it up to ensure that the government isn’t dictating something as basic as the choice of which cars we drive.