BILL: Should We Protect Vehicles From Climate Regulators? - Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act - H.R.1435
Tell your reps to support or oppose this bill
The Bill
H.R.1435 - Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act
Bill Details
- Sponsored by Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa.) on March 8, 2023
- Committee: House - Energy and Commerce
- House: Passed on Sept. 14, 2023
- Senate: Not yet voted
- President: Not yet signed
Bill Overview
- Prevents the EP from allowing California's climate regulators to limit the sale or use of new gas-powered motor vehicles. In 2022, California approved a new requirement that will effectively ban the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines by 2035 in favor of zero-emission vehicles. Seventeen states have laws in place that tether their vehicle emissions standards to those set in California, representing over 40% of total U.S. car purchases.
- Under the Clean Air Act, states can't adopt or enforce emission control standards for new motor vehicles unless the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides a waiver authorizing them to do so. The bill blocks the EPA from issuing these waivers.
- In a 222-190 vote, the House approved the Act with 214 Republicans and eight Democrats voting in favor.
What's in the Bill?
Protects auto industry
- Supporters argue that California's regulatory requirements will increase the cost of all new cars, eliminate the models that are most popular, cost jobs, and impact the U.S. auto sector.
- Opponents argue that California's electric vehicle (EV) industry will create jobs and spark innovation. If California were a country, it would rank 4th in EV sales behind China, the U.S., and Germany.
Ensures consumer choice
- Ensures American consumers have freedom of choice when it comes to the type of vehicle they decide to buy, not limited to electric vehicles.
Challenges claims of California Air Resources Board
- Argues that CARB's climate rules are ineffective and won't have a discernible impact on global warming.
- According to the sponsors, CARB's push for electric vehicles will strengthen China's carbon-intensive mineral extraction industry as EVs rely on several rare minerals.
Restricts EPA waivers
- Restricts the EPA from issuing waivers that would ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles.
- The EPA's decision to reinstate waivers has been challenged in court by several states and industry groups and was argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Sept. 15.
What Supporters Are Saying
- Supporters believe that California's push for 100% electric for new vehicles is an attempt to coerce the auto industry to transition to battery/electric faster than market demand can support. They also believe it will strain the country's electricity infrastructure.
- Rep. Joyce, the sponsor of the bill, said:
"The simple fact is that electric vehicles cannot meet the demands of my constituents. Coupling the mountains with the harsh winters and the intense heat of summers makes driving an electric vehicle both unreliable and ultimately unrealistic for many of my constituents."
- Steven G. Bradbury, former acting deputy secretary of transportation and fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said:
"Whether or not the challengers prevail in court, there remains a clear need for Congress to step in and permanently end California's climate imperialism."
"Far-Left Leaders like New York Governor Kathy Hochul are attempting to shove their Far Left Green New Deal agenda down the throats of the American consumers, shamelessly pushing out of touch policies that would ban gas powered cars in favor of electric vehicles ultimately eliminating consumer choice."
- Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said:
"This legislation is about ensuring Americans can continue choosing the vehicles that best suit their lives. It's about making sure people have the option of driving practical, functional, and affordable cars. And it's about embracing the legacy of the American auto industry."
What Opponents Are Saying
- California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said:
"Governor Ronald Reagan created the nation's first clean air regulator here in California, and President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act to preserve our right to keep driving efforts to cut pollution. But the Republicans of today reject the idea that pollution is bad and clean air is good, trying to use the courts to legislate their backwards ideology. We're going to fight like hell to preserve that once-bipartisan tradition and leave our communities better off for our kids and their grandkids."
"The attacks on California's current and historical efforts to address vehicle pollution of all kinds are misguided and misplaced."
- California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chair Liane Randolph said:
"Congress has long preserved California's ability to regulate vehicle emissions within the state and provide solutions to communities that for decades have endured some of the worst pollution in the nation. Our regulations have propelled innovation in vehicle-emission control technologies that help clean the air Californians breathe. We look forward to the court affirming more than 50 years of that Congressional choice."
- Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J) said:
"The transportation sector is the single-largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and other dangerous air pollution. But once again, Republicans want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality, even while more than 100 million Americans are right now living in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution."
Tell your reps to support or oppose this bill
-Emma Kansiz
(Photo Credit: Canva)
The Latest
-
The Long Arc: Taking Action in Times of Change“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.” Martin Luther King Jr. Today in read more... Advocacy -
Thousands Displaced as Climate Change Fuels Wildfire Catastrophe in Los AngelesIt's been a week of unprecedented destruction in Los Angeles. So far the Palisades, Eaton and other fires have burned 35,000 read more... Environment -
Puberty, Privacy, and PolicyOn December 11, the Montana Supreme Court temporarily blocked SB99 , a law that sought to ban gender-affirming care for read more... Families -
Women Are Shaping This Election — Why Is the Media Missing It?As we reflect on the media coverage of this election season, it’s clear that mainstream outlets have zeroed in on the usual read more... Elections
Climate & Consumption
Health & Hunger
Politics & Policy
Safety & Security
My first thought is, doesn't anyone realize how much green house emissions this will generate?? Not everyone can afford to buy a new car due to this pushed requirement to drive only electric vehicles. Eventually I'll be able to claim elder abuse, regarding my personal Liberty to choose my own vehicle. Did you know, Electric cars have a terrible recall rate due to the number of accidents caused from their "self-driving" features. It has been proven. Just look it up on Tesla's website.
Since when do representatives "protect" cars?
That's not your job.
Here you go: https://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-member-job-description.pdf
I'm not surprised that the Republicans are once again trying to interfer with state initiatives. Much as they yell and scream about states rights, they only care about staying in power and lining their pockets with Big Oil money. I want to breath fresh air. I want to stop climate change. Having lived through this last brutal Texas summer I can say I'm even more fed up with Republicans than ever. By the way while I now consider my self an Independent since 2016, thank you Trump, I am a recovering Republican who voted for his first Democratic President since 1976 and I have no regrets.
Is this clown trying to put a plastic bag over our heads filled with car exhaust? This is the worst law I've ever seen presented! If he wishes to leave the planet, Space X has the means for a one way ticket for him to get to the heavens!
Rep. John Joyce are you flipping kidding me? You actually spent time writing this piece of garbage? You should be ashamed of yourself. All in favor of this should be ashamed.
We NEED action to fight climate change. California has taken the action our Congress should be taking & you are fighting it?
Your bill isn't about choice, it's about campaign contributions. You were sent to office to represent people, NOT corporate interests
BILL: Should We Protect Vehicles From Climate Regulators
Oh, Hell No!
We need to incentivize the manufacture and purchase of electric vehicles.
We need to disincentivize the manufacture and purchase of gasoline powered vehicles.
No.
Cars are huge contibutor of greenhouse gases that increse the severity and the risks from the Climate Crisis.
Why do republicans want to ruin the world their grandchildren must try to survive in?
No we should not protect the car industry. Our focus must be on savin the env. unless we want to have even more and worse climate disasters. The bill only impacts the purchase and use of new vehicles, not those that users already have. It's a commonsense way to phase in EVs. However, with that said a whole lot more charging stations need to be available than there currently are if we really go EV.
Legislation with 84 House Republican co-sponsors that has already passed the House 222-190 with 22 not voting that seems unnecessary as conversion to EV should be left to the marketplace and support of state and local government to facilitate growth of public charging stations and additional tax credits over and above federal tax credits.
The county I live in is now 15% EV car registrations (increased from 11,000 vehicles in January 2021 to 25,000+ August 2023 which is a 150% in 32 months) exceeding the 10% national average,
The county also formed a co-op to educate residents and facilitate deals at 7 local dearlerships to take advantage of Federal tax credits at the time of sale, instead of waiting to receive a rebate on your taxes of $7,500 available from the Federal government and $3,000 from the State.
The couty has 600 publicly available EV charging plugs at 233 different locations (doesn't count private ones in homes) of which the county manages 64 in Couty parking lots.
As of October it will be 2yesrs for me without a car using Ubers (many have been EV usually Bolt or Prius) and mass transit successfully but it's good to know if I change my mind I can get $10K off the price of an EV at purchase and not need to wait till I file taxes to claim the credit, and there are charging stations everywhere I go and where I live. I even have an account for the charging station in my building for guests that visit (and I wanted to try out how it works which is not that different than my accounts with NJ Transits and DC Metro)
https://www.causes.com/comments/105889
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1435/cosponsors
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/118-2023/h391
Senators:
I write to you today as a passionate advocate for the well-being of our planet and all its inhabitants. We must prevent the passing of the Senate version of HR 1435—Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act.
This is not just about the people of one state or even our nation, but about the entire world!
The consequences of this bill, if it were to become law, would extend far beyond our borders, affecting the lives of people and the health of our planet on a global scale. The ramifications of such actions cannot be overstated. That is why I implore each of you to vote against this bill.
By defeating this bill, we can send a powerful message, both to our fellow citizens and to the international community, that we are committed to protecting and preserving the environment for future generations. We have a responsibility to be stewards of our planet, and we cannot and must not neglect that duty.
Best.
Well we have to start somewhere. GM and the oil industry have created this monster that is the major polluter in this world, the automobile. Every day in the early mornings and late afternoons, you see thousands of automobiles and pickups with only one passenger, the driver. Even though they passed the emissions inspection, they are still aiding to the air pollution. Public transportation is far and few between. Subdivisions create the need of a vehicle just to get to work, school, groceries, doctor, hair cut, sports, after school activities. I fully understand in rural areas the need of gasoline and diesel fuel vehicles. But they are a far cry from city traffic. EV's should be mandatory within high density areas. More public transportation into subdivisions, more connecting routes for better access to places of employment, colleges, shopping facilities. Allow groceries, drug stores, dry cleaners, restaurants into subdivisions, so people can walk or ride a bicycle instead of driving. In our once small town now has thousand upon thousands of subdivisions with no better highway system. Thousands more vehicles on the roads. All burning gasoline or diesel fuel. Big SUVs and pickups are everywhere. EVs are in extreme minority. I am retired, I don't drive unless we have to. No I don't have an RV, I can stay in a lot of nice motels/hotels for what they cost. But I am not against owning one, just wish you wouldn't drive that big SUV or pickup everyday for work. Yes, we have to start somewhere. We maybe on of few nations to actually set the example.