[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DRIVING IN REVERSE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S
ROLLBACK OF FUEL ECONOMY AND CLEAN
CAR STANDARDS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMMERCE
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 20, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-49
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-609 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Chairwoman
KATHY CASTOR, Florida CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas Ranking Member
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois FRED UPTON, Michigan
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
TONY CARDENAS, California, Vice BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
Chair LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DARREN SOTO, Florida EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
JERRY McNERNEY, California
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
------
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Witnesses
Heidi King, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Department of Transportation................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Answers to submitted questions............................... 255
William L. Wehrum, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency..................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Answers to submitted questions............................... 262
Mary Nichols, Chair, California Air Resources Board.............. 74
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Nicolas Loris, Deputy Director and Herbert & Joyce Morgan
Research Fellow, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The
Heritage Foundation............................................ 80
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Answers to submitted questions............................... 267
Ramzi Hermiz, President and Chief Executive Officer, Shiloh
Industries, Inc................................................ 90
Prepared statement........................................... 92
David Schwietert, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer,
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers........................... 102
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Answers to submitted questions............................... 272
Josh Nassar, Legislative Director, United Auto Workers........... 118
Prepared statement........................................... 120
Answers to submitted questions............................... 278
Jeffery Landry, Attorney General, State of Louisiana............. 127
Prepared statement........................................... 129
Answers to submitted questions............................... 283
Soshana M. Lew, Executive Director, Colorado Department of
Transportation................................................. 134
Prepared statement........................................... 136
Answers to submitted questions............................... 285
David J. Friedman, Vice President, Advocacy, Consumer Reports.... 141
Prepared statement........................................... 143
Answers to submitted questions \1\........................... 291
Submitted Material
Report by S. William Becker and Mary D. Becker, ``The Devastating
Impacts of the Trump Proposal to Roll Back Greenhouse Gas
Vehicle Emissions Standards: `The Untold Story,''' submitted by
Mr. Tonko \2\
Report of the BlueGreen Alliance, Natural Resources Defense
Council, ``Supplying Ingenuity II: U.S.Suppliers of Key Clean,
Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Technologies,'' May 2017, submitted by
Mr. Tonko \2\
Research paper, ``Taking the High Road: Strategies for a Fair EV
Future,'' UAW, August 2018, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Letter of June 6, 2019, from Aston Martin Lagonda, et al., to
Hon. Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California, submitted by
Mr. Tonko...................................................... 188
Letter of June 6, 2019, from Aston Martin Lagonda, et al., to
President Donald J. Trump, submitted by Mr. Tonko.............. 190
Letter of June 19, 2019, from Carol Lee Rawn, Senior Director,
Transportation, Ceres, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted
by Mr. Tonko................................................... 192
Memo, ``Proposal: Lobbying expenditures disclosure,'' General
Motors Corporation, submitted by Mr. Tonko..................... 196
Memo, ``Proposal #6: Lobbying Expenditures Disclosure,'' Ford
Motor Company, submitted by Mr. Tonko.......................... 201
Letter of May 17, 2019, from BNP Paribas Asset Management, et
al., to Mary T. Barra, Chief Executive Officer, General Motors
Company, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................ 206
Letter of October 26, 2018, from Robeco, et al., to Andrew
Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, and
Heidi King, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, submitted by Mr. Tonko.................. 209
Letter of October 26, 2018, from Anne Kelly, Senior Director,
Policy and BICEP Network, Ceres, to Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, and Heidi King,
Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, submitted by Mr. Tonko......................... 214
Letter of June 20, 2019, from Letitia James, Attorney General of
New York, et al., to Ms. Schakowsky, et al., submitted by Mr.
Tonko.......................................................... 217
Letter of June 20, 2019, from John Bozzella, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Association of Global Automakers, to Mr.
Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Tonko................. 221
Letter of June 20, 2019, from Robbie Diamond, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Securing America's Future Energy, to Mr.
Pallone, el al., submitted by Mr. Tonko........................ 225
Statement of the American Chemistry Council, June 20, 2019,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 230
Public Financial Disclosure Report for William L. Wehrum, Office
of Government Ethics, submitted by Mr. Tonko................... 240
Letter of June 20, 2019, from Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise
Institute, et al., to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr.
Tonko \2\
Letter of June 13, 2019, from J. Douglas Sparkman, Chief
Operating Officer, BP Fuels North America, to Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by
Mr. Tonko...................................................... 250
----------
\1\ Three supplemental documents submitted with Mr. Friedman's
responses have been retained in committee files and also are available
at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20190620/109670/HHRG-116-
IF17-Wstate-FriedmanD-20190620-SD004.pdf.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109670.
Letter of June 20, 2019, from Andrew Wheeler, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, to Mrs. Rodgers and Mr.
Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................ 251
District fact sheets, Auto Alliance, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Statement of Jack Gillis, Executive Director, Consumer Federation
of America, June 20, 2019, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Proposed rule, Federal Register, Volume 83, Number 165, page
43,067, submitted by Ms. Blunt Rochester....................... 252
Letter of October 23, 2018, from Ken Paxton, Attorney General of
Texas, et al., to Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of
Transportation, and Andrew Wheeler, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. Duncan....... 253
----------
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109670.
DRIVING IN REVERSE: THE ADMINISTRATION'S ROLLBACK OF FUEL ECONOMY AND
CLEAN CAR STANDARDS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce
joint with the
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Consumer
Protection and Commerce) and Hon. Paul Tonko (chairman of the
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Tonko,
DeGette, Matsui, Castor, McNerney, Lujan, Clarke, Cardenas,
Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Veasey, Kelly, Barragan, McEachin, Blunt
Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus
(Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change ranking
member), Rodgers (Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and
Commerce ranking member), Upton, Burgess, Latta, Guthrie,
McKinley, Johnson, Long, Bucshon, Flores, Mullin, Hudson,
Carter, Duncan, Gianforte, and Walden (ex officio).
Members present: Representatives Loebsack and Kuster.
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Adam
Fischer, Policy Analyst; Lisa Goldman, Senior Counsel; Waverly
Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Daniel Greene, Professional Staff
Member; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Caitlin
Haberman, Professional Staff Member; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief
Counsel, Communications and Consumer Protection; Zach Kahan,
Outreach and Member Service Coordinator; Rick Kessler, Senior
Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Brendan
Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Dustin J. Maghamfar, Air and
Climate Counsel; Jon Monger, Counsel; Elysa Montfort, Press
Secretary; Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital
Director; Alivia Roberts, Press Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief
Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Policy Analyst; Nikki Roy, Policy
Coordinator; Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications,
Outreach, and Member Services; Benjamin Tabor, Staff Assistant;
Sydney Terry, Policy Coordinator; Jen Barblan, Minority Chief
Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Mike Bloomquist,
Minority Staff Director; S. K. Bowen, Press Assistant; Jerry
Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment; Jordan
Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Justin Discigil, Minority Press
Secretary; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Minority Staff Assistant;
Melissa Froelich, Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection
and Commerce; Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office
Administrator; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Bijan
Koohmaraie, Minority Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce;
Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment;
Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon
Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; Zach Roday, Minority
Director of Communications; and Peter Spencer, Minority Senior
Professional Staff Member, Energy and Environment.
Ms. Schakowsky. The joint hearing of the Subcommittee on
Consumer Protection and Commerce and the Subcommittee on
Environment and Climate Change will now come to order.
It is a pleasure to have this joint hearing with Chairman
Tonko and ranking Republican Mr. Shimkus together, and it is a
pleasure, of course, always to be with my ranking member, Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers.
And I will begin with an opening statement, and so I
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
So I want to begin by thanking our witnesses for being here
with us today. We appreciate it very much.
Today's hearing is about the Trump administration's
proposed rollback of fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards
for cars and light-duty trucks.
In 2007, Congress directed the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, NHTSA, to strengthen Corporate Average
Fuel Economy, that is, CAFE standards for cars and light
trucks, with the goal, at that time, of reducing U.S.
dependency on imported oil by improving fuel efficiency. These
standards have been a resounding success. Consumers have saved
nearly $85 billion in fuel costs, and the clean-car industry
supports nearly 288,000 jobs.
But just 2 months after the Obama administration determined
to continue improving CAFE standards through model year 2025,
the Trump administration announced a change in course. In
August 2018, EPA and NHTSA released a notice of proposed
rulemaking known as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficiency, SAFE,
Vehicle Rule, freezing that standard at model year 2020 levels.
Few proposals have been more blatantly misnamed than this.
The SAFE Vehicle Rule is not safer. While the EPA and NHTSA
claimed that the rule would reduce vehicle fatalities,
independent analyses and even career EPA staff dispute the
findings, and have said that the rule would actually result in
more deaths.
The rule is not affordable, that is the A. Hardworking
families are projected to spend an additional $3,300 on gas
over the life of their vehicles. And according to the EPA and
NHTSA's own conclusions, the rule would eliminate 60,000 jobs
in the United States automobile industry. Rolling back Clean
Car Standards will damage the economy and put people out of
work, which, by the way, will make it harder for them to buy
cars.
The rule is not more fuel efficient. That is the F in SAFE.
Again, EPA and NHTSA's own analysis estimates that the rule
will dramatically increase air pollution and increase fuel
consumption by nearly 80 billion gallons. The fact that the
Trump administration now seeks to dismiss policies that would
reduce these emissions and make our environment cleaner is
inexcusable.
Climate change is the existential crisis of our time, and
in 2018, 1 year of the Trump administration's policies,
CO2 emissions have jumped 2.6 percent, going in the
wrong direction in the United States. The administration should
abandon this proposal and end their assault on consumers, the
environment, and safety.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky
Good morning, thank you for being here with us.
Today's hearing is about the Trump administration's
proposed rollback of fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards
for cars and light-duty trucks.
In 2007, Congress directed the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) to strengthen Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light-duty trucks,
with the goal of reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil by
improving fuel efficiency.
These standards have been a resounding success. Consumers
have saved nearly $85 billion in fuel costs and the clean car
industry supports nearly 288,000 jobs.
But just 2 months after the Obama administration determined
to continue improving CAFE standards through model year 2025,
the Trump administration announced a change in course.
In August 2018, EPA and NHTSA released a notice of proposed
rulemaking, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE)
Vehicles Rule, freezing these standards at model year 2021
levels.
Few proposals have been more blatantly misnamed than this.
The SAFE Vehicles Rule is not ``Safer.'' While the EPA and
NHTSA claim that the rule would reduce vehicle fatalities,
independent analyses and even career EPA staff dispute the
findings and have said that the rule would result in more
deaths.
The rule is not ``Affordable.'' Hardworking families are
projected to spend an additional $3,300 on gas over the life of
their vehicle.
And according to the EPA and NHTSA's own conclusions, the
rule would eliminate 60,000 jobs in the U.S. automotive
industry. Rolling back Clean Car Standards will damage the
economy and puts people out of work, which by the way will make
it harder for them to buy cars.
The rule is not more ``Fuel-Efficient.'' Again, EPA and
NHTSA's own analysis estimates that the rule will dramatically
increase air pollutants, and increase fuel consumption by
nearly 80 billion gallons.
The fact that the Trump administration now seeks to
dismantle policies that would reduce these emissions and make
our environment cleaner is inexcusable.
Climate change is the existential crisis of our time and in
2018--1 year of Trump administration policies--CO2
emissions jumped 2.6% in the U.S.
The administration should abandon this proposal and end
their assault on consumers, the environment, and safety.
Ms. Schakowsky. So I thank you, and now I will yield the
rest of my time to Congresswoman Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank you all for calling this important hearing
on the Trump administration's reckless efforts to roll back
auto fuel and clean air standards. Let's be clear. The Trump
administration's actions hurt consumers, degrade our air
quality, and contribute to climate change.
This is also about American leadership. For decades,
California has led the way in developing the gold standard for
emissions. In my home State, we have long recognized the need
for action. This has been particularly true under the
exceptional leadership of Mary Nichols, chair of the California
Air Resources Board. As a key regulator and negotiator on
climate change and air quality, Mary is an obvious choice for
this hearing.
We should hear all perspectives side by side, but that will
not be the case today. Mr. Wehrum and Ms. King have denied us
that opportunity by refusing to testify in the same panel. If
EPA and NHTSA are so confident this rule is safer and better
for our country, I think they would welcome the opportunity to
testify alongside Ms. Nichols. Instead, when confronted by
experts and science, the Trump administration recoils and
retreats, instead of defending their so-called SAFE vehicles
rule, a disaster for our country. That is why we need to pass
my bill, H.R. 978, the Clean and Efficient Cars Act, which
reverses the Trump administration's attacks on forward-looking
fuel efficiency and emissions standards, restoring Obama-era
rules that protect consumers, the environment, and our public
health.
I am pleased to enjoy broad support on the Energy and
Commerce Committee. With 24 Members supporting the measure, I
am hopeful we can move this bill forward. We owe it to the
people we serve to ask the tough questions and shine a light on
this disastrous rule.
It is my sincere hope that we get the answers about why the
administration is putting our economy, health, and future at
risk. And I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. And I yield back my time.
And the Chair now recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, for 5
minutes for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, everyone. Good morning Madam
Chair. I appreciate everyone being here today to discuss our
Nation's fuel economy standards.
In 1975, Congress established the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy program, or the CAFE program, to be administered by
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA. The goal
of this program was to improve fuel economy, our vehicle fuel
economy, reduce oil consumption, and secure the Nation's energy
independence. At the time, Congress made clear that fuel
economy should be regulated solely at the Federal level to
achieve uniformity and to avoid a patchwork of different State
laws regulating the same issue differently. Unfortunately,
several forces have created an opposite effect--multiple
conflicting programs undercutting the goals of the original
program.
When Congress established the CAFE program, the
Environmental Protection Agency began regulating greenhouse gas
emissions from new motor vehicles. On top of NHTSA and EPA
programs, California has set a separate tailpipe emissions
limits and a zero-emission vehicle mandate, both of which
impact fuel economy, the auto industry, and consumers. Nine
other States have followed California to include a zero-
emissions vehicle mandate. These mandates require automakers to
produce a certain number of these vehicles, regardless of
consumer demand, new technology, or the free market.
Ten years ago, to address the regulatory overload, the
Obama administration announced a national fuel efficiency
policy known as the One National Program. The One National
Program was intended to establish a consistent national
standard across NHTSA, EPA, and California. There were many
assumptions made by the Federal Government, the States, and the
industry 10 years ago that were set to be revisited during the
midterm review process.
The assumptions they made haven't held up the test of time;
assumptions like gas prices rising to $3, $4, and $5 per
gallon, people buying more cars than trucks, and that electric
vehicles would become more popular. Well, here is the reality
today: Gas prices have stabilized, people want larger vehicles,
and dealers are still having trouble selling hybrid vehicles.
In my district, 83 percent of the vehicles sold in 2018 were
crossovers, SUVs, trucks, and vans. My constituents are
choosing internal combustion engines; 99 percent of the
registered vehicles in eastern Washington are gas- or diesel-
powered. This is when they have more hybrid and electric
options than ever before.
On top of that, just days before President Trump's
inauguration, the Obama EPA issued its final determination--
days before the inauguration, and that was for 2022 to 2025--
without consulting NHTSA, despite that being a requirement
under the One National Program.
So here we are, 10 years later. There is no uniformity. And
rather than invest in R&D and consumer education, the car
industry is paying massive fines or trying to figure out how to
avoid them. There must be a new and better way forward.
I am encouraged to see NHTSA and EPA working together for a
true national standard that looks at the facts and the
decisions people make when they buy a new car. The uncertainty
in this space is hurting the market, threatening jobs and
affordable prices for workers and families. The agencies expect
the SAFE vehicles rule to save up to a thousand lives annually,
create $2,300 in savings for people when they buy a new car,
and create $500 billion in cost savings for the U.S. economy.
In eastern Washington, the average vehicle on the road is
15 years old, almost 4 years above the national average. By
reducing the average cost of new vehicles, people who currently
stay in their older, less-safe vehicles will be able to afford
newer vehicles with technological advancements that save lives.
I would like one myself. For their sake, I look forward to the
productive conversation this morning about the current
situation and what the path looks like forward so that we will
have safer roads, newer vehicles, a cleaner environment, and
more jobs.
So thank you also to our second panel, and particularly for
the witnesses who traveled to join us today for this important
discussion.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Good morning and welcome to today's joint subcommittee
hearing to discuss fuel economy standards.
In 1975, Congress established the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy program, or the CAFE program, to be administered by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The goal of
this program was to improve vehicle fuel economy, reduce oil
consumption, and secure the Nation's energy independence.
At the time, Congress made clear that fuel economy should
be regulated solely at the Federal level to achieve uniformity
and to avoid a patchwork of different State laws regulating the
same issue differently.
Unfortunately, several forces have created the opposite
effect: multiple conflicting programs undercutting the goals of
the original program. When Congress established the CAFE
program, the Environmental Protection Agency began regulating
greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles.
On top of the NHTSA and EPA programs, California has set
separate tailpipe emissions limits and a zero-emission vehicle
mandate . . . both of which impact fuel economy, the auto
industry, and consumers.
Nine other States have followed California to include a
zero-emissions vehicle mandate.
These mandates require automakers to produce a certain
number of these vehicles regardless of consumer demand, new
technology, or the free market.
Ten years ago, to address the regulatory overload, the
Obama administration announced a national fuel efficiency
policy known as the One National Program.
The One National Program was intended to establish a
consistent national standard across NHTSA, EPA, and California.
There were many assumptions made by the Federal Government,
the States, and industry 10 years ago that were set to be
revisited during the Midterm Review process.
The assumptions they made haven't held up to the test of
time . . . assumptions like gas prices rising to 3 . . . 4 . .
. 5 dollars per gallon . . . people buying more cars than
trucks . . . and electric vehicles becoming more popular. Well,
here's the reality today. Gas prices stabilized. People want
larger vehicles. And dealers are still having trouble selling
hybrid vehicles.
In my district, 83% of vehicles sold in 2018 were
crossovers, SUVs, trucks, and vans.
My constituents are choosing internal combustion engines--
99 percent of registered vehicles in Eastern Washington are gas
or diesel powered. This is when they have more hybrid and
electric options than ever before!
On top of that, just days before President Trump's
inauguration, the Obama EPA issued its final determination for
2022 to 2025--without consulting NHTSA despite that being a
requirement under the One National Program.
So here we are, 10 years later. There's no uniformity . . .
and rather than invest in R&D and consumer education, the car
industry is paying massive fines or paying to avoid them. There
must be a new and better path forward.
I am encouraged to see NHTSA and EPA working together for a
true national standard that looks at the facts and the
decisions people make when they buy a new car.
The uncertainty in this space is hurting the market,
threatening jobs and affordable prices for workers and
families.
The agencies expect the SAFE Vehicles rule to save up to
1,000 lives annually, create $2,340 in average savings for
people when they buy a new car . . . and create $500 billion in
cost savings for the U.S. economy.
In Eastern Washington, the average vehicle on the road is
over 15 years old, almost 4 years above the national average.
By reducing the average cost of new vehicles, people who
currently stay in their older, less safe vehicles will be able
to afford newer vehicles with technological advancements that
save lives.
For their sake, I look forward to a productive conversation
this morning about the current situation, and what the path
forward looks like for safer roadways, newer vehicles, a
cleaner environment, and more jobs.
Thank you also to our second panel, particularly the
witnesses who traveled to join us today for this important
discussion.
Thank you and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back, and the Chair
now recognizes Mr. Tonko, who is the chair of the Subcommittee
on Environment and Climate Change, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the
opportunity to cohost this hearing, which is very important.
Today we examine the Trump administration's proposal to
freeze fuel economy standards at model year 2020 levels for
years 2021 through 2026. This action would have lasting
negative consequences for the American auto industry that needs
certainty to compete and for consumers, who will pay more at
the pump. This proposal will undermine American jobs throughout
the auto supply chain. As we stand still, other nations will
continue to race forward to develop the next generation of
innovative vehicle technologies, ensuring that future
investments will be made overseas, where markets for such
products continue to grow.
NHTSA's own analysis suggests thousands of United States
jobs may be lost as a result of this rule. In fact, a large
group of automakers has now registered opposition to this
totally misguided proposal.
While it is clear that this course of action will
unnecessarily harm consumers and industry, it will also
compromise our public health and the environment. EPA's
tailpipe standards are the most important Federal climate
policy currently on the books. This proposal takes us even
farther backwards on climate and will increase oil consumption
and U.S. CO2 emissions significantly. Transportation
is the largest contributor of domestic greenhouse gas
emissions, and light-duty vehicles account for nearly 60
percent of that sector's emissions.
This proposed rollback ignores climate science and the
evidence of the devastation already flooding and burning our
communities. It is reckless climate denial of a kind we can no
longer afford.
These standards are not only important for climate action,
they also reduce conventional air pollution. New York State
adopted California's ZEV standards in the early 1990s, long
before climate was the urgent priority we understand it to be
today. This was done to improve poor air quality, which impacts
disadvantaged communities first and foremost. States are
investing hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives and
infrastructure to achieve air pollution reduction targets,
including important climate goals, and California standards are
a critical part of that effort.
Unfortunately, instead of upholding its mission of
environmental protection, EPA seems eager to tie the hands of
States that are working to deal with this pollution impact.
Over and over we have heard this administration pay lip service
to cooperative federalism. Apparently, that only applies to
States pursuing deregulation. I was dismayed that the
administration threatened to pull its participation in this
hearing if seated on the same panel with their State partner.
Like the rule itself, this behavior is bizarre.
This administration has a responsibility to recognize
California as a partner and coregulator in this process. I am
pleased that we have Mary Nichols on the second panel, and we
are grateful to have her here, and very interested in hearing
her perspective on this issue.
This EPA may not want California to be able to set its own
standards, but if they do, not like the current process, they
need to submit a proposal to Congress to amend the Clean Air
Act because, on this matter, the law is clear: California has
the right to seek waivers; EPA is required to err on the side
of granting them; and 177 States are entitled to adopt
California's standards.
I would also remind everyone that we did, in fact, have a
single national standard before the administration manufactured
this crisis. Today we will have many questions on the
development of this rule and its likely outcome, should it move
forward.
But the overreaching question to our administration
witnesses needs to be this: What exactly are you hoping to
accomplish? At best, it isn't clear, and a reasonable observer
would be forgiven for seeing an administration so blinded by
contempt for its predecessors and so willing to hurt consumers
to support oil companies at any cost that it would defy science
and common sense to move forward with the proposal with near
universal condemnation from stakeholders.
The administration's proposal is certainly destined for
legal challenges, but my greater fear is that American
consumers, businesses, and the environment will ultimately
suffer the greatest consequences of the uncertainty caused by
this reckless rule.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
Thank you, Madam Chair. Today we examine the Trump
administration's proposal to freeze fuel economy standards at
Model Year 2020 levels for years 2021 through 2026. This action
would have lasting negative consequences for the American auto
industry that needs certainty to compete and for consumers who
will pay more at the pump.
This proposal will undermine American jobs throughout the
auto supply chain. As we stand still, other nations will
continue to race forward to develop the next generation of
innovative vehicle technologies, ensuring that future
investments will be made overseas where markets for such
products continue to grow.
NHTSA's own analysis suggests thousands of U.S. jobs may be
lost as a result of this rule. In fact, a large group of
automakers has now registered opposition to this misguided
proposal.
While it is clear that this course of action will
unnecessarily harm consumers and industry, it will also
compromise our public health and the environment. EPA's
tailpipe standards are the most important Federal climate
policy currently on the books. This proposal takes us even
farther backwards on climate and will increase oil consumption
and U.S. CO2 emissions significantly.
Transportation is the largest contributor of domestic
greenhouse gas emissions, and light-duty vehicles account for
nearly 60% of that sector's emissions.
This proposed rollback ignores climate science and the
evidence of the devastation already flooding and burning our
communities. It is reckless climate denial of a kind we can no
longer afford.
These standards are not only important for climate action.
They also reduce conventional air pollution. New York State
adopted California's ZEV standard in the early 1990s, long
before climate was the urgent priority it is today. This was
done to improve poor air quality, which impacts disadvantaged
communities first and foremost.
States are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in
incentives and infrastructure to achieve air pollution
reduction targets, including important climate goals, and
California's standards are a critical part of that effort.
Unfortunately, instead of upholding its mission of
environmental protection, EPA seems eager to tie the hands of
States that are working to deal with this pollution impact.
Over and over we have heard this administration pay lip
service to cooperative federalism; apparently that only applies
to States pursuing deregulation.
I was dismayed that the administration threatened to pull
its participation in this hearing if seated on the same panel
with their State partner. Like the rule itself, this behavior
is bizarre. The administration has a responsibility to
recognize California as a partner and coregulator in this
process.
This EPA may not want California to be able to set its own
standards. But if they do not like the current process, they
need to submit a proposal to Congress to amend the Clean Air
Act. Because on this matter, the law is clear. California has
the right to seek waivers, EPA is required to err on the side
of granting them, and 177 States are entitled to adopt
California's standards.
I would also remind everyone that we did, in fact, have a
single national standard before the administration manufactured
this crisis.
Today we will have many questions on the development of
this rule, and its likely outcomes should it move forward. But
the overarching question to our administration witnesses needs
to be this: ``What exactly are you hoping to accomplish?''
At best it isn't clear. And a reasonable observer would be
forgiven for seeing an administration so blinded by contempt
for its predecessors and so willing to hurt consumers to
support oil companies at any cost that it would defy science
and common sense to move forward with a proposal with near
universal condemnation from stakeholders.
The administration's proposal is certainly destined for
legal challenges, but my greater fear is that American
consumers, businesses, and the environment will ultimately
suffer the greatest consequences of the uncertainty caused by
this reckless rule.
With that, I yield my remaining time to Mrs. Dingell.
Mr. Tonko. With that, Madam Chair, I yield my remaining
time to Representative Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
This hearing today is one of the most important hearings of
my congressional career. The health and future of the auto
industry matters to everybody in this country. Yet the industry
is more fragile than ever right now, and policymakers cannot
take its health for granted.
It is also critical for the future of this planet that we
have continued reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and
improvement in fuel economy, which is why I believe we need all
parties to come to the table and cut a deal on standards that
increase year over year and balance the twin goals of
environmental protection and affordability.
And by the way, we shouldn't just be setting standards
through 2025. We should be going to 2030 to provide greater
certainty and demonstrate global leadership in this critical
environmental issue.
I am out of time, but I want to say this: We need
California at the table. We need One National Program, one set
of standards, and I do not believe this administration is
dealing in good faith in doing that.
I want to put into the record, Madam Chair, a copy of the
letters that the industry is saying that we need to have one
set of standards.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
And I know that when there is a will, there is a way, and I
question the administration's sincerity in bringing everyone to
the table and hope we can get there.
Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back all of his time.
And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Shimkus, ranking
Republican on the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Let's all take
some deep breaths.
To my friends from California and New York, and I could be
wrong, I thought it was the tradition and the protocol of this
committee, going back to Chairman Dingell in his previous time,
that executive branch witnesses would be on their own panel. So
this fury over the CARB witness not being on this panel, I
don't get it, unless we are going to throw out 40 years of how
we operate on this committee.
So I just think we all need to take a deep breath.
I appreciate that we have called this hearing on this
important subject, and it goes to the very heart of what we do
in this committee, which is the Interstate Commerce Clause. We
pride ourselves in going back to the Constitution and one of
the few committees that goes back to the Founders. And what
established the unity of this republic was the interstate
commerce clause because we didn't want States going to war with
States over taxation. That is why we are in this debate, and
that is why we are in this room, and that is why we have such
broad jurisdiction.
So this debate about an automobile industry, I think, is
pretty simple. We need to have one market. We want to have one
standard, and we need to have that set at the Federal level.
Now, if some States want to go off and do their own thing, I
can appreciate their emotion and their desire, but for the
unity of the republic, that is why we have Energy and Commerce
Committee and that is why we have the Interstate Commerce
Clause.
We should not have a fractured marketplace driven by
policies that cater to urban customers at the expense of
customers and what they need in rural areas. I think my
colleague from Washington State identified that most.
In the automobile industry, we want to sell vehicles that
people want to buy. And in rural America, we like big things.
We like big trucks. We like big engines. We like to haul
trailers, whether that is to go for recreational use or whether
that is to haul horses, and feed, and hay, and all those things
that have to happen in rural America.
Finally, we should not have one State or region using
official actions to exert market power in a way that
reverberates outside of their own State lines.
I think we should have CAFE economy standards that make
sense and have the Supreme Court's mandated Clean Air Act's
greenhouse gas efforts be reasonable. They should be informed
by science and not be proxies for one another when it is policy
convenient from a practical standpoint but not so much from a
legal one. We must be clear-eyed about the impacts on all
Americans of a policy, because that is what Article I of the
Constitution requires us to do.
I tried to do this in the last Congress. I went to the
automobile industry and I said, ``How do we marry the best
engine technology with the best fuel mix?'' And they came and
they said, ``We need high compression engines, which means
higher octane.'' And we went into numerous negotiations. Now,
that wasn't driven by a State agency or a Federal agency
saying, ``You have to do this.'' This was driven by those
people in the marketplace trying to provide a product that
consumers would buy. And actually we moved to a point where we
had a hearing on that bill before the end of last Congress.
Before I yield back my time, I want to join my colleagues
in welcoming our witnesses, particularly Heidi King, to the
committee. I look forward--Heidi served on the staff here and
did terrific work for the committee. Welcome back.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses here
today, and I hope that we will have constructive dialogues with
one another that avoid political rhetoric and focus on policies
that protect consumers, workers, and the environment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the recognition for this
opening statement.
I appreciate that you have called this hearing on this
important subject. For all the bluster generated today about
who's right and who's not, who cares and who doesn't, this
issue goes to the very heart of who we are as a committee and
where we obtain our constitutional pedigree: the interstate
commerce clause and the ability to have a regular marketplace
across 50 States.
We should not have a fractured marketplace driven by
policies that cater to urban customers at the expense of
customer need in rural areas. We also should not have policies
that force consumers to pay more for the vehicles they NEED to
offset the expense of high-priced vehicles others would LIKE--
and get tax credits to drive. Finally, we should not have one
State or a region using official actions to assert market power
in a way that reverberates well outside the borders of that
State.
I think we should have Corporate Average Fuel Economy
standards that make sense and have the Supreme Court's mandated
Clean Air Act's Greenhouse gas efforts be reasonable. They
should be informed by science and not be proxies for one
another when it is policy convenient from a practicality
standpoint, but not so much from a legal one. We must be clear
eyed about the impacts on all Americans of the policy we pass
because that's what Article I of the constitution requires we
do.
I, for one, have been a believer that the best way to lift
fuel economy across the board without State mandates is by
setting a fuel octane standard for gasoline. Last Congress, the
Environment Subcommittee learned that the internal combustion
engine will dominate the market for at least another three
decades. But a significant flaw in connecting our Nation's
liquid fuels policy with our Nation's fuel efficiency standards
is that standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy and
Greenhouse Gases and the Renewable Fuel Standard have never
been fully coordinated with one another, the Renewable Fuel
Standard doesn't necessarily give us the liquid fuel
formulations that maximize energy efficiency, and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas requirements don't
necessarily result in the kinds of engines that make the best
use of biofuel blends.
High octane fuels can improve fuel economy in engines
optimized for them. For automakers, it is a relatively low-cost
tool to increase miles per gallon. And because ethanol is the
cheapest source of octane currently available, it also may be a
pathway to use at least as much if not more ethanol than under
the Renewable Fuel Standard.
We need to get the smart folks in both the car and fuel
sectors together to have vehicle engines designed to squeeze
out efficiencies and affordable fuels that can help them do
that. Fortunately, there is research underway to better
coordinate these two programs in a way that could benefit
everyone from corn growers and biofuels producers, refiners,
automakers, and most important of all, American consumers.
Before I yield back my time, I want to join my colleagues
in welcoming our witnesses, particularly Heidi King, to the
committee. Heidi served on the staff here and did terrific work
for our committee. I look forward to hearing from all our
witnesses today, and I hope that we all will have constructive
dialogues with one another that avoid political rhetoric and
focus on policies that protect consumers, workers and the
environment.
Mr. Shimkus. And with that, Madam Chairman, I am going to
yield back 17 seconds of my time.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the chair of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is fitting that the
committee's first joint hearing of this Congress is being held
by the subcommittees on Consumer Protection and Commerce and
Environment and Climate Change, since we are here to examine
one of this administration's most egregious assaults on
American consumers, the U.S. economy, and the climate.
Now let me just say you know I love John Shimkus, but when
I heard him complain about the fact that we were trying to put
a State representative on a Federal panel, I would just remind
him of a hearing that was held on the Flint Water Crisis on
April 13, 2016, was a joint hearing with the Environment and
the Economy Subcommittee, which he chaired at the time, and the
Health Subcommittee, and the first panel consisted of two
witnesses from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, a witness from the U.S. Department of Health, and then
the Director of the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality and the Director of the Michigan Department of Health
and Human Services. So I don't know why----
Mr. Shimkus. Would the gentleman yield just to set the
record straight?
Mr. Pallone. No, because I am just having fun with you.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, the point was, we agreed to that.
Mr. Pallone. I understand. I am just having fun.
Mr. Shimkus. It was career witness. He wasn't a political
appointee. He was a career witness.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I can't help myself. Sorry.
All right, the Unified Fuel Economy and Tailpipe Emission
Standards adopted during the Obama administration were the
result of unprecedented collaboration between EPA, NHTSA, and
the State of California. The Clean Car Standards included
ambitious increases in fuel efficiency and ambitious reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions for cars and light trucks. This was
an across-the-board win benefitting consumers, manufacturing,
and the environment. They were our single most important action
taken to combat climate change and a key part of our commitment
to the Paris Agreement.
So naturally, the Trump administration is trying to gut
those standards as part of this reckless anticlimate agenda.
And this harmful proposal comes from the same administration
that insists the Government should not be in the business of
picking winners and losers but this is exactly what this
rollback does. It picks one winner, the oil industry, while
everyone else loses. And that is why yesterday my committee
launched an investigation into a secret social media campaign
run by the oil industry that misled the American people about
this rollback. And we intend to uncover whether the oil
industry coordinated with the administration on this deceptive
campaign.
After a while, the oil industry will win. American
consumers will lose in the form of less-efficient vehicles.
Ultimately, their proposal would increase drivers' spending at
the pump because cars would no longer be required to go further
on a gallon of gasoline. And as fuel economy standards go down,
costs to consumers go up.
American manufacturing will also lose, especially
automakers, parts suppliers, and workers, as the Trump
administration cedes America's competitive edge to other
countries that will develop and build the technologies of the
future. And that is why just 2 weeks ago, 17 automakers called
on the Trump administration to abandon its deeply flawed
proposed rule and return to the negotiating table. According to
the administration's own analysis, rolling back those standards
would directly eliminate at least 60,000 jobs, and that is just
a fraction of the half-million jobs that could be lost
throughout the automotive supply chain.
And public health and the environment will also lose. The
administration readily admits the rule will lead to increased
particle pollution and smog-forming sulfur dioxide. The
proposal would revoke California's longstanding ability to set
more protective vehicle standards, as well as other States' and
Territories' ability to adopt those standards.
My home State of New Jersey is one of 13 States, plus the
District of Columbia, that follow California's lead to improve
air quality, meet Clean Air standards, and improve the health
of our communities. And the Trump administration, if it gets
its way, will undermine those public health protections.
The driving public will also lose. Independent experts and
career professionals within the EPA have found that the Clean
Car rollback will actually make our roads less safe, causing
more deaths, and at the end of the day we will all lose because
this rule would increase carbon pollution by more than 7
billion metric tons.
If my Republican colleagues are as serious about addressing
climate change as they say--they now say they are--they should
oppose this disastrous proposal.
So I just wanted to--I know that--I think one of my
colleagues wanted some time. Well, I guess that is not true.
All right, I will finish.
So the existing Clean Car Standards were a victory for
consumers, manufacturers, and the environment. They created a
single national program for getting more fuel-efficient cars on
the road, providing the American auto industry with regulatory
certainty, and spurred innovation.
I just wanted to, unfortunately, say that throughout this
entire process, EPA and NHTSA have made it clear that
collaboration and transparency are not priorities, and as
Administrator Wheeler testified before this committee in April,
the only offer the Trump administration made to California was
this proposed as-is, which would gut the existing standards,
and the administration still walked away from the table. That
is more of a holdup than a negotiation. The administration
should come back to the negotiating table and work on
establishing a meaningful, unified, Clean Car program. And I
really hope that that is what comes out of this, that we see
the administration come back to the table and renegotiate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
It's fitting that the committee's first joint hearing of
this Congress is being held by the subcommittees on Consumer
Protection and Commerce and Environment and Climate Change,
since we're here to examine one of this administration's most
egregious assaults on American consumers, the U.S. economy, and
the climate.
The unified fuel economy and tailpipe emissions standards
adopted during the Obama administration were the result of
unprecedented collaboration between EPA, NHTSA, and the State
of California. The Clean Car Standards included ambitious
increases in fuel efficiency and ambitious reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions for cars and light trucks. This was an
across the board win--benefitting consumers, manufacturing, and
the environment. They were our single most important action
taken to combat climate change, and a key part of our
commitment to the Paris Agreement. So, naturally, the Trump
administration is trying to gut those standards as part of its
reckless anticlimate agenda.
This harmful proposal comes from the same administration
that insists the Government should not be in the business of
picking winners and losers. But that is exactly what this
rollback does. It picks one winner--the oil industry--while
everyone else loses. That's why yesterday, my committee
launched an investigation into a secret social media campaign
run by the oil industry that misled the American people about
this rollback. We intend to uncover whether the oil industry
coordinated with the administration on this deceptive campaign.
After all, while the oil industry will win, American
consumers will lose, in the form of less-efficient vehicles.
Ultimately the proposal would increase drivers' spending at the
pump because cars would no longer be required to go further on
a gallon of gasoline. As fuel economy standards go down, costs
to consumers go up.
American manufacturing will also lose--especially
automakers, parts suppliers, and workers--as the Trump
administration cedes America's competitive edge to other
countries that will develop and build the technologies of the
future. That's why just 2 weeks ago, 17 automakers called on
the Trump administration to abandon its deeply flawed proposed
rule and return to the negotiating table. According to the
administration's own analysis, rolling back these standards
would directly eliminate at least 60,000 jobs. And that's just
a fraction of the half-million jobs that could be lost
throughout the automotive supply chain.
Public health and the environment will also lose. The
administration readily admits the rule will lead to increased
particle pollution and smog-forming sulfur dioxide. The
proposal would revoke California's longstanding ability to set
more protective vehicle standards, as well as other States' and
territories' ability to adopt those standards. My home State of
New Jersey is one of 13 States, plus the District of Columbia,
that follow California's lead to improve air quality, meet
clean air standards, and improve the health of our communities.
The Trump administration, if it gets its way, would undermine
those public health protections.
The driving public will also lose. Independent experts and
career professionals within the EPA have found that the Clean
Car rollback will actually make our roads less safe, causing
more deaths.
And at the end of the day, we all lose, because this rule
would increase carbon pollution by more than 7 billion metric
tons. If my Republican colleagues are as serious about
addressing climate change as they now say, they should oppose
this disastrous proposal.
The existing Clean Car Standards were a victory for
consumers, manufacturers, and the environment. They created a
single, national program for getting more fuel-efficient cars
on the road, provided the American auto industry with
regulatory certainty, and spurred innovation.
The Trump administration rollback would abandon that
historic agreement in favor of unmitigated chaos for the
American automotive sector. It achieves nothing but
destabilization of the industry and stifling of innovation. And
it poses an existential threat to our climate and to the health
and well-being of all Americans. All to benefit the bottom line
of the oil industry.
Before I yield, I'd like to take a moment to welcome Mary
Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Her leadership has been instrumental in the fight against
climate change and reducing air pollution across the country.
Thank you for traveling from California to testify today. We
look forward to hearing your perspective.
I believe Ms. Nichols should be at the table alongside Ms.
King and Mr. Wehrum, to give us the full picture of the
proposed rule and have a robust discussion in front of this
committee. But the Trump administration refused to appear today
if EPA, NHTSA, and CARB testified on the same panel. Think
about that. This administration literally refused to sit at the
same table as California.
Unfortunately, throughout this entire process, EPA and
NHTSA have made it clear that collaboration and transparency
are not priorities. As Administrator Wheeler testified before
this committee in April, the only offer the Trump
administration made to California was its proposed rule as-is,
which would gut the existing standards. And the administration
still walked away from the table. That is more of a hold-up
than a negotiation. The administration should come back to the
negotiating table and work on establishing a meaningful unified
Clean Car program.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and now I am
happy to recognize Mr. Walden, the ranking member of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Good morning, Madam Chairman, and welcome to
our witnesses and to folks in the audience as well.
Having chaired the committee the prior 2 years and in
talking with Chairman Upton, who was there the prior 6 years,
it was the policy of the committee when administration--of both
parties--that the appointees, such as we have today, were on
their own panel, and I don't know why that is a big issue
today. It has been the protocol and process of the committee in
the past and probably will be going forward.
So we are just glad you are here, and hopefully we can get
all that nonsense behind us and get to the real topic, because
we need to explore the regulation of fuel economy with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the EPA, and
stakeholders.
This hearing touches on a prominent point of frustration
for a lot of American consumers, and that is ineffective
duplicative Government programs that increase costs and
decrease their choices. Layered on top of consumer concerns is
an unnecessarily complicated regulatory scheme disguised, until
recently, as One National Program. What we are talking about
are the differing fuel economy programs administered by NHTSA,
the EPA, and California. That seems to be three.
As I said last week, it is a mistake to assume that a clean
environment or safety and efficiency are incompatible with
economic growth and job creation. We can have both. We have
proven that time and again. However, to succeed, we need
commonsense regulations that protect the public without
suffocating innovation or failing to consider the practical
impact on American consumers and taxpayers. Consumer interests
are best served by ensuring our automakers have the freedom to
design, manufacture, and deliver products with the features
consumers want and can afford, and which are safe and reliable.
So I expect today we will hear about the various goals of
the different programs, including the unique circumstances of
certain States, but I would encourage all of us to refocus on
the underlying statutory authority for the National Fuel
Economy Program and the facts about the marketplace today.
One fact that I have said time and again is that climate
change is real but we need to be focused on innovative and
achievable solutions that protect the public, support the
economy and jobs, and don't take choices away from American
consumers.
So I look forward to hearing from Attorney General Landry
and others on the panel about impact of existing conflicting
programs on States outside of California and how costs have
been driven up for consumers in those States. In fact, I was
telling my colleagues yesterday, over the weekend I attended my
niece's graduation from Cal Poly and paid $3.95 for a gallon of
gasoline. So for those on the other side worried about the cost
of gas, I was in California paying that, and that seemed to be
about the highest I have ever paid.
While we approach some of these issues from various
perspectives, and you are going to hear that today, I believe
it is important that regulations for achievable and affordable
solutions that are commonsense, constitutionally permissible,
and work for everyday Americans.
Now, in my district, more than 66 percent of registered
vehicles are crossover SUVs, pickups, and vans. Less than
three-tenths of a percent of vehicles in my district are
electric or plug-in hybrid, and less than 2 percent are
hybrids, including one that I own. That means more than 98
percent of the vehicles registered in my district are gas- or
diesel-powered. We need to be sure to keep in mind the needs of
our consumers for those types of vehicles in a rural area.
It is also important to understand how we got here. So in
the 1970s, Congress delegated authority to NHTSA for regulating
fuel economy with clear statutory requirements in law. The
Obama-era EPA decided to get involved and develop their own
standards over at the EPA, while also granting California a
waiver under the Clean Air Act to allow a third regulator in
this space. In 2009, the Obama administration announced this
regulatory bottleneck as the One National Program, but
unfortunately the One National Program has not resulted in a
single national standard, and today we are left with a system
that does not work for the regulated industry and is based on
assumptions we know are faulty.
So, believe it or not, under this scheme, it is possible
for automakers to be in full compliance with one Federal
regulatory standard but be subject to massive penalties under
another. This is an example of bureaucracy at its worst, and we
need to fix it. Government should be working for the people,
not creating regulations that increase costs and decrease
choices for consumers and create a compliance catch-22.
Per the commitments made by the Obama administration, NHTSA
and EPA were supposed to jointly issue respective
determinations on standards for model years 2022 through 2025
in the spring of 2018. However, the Obama EPA abandoned its
commitment, rushed through its final determination without
coordinating with NHTSA or taking input from stakeholders in a
meaningful way just 7 days--7 days before the Trump
administration was sworn into office.
To the Trump administration's credit, they are refocusing
on the pre-2016 election commitments made under the prior
administration, setting one national standard. And last August,
NHTSA and EPA jointly issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
for the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficiency Vehicle Rule, or SAFE
Rule, which seeks to unify and amend the Federal standards for
model years 2021 through 2026.
So today we are going to learn more about it.
Madam Chair, thanks for having this hearing, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Today we will explore the regulation of fuel economy with
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and a number of stakeholders.
This hearing touches on a prominent point of frustration
for American consumers: ineffective, duplicative Government
programs that increase costs and decrease their choices.
Layered on top of consumers concerns is an unnecessarily
complicated regulatory scheme, disguised until recently as One
National Program. We are talking about the differing fuel
economy programs administered by NHTSA, the EPA, and
California.
As I said last week: It is a mistake to assume that a clean
environment, or safety and efficiency, are incompatible with
economic growth and job creation. However, to succeed we need
common sense regulations that protect the public without
suffocating innovation or failing to consider the practical
impact on American consumers and taxpayers.
Consumer interests are best served by ensuring our
automakers have the freedom to design, manufacture, and deliver
products with the features consumers want and can afford, and
which are safe and reliable.
I expect today we will hear about the various goals of the
different programs, including the unique circumstances of
certain States, but I would encourage all of us to refocus on
the underlying statutory authority for the national fuel
economy program and the facts about the marketplace today. One
fact that I have said time and again is that climate change is
real. But we need to be focused on innovative and achievable
solutions that protect the public, support the economy and
jobs, and don't take choices away from American consumers.
I look forward to hearing from Attorney General Landry and
others on the panel about the impact of the existing
conflicting programs on States outside of California, and how
costs have been driven up for consumers in those States. While
we approach some of these issues from various perspectives, I
believe it is important to have regulations for achievable and
affordable solutions that are commonsense, constitutionally
permissible, and that work for everyday Americans.
In my district, more than 66 percent of registered vehicles
are crossovers, SUVs, pickups, and vans. Less than 0.3 percent
of vehicles in my district are electric or plug-in hybrid. Less
than 2 percent are hybrids. That means more than 98 percent of
vehicles registered in my district are gas or diesel powered.
We need to be sure we are keeping the consumer in mind.
It is also important to understand how we got here. In the
1970s, Congress delegated authority to NHTSA for regulating
fuel economy with clear statutory requirements. But, the Obama-
era EPA decided to get involved and developed their own
standards, while also granting California a waiver under the
Clean Air Act to allow a third regulator in this space.
In 2009, the Obama administration announced this regulatory
bottleneck as the ``One National Program.'' Unfortunately, the
One National Program has not resulted in a single national
standard, and today we are left with a system that does not
work for the regulated industry and is based on assumptions
that we now know are faulty.
Believe it or not, under the current scheme it is possible
for automakers to be in full compliance with one Federal
regulatory standard but be subject to massive penalties under
the other. This is an example of bureaucracy at its worst.
Government should be working for the people. Not creating
regulations that increase costs and decrease choices for
consumers and create a compliance catch-22 for manufacturers.
Per the commitments made by the Obama administration, NHTSA
and EPA were supposed to jointly issue respective
determinations on standards for model years 2022-2025 in the
spring of 2018.
However, the Obama EPA abandoned its commitment and rushed
through its final determination--without coordinating with
NHTSA or taking input from stakeholders in a meaningful way--
just 7 days before President Trump was sworn into office.
To the Trump administration's credit, they are refocusing
on the pre-2016 election commitments made under the prior
administration--setting one national standard. Last August,
NHTSA and EPA jointly issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
for the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule, or the
SAFE Vehicles Rule, which seek to unify and amend the Federal
standards for model years 2021 through 2026.
Duplicative and conflicting Federal programs do nothing to
help the American people. As policymakers, it is our job to
ensure that our laws and the implementation of them advance
public policy goals that benefit Americans.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us
today and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair
would like to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
all Members' written opening statements shall be made part of
the record.
And now I would like to introduce our first panel of
witnesses for today's hearing and thank them very much for
coming. Heidi King is the Deputy Administrator of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Mr. William Wehrum,
Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Air and Radiation.
I think you are probably both familiar with the lights in
front of you. You know that they will turn yellow, from green
to yellow, when there is 1 minute. So I hope you will begin to
wrap up as close as you can to the red light after 5 minutes.
And so first, I would like to welcome the opening statement
for Ms. King, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF HEIDI KING, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, AND WILLIAM L. WEHRUM, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF HEIDI KING
Ms. King. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Schakowsky,
Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Rodgers, Ranking Member Shimkus,
and all of the members of this very esteemed committee, which
it was my honor--my great honor--to serve years ago.
Last year, NHTSA and EPA together proposed the Safer
Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles Rule--the SAFE vehicles
rule, we will call it today--to establish new fuel economy and
greenhouse gas standards for model years 2021 to 2026 passenger
cars and light trucks sold to consumers. These standards are
important because they determine what new passenger cars and
light trucks will be available to carry our neighbors, our
friends, consumers, families, to work and to school, to haul
goods on our farms and ranches, to travel across this great
country's mountains and its cities in good weather and in bad.
This action responds to NHTSA's commitment in 2012 in the
prior rulemaking to provide a totally fresh consideration of
all relevant consideration of all relevant information and a
fresh balancing of statutory factors given to us by Congress to
determine the maximum feasible standards and to perform a
midterm evaluation of the greenhouse gas standard for model
years 2022 through 2025.
That fresh consideration of relevant information has caused
the agencies to find that many of the predictions made, many of
the forecasts made years ago were incorrect. Current
information suggest that the standards previously set for model
year 2021 are unlikely to be maximum feasible and that the
greenhouse gas standards previously set for 2021 are unlikely
to be appropriate under the Clean Air Act. The agencies sought
comment on a range, a very broad range, of potential standards
for model years 2021 through 2026.
Now, this hearing today is important. These rules can be
complicated, and it is important to make sure that we all
understand congressional direction and how the agencies are
executing on that congressional direction. In the Energy Policy
Conservation Act, EPCA, Congress directs NHTSA to determine the
maximum feasible level of fuel economy standards for each model
year considering four statutory factors: technological
feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor
vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the
need of the United States to conserve energy.
NHTSA and EPA are working together to ensure that this
important rule will rely on the best possible engineering and
the best possible economic information, data, and science and
that we review the comments thoroughly in order to assure that
when we do produce a final rule, that final rule is reasonable,
appropriate, transparent, and consistent with the law, given
current facts and current conditions.
I must assure that the SAFE vehicles rule will establish a
maximum feasible standard and would not prevent any auto
manufacturer from designing and building Next Generation highly
fuel-efficient vehicles. That includes hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles, battery electric vehicles, hybrids, plug-in hybrids,
or anything that the market demands that is more fuel efficient
than the maximum feasible standard in response to market
demands. In fact, I personally, as someone who works in
innovation, am very excited, we are all excited to witness the
expansion of diverse designs and power trains, providing more
choice for diverse consumers across the Nation.
Now, we all know that newer cars are safer and cleaner than
older cars. We also know that consumers can choose whether to
keep their older cars or purchase newer, safer, cleaner cars.
That is particularly relevant because there are more cars than
there are adults in this Nation. There are more cars than there
are licensed drivers.
Standards that increase the price of a new car, therefore,
can hinder safety by discouraging people from replacing their
older car with a cleaner, safer, newer car. Today, we are
facing an affordability crisis in the new car market. The
average price of a new vehicle exceeds $37,000, and new vehicle
prices have risen 29 percent in just the past decade, while
median family income grew only 6 percent during that period. As
fuel economy improves, the incremental gains to consumers
diminish. That means that each additional fuel economy
improvement becomes much more expensive, lower-cost
technological improvements are deployed, and there is less gain
to the consumer from saving fuel, but it is more expensive.
So today, automakers are struggling to meet the existing
standards. EPA's latest trends report showed that, despite
record fuel economy gains, all but three of 13 major automakers
failed to meet performance targets for 2017 model year.
Newer cars are safer. Newer cars are cleaner than older
cars. Consumers are more likely to driver newer, safer, cleaner
cars if regulations don't increase the prices beyond consumers'
means.
Thank you for hosting this very important hearing. I look
forward to your questions and to a very open dialogue today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. King follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Ms. King.
Mr. Wehrum, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. WEHRUM
Mr. Wehrum. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here this morning.
Chairwoman Schakowsky, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Members
Rodgers and Shimkus, members of both subcommittees, thanks for
the opportunity to testify with Deputy Administrator King today
on the proposed SAFE vehicles rule.
This rule is the next generation of Corporate Average Fuel
Economy and Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
standards. The proposal would revise the existing national
automobile fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards
to give the American people greater access to safer, more
affordable vehicles by setting new 2021 to 2026 model year
standards that must be achieved by each automaker for its car
and light-duty truck fleet.
Through this rulemaking, we are delivering on President
Trump's promise to the American public that this administration
would address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse
gas emission standards. The proposal aims to strike the right
regulatory balance, based on the most recent information, that
will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles.
It is important to note that the cost of new automobiles
has risen to more than $35,000, which is out of reach for many
American families. Current standards have contributed to these
costs. Compared to the preferred alternative, our proposal
estimates that keeping in place the standards finalized in 2012
would add $2,800 to the cost of owning a new car and reduce
billions in societal costs over the lifetime of vehicles
through model year 2030.
In the proposal, NHTSA and EPA sought comment on a wide
range of regulatory options, including the preferred
alternative that locks in model year 2020 standards through
2026, providing much-needed relief from further costly
increases. The agencies' preferred alternative reflects a
balance of safety, economics, technology, fuel conservation,
and pollution reduction.
The joint proposal initiates a process to establish new 50-
State fuel economy and tailpipe carbon dioxide emission
standards for passenger cars and light trucks covering model
years 2021 through 2026. The proposal estimates that the
preferred alternative will prevent thousands of on-road
fatalities and injuries, as compared to the standards set forth
in the 2012 final rule, as more people can afford safer new
cars.
EPA has worked with NHTSA throughout the rulemaking
process. Deputy Administrator King and I and our technical
teams have regular meetings and will continue to do until the
rule is finalized. Given the importance of these regulations,
both agencies are fully dedicated to getting the rule out as
soon as possible.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I
look forward to any questions you may have on the proposal.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wehrum follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0609.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0609.133
Ms. Schakowsky. All right, thank you.
Now we have concluded the witness testimony and their
opening statements for our first panel. We will now move to
Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask
questions of our witnesses, and I will start by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
The key to good decisionmaking is good information, and I
am concerned because the safety information supporting the
Trump administration's flawed Clean Car rollback is based, I
believe, on sham science and false assumptions. The result: a
remarkable overstatement of safety benefits that cannot
withstand public scrutiny.
Before the proposed rule was released, EPA officials within
the Office of Transportation and Air Quality transmitted a
letter, a lengthy memo to the White House, calling portions of
NHTSA's safety analysis, quote, ``clearly wrong,'' unquote, and
quote, ``driving incorrect fatality estimates.'' EPA's analysis
found that the new standards could actually increase automobile
fatalities.
And it appears to me that political appointees at the EPA
and at the White House overrode the safety analysis of career
EPA employees, who analyze this kind of data for a living.
And so I wanted to ask you, Mr. Wehrum, do you agree with
the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality that the
administration's Clean Car rollback could actually increase
auto fatalities?
Mr. Wehrum. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Let's start by taking a step back. These are really
complicated issues, and a lot of what we do is complex from a
rulemaking standpoint, and this is particularly complex. It has
to do a lot of inquiry into advanced technology, a lot of
inquiry into things like consumer choice, predictions about
gasoline prices, and it is doubly difficult for us to do this,
with all due respect, because we are joined at the hip with our
sister agency, NHTSA, here.
Ms. Schakowsky. So----
Mr. Wehrum. So, it is not surprising at all, Chairwoman,
that on this range of complex issues, even among experts, there
are disagreements as to, you know, the right approach.
Ms. Schakowsky. I am asking you if you disagree with the
EPA's own Office of Transportation and Air Quality, roughly 400
employees solely dedicated to the development of pollution
standards for our vehicles. So are you disagreeing with their
conclusion?
Mr. Wehrum. Chairwoman, with all due respect, they is us. I
mean, that office is part of my office.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, exactly. Exactly.
Mr. Wehrum. And I can tell you that we have spent hours
since I have been at U.S. EPA delving very, very deeply into
these issues. And the great thing about the rulemaking process
is--and something we encourage internally--is people should
express their diverse opinions. That is what makes our rules
good. That is what makes our rules strong and----
Ms. Schakowsky. But at the end of the day, we have to----
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. We are only at a proposed rule
process.
Ms. Schakowsky. But at the end of the day, we have to come
to a conclusion. And so I am asking you if this Office of
Transportation and Air Quality said that aspects of the
administration's safety model are indefensible and based on
unrealistic assumptions.
So, are you disagreeing with that?
Mr. Wehrum. We are looking--Chairwoman, no final decisions
have been made. We are looking at a wide range of issues.
Hundreds and hundreds of issues go into how the CAFE model
runs, how this analysis goes, and the safety issues that we are
talking about here are one of many, many things that we
continue to talk about.
Let me give you an example. You know one important element
that goes into the analysis is so-called rebound. You know when
people buy new, more fuel-efficient cars, they drive them more.
They like to drive their cars. They are more fuel-efficient.
They are cheaper to run. They drive them more. That is well-
established in the science. But what scientists don't agree is
how much more they drive them.
And there is a body of science out there, and some of the
scientists say a couple percent more, sometimes they say 40 or
50 percent more. So how do we decide?
Historically, my office has assumed 10 percent. NHTSA has
assumed 20 percent. So we come to this rule with an immediate
difference of opinion as to what the right number is, and it is
a scientific inquiry. And that is one of many, many issues that
we continue to deliberate, and we are working very hard to get
it as right as we can get it so that, when we issue the final
rule, it is defensible as it can be.
Ms. Schakowsky. With all due respect, I would say that the
information that is fed in has to be good if the information
coming out is to be good. You have heard the old expression
``garbage in, garbage out.''
I yield back and recognize now the ranking member.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The midterm evaluation put in place by the Obama
administration was intended for the agencies to evaluate the
assumptions that were built into the model year 2022 through
2025 standards and to adjust those standards, if necessary.
Administrator King, can you please highlight which
assumptions of the market behavior have proven to be incorrect,
requiring you to adjust those projected standards, was the
driving force behind your decision--was that your driving force
behind your decision to start the SAFE Vehicles Rule rulemaking
process?
Ms. King. Thank you very much for that question. The
factors that have changed are largely driven by markets, and
they are out of the control of the regulating agencies. One of
them is that there has been a change in the fuel position of
the United States. There has been, I think as recently as
November 2018, the United States was for a single week a net
exporter. That has manifested a change in fuel prices.
In our 2012 rulemaking together, EPA and NHTSA had
forecasted that fuel prices would be $3.63 in 2017, when
actually they were $2.16, 40 percent less than forecast. So,
very, very important inputs to the modeling were 40 percent
less than forecast in the 2012 rulemaking.
Another, as we have referenced earlier, consumer
preferences towards trucks. The two agencies together, doing
very fine work and doing their best possible work predicting
into the future, anticipated that truck purchases would go down
year over year, and consumers would prefer to buy passenger
vehicles. In fact, what we saw was the opposite. Again, we had
forecast, the two agencies, in 2017 the agencies thought 64.6
percent of new car purchases would be passenger automobiles.
What actually occurred in 2017 was that only 52.5 percent, that
is almost 20 percent lower, I think it is 18.5 percent lower
than forecast.
So very critical assumptions, what consumers will buy and
fuel prices, how they will make those decisions and how they
will drive, caused both agencies to recognize the importance of
updating the analysis to make sure we are protecting American
consumers going forward.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Under the Obama administration, EPA and NHTSA agreed to
jointly determine whether the fuel economy standards for model
years 2022 through 2025 were appropriate, but then the Obama
EPA decided to act on its own.
Administrator King, can you please explain how this last-
minute move undermined the One National Program and why
coordination and consistency across Federal programs is
critical?
Ms. King. Well, of course, the two agencies were to act
together in the midterm evaluation. Although I was not employed
by the administration at that time, the end of the Obama
administration, there was only one agency that acted, and that
was the Environmental Protection Agency.
So when the new administration came in, the two agencies,
together, decided to make sure that all relevant information
could inform this very important decision, including the
information available to NHTSA. So the two agencies began to
work together.
Mrs. Rodgers. Did NHTSA consult with California prior to
releasing the notice of proposed rulemaking on the SAFE Vehicle
Rule?
Ms. King. Yes, for nearly a year. I believe my first
meeting with California occurred on the third day of my
employment at NHTSA. And as I recall, Bill's was on--good
grief, was it your first day or second day?
So we immediately, upon taking office and working on this
very important rulemaking, began meetings with California. And
I certainly met both in Washington, I also flew to California,
had repeated meetings and also conference calls,
teleconference.
Mrs. Rodgers. It is clear that safety is a priority for you
and a major consideration with the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule.
Did the Obama administration focus on safety when they were
setting fuel economy standards?
Ms. King. That is a very interesting question. At the time,
as you may be aware, I was career staff in the White House at
the Office of Management and Budget, and we were keenly aware
that certain questions were raised about the safety impacts of
the rulemaking. The two agencies, at that time working
together, had different assumptions and different conclusions.
It is difficult, as my colleague mentioned, to have two
agencies with a different set of scientists come to consensus.
At the proposed rule in, I believe, 2009-2010, there were
different conclusions about the potential safety impacts. The
two agencies worked together, and I believe the direction was
to assume no safety impacts before the rule was finalized.
So, because of that very important dialogue, because of
guidance we received previously from National Academies of
Science, we want to make sure that we don't sweep safety
impacts under the rug, but that we give adequate scrutiny.
We have had 2 years of historic increases in traffic
fatalities in the United States. Although we had good news that
it seems to be trending down last year, when I came into office
at NHTSA, 2 years of the largest proportionate increases in
traffic fatalities in my lifetime, and I am more than half a
century old.
So we felt very strongly that we needed to, on behalf of
the American people, pause and think about safety before we
move forward to make sure that we were doing the best thing,
considering the statutory factors Congress has directed us.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Well, I appreciate today's
hearing, where we can look at safety, affordability, and the
high environmental standards that we have in this country.
Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko, subcommittee chair
of the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator Wehrum, EPA has extensive experience in
developing greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles. In
fact, a GAO report noted EPA's expertise in this area and
stated, and I quote, ``NHTSA cannot be expected to have the
same level of in-house expertise related to vehicle power train
design and environmental issues as EPA.''
Is it correct that EPA's Office of Transportation and Air
Quality was created with the purpose of supporting development
of pollution standards for vehicles under the Clean Air Act?
Yes or no?
Mr. Wehrum. Thank you, Congressman. I will just--I am going
to give not a yes or no answer and just say I think my staff
and the Office of Transportation and Air Quality are terrific.
They are----
Mr. Tonko. Well, that is not the question.
Mr. Wehrum. Well, but----
Mr. Tonko. Is it correct that it was set up to----
Mr. Wehrum. No, but they are true experts in automotive
vehicle technology. We regulate tailpipe emissions from
engines. We regulate characteristics of fuel. We look now at
other vehicle----
Mr. Tonko. So I am hearing that they were set up to develop
expertise to engage the appropriate standards and address
pollution coming from our vehicles.
Mr. Wehrum. That is absolutely true, and I will also say--
--
Mr. Tonko. OK, I want to move on. I don't want you to carry
on any further than we need.
Documents added to the rulemaking docket late in the
process suggested that EPA technical staff had little role in
the process, a role that should have included a review of and
input into the modeling assumptions, the cost projections,
technology evaluations, and environmental performance and
effects of the program alternatives.
So Administrator Wehrum, is this accurate?
Mr. Wehrum. Just to finish my prior answer----
Mr. Tonko. Is this accurate?
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. I have worked with NHTSA a lot
over the course of this rulemaking and just want to give them
some kudos, too. They have a tremendous amount of expertise----
Mr. Tonko. OK, but is this accurate?
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. Related to vehicle technology, and
the combination of the teams is a very powerful combination.
Mr. Tonko. But is it accurate that they had little
involvement in the process?
Mr. Wehrum. Through the course of this rulemaking, EPA has
had a substantial amount of involvement and----
Mr. Tonko. OK, then----
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. As I said a second ago, Chairman--
Mr. Congressman, no final decisions have been made----
Mr. Tonko. OK, but let----
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. And the goal of the proposed rule
was to put out a wide range of alternatives and a wide range of
information.
Mr. Tonko. Sir, you are using up my time.
Why then did EPA staff request that EPA's name and logo be
removed from one or more of the regulatory documents?
Mr. Wehrum. That was--I believe that was the Regulatory
Impact Analysis, and that was a document drafted by NHTSA. It
wasn't drafted by us. So that was purely an indication of----
Mr. Tonko. But why did staff request that their name and
logo be removed?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, as I said, because that was a document
drafted by NHTSA and not by EPA.
Mr. Tonko. OK, let's move on.
Is it correct that, until this rulemaking, EPA had used its
OMEGA model to estimate the cost of complying with every set of
vehicle standards proposed by the Agency?
Mr. Wehrum. That, I don't know, but what I do know is very
early in this process----
Mr. Tonko. Well can you--you don't know. So can you get
back to us with an answer?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, what I don't know is how long ago OMEGA
was developed. So it certainly has been used for the last few
EPA tailpipe standards, but----
Mr. Tonko. Can you get back to us with an answer?
Mr. Wehrum. I would be happy to.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Is it correct that, in this
rulemaking, the model NHTSA created to estimate the cost of
complying with fuel economy regulations, the CAFE model, has
been used to estimate the cost of complying with EPA's
greenhouse gas standards?
Mr. Wehrum. I am sorry, Congressman. I didn't understand
that question. Will you please repeat it?
Mr. Tonko. Is it correct that, in this rulemaking, the
model NHTSA created to estimate the cost of compliance with
fuel economy regulations has been used to estimate the cost of
complying with EPA's greenhouse gas standards?
Mr. Wehrum. If I understand your question, the answer is
yes, we are using----
Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you. The answer is yes.
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. A single model. A decision had to
be made early on, are we going to run two models or are we
going to run one model----
Mr. Tonko. OK. Sir. Sir, I only have 5 minutes so I want to
use them well.
Mr. Wehrum. Well, you are asking complex questions,
Congressman, and they are not solely yes-or-no answers.
Mr. Tonko. They require yes-or-no answers.
Interagency review documents released around the time of
the proposed rule show that EPA staff using the OMEGA model
found compliance costs that were half those found by the NHTSA
model. Has EPA considered its own results in developing the
greenhouse gas standards?
Mr. Wehrum. As I said a second ago, a decision was made
early on that we would rely on a single model instead of having
two sets of books. So the CAFE model, which was developed by
NHTSA, is the model that we are using for this regulation, and
we will rely on the results of that model when we take final
action.
Mr. Tonko. Then why is there no discussion of these results
in the proposal's regulatory impact analysis?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, we are relying on the CAFE model, and
there is a lot of discussion of the results from the CAFE model
in the record.
Mr. Tonko. If EPA was not involved in developing the
technical analysis supporting the EPA standards, how has EPA
satisfied its own obligations under the Clean Air Act to
develop greenhouse gas pollution standards for vehicles?
Mr. Wehrum. We had been involved and we will continue to be
involved until this rule is signed.
Mr. Tonko. It sounds to me like there is professional
staff, expertise that suggests that they were not as involved
as they ought to be, and it bothers me with an administration
that calls climate change, climate science a hoax and also
rejects science to kind of go forward with this operation that
creates this proposed rule.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus, the Subcommittee on
Energy, Environment, and Climate Change ranking member.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Wehrum, can you please walk me through what processes
are legally required of the Agency, such as a public hearing,
in order to lawfully issue a new rule?
Mr. Wehrum. I would be happy to.
The rulemaking process is important to us. It is a very
public way in which we make decisions under our authority that
Congress gives us to establish legally binding regulations. And
the whole goal of the rulemaking process is to create an open
public record that includes all of the information that we rely
on justifying our final rule.
So that begins well before our proposed rule is issued. We
create a docket. We put in all of the information, and modeling
results, and policy justification of what we are doing. We
publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register. We provide an
opportunity for the public to provide written comments. If
anyone asks, we will hold a public hearing and we will hold the
comment period open after the public hearing for a period of
time for comments, in light of what is heard in the public
hearing.
And then we will do that all over--well, most of that all
over again. We will take consideration of the comments and
additional information. We will formulate our final decision.
We will document that decision in the docket, and then we will
publish that in the Federal Register, and that represents the
final Agency action.
Mr. Shimkus. In this particular case, have you done--have
you met these requirements, so far, as you laid them out?
Mr. Wehrum. I believe we have not only met, we have
exceeded what is necessary under the law, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. During your comment period, have you received
comments from all stakeholders, including public interest,
environmental, and industry groups?
Mr. Wehrum. We have received hundreds of thousands of
comments from all different perspectives, including all of the
groups that you mentioned.
Mr. Shimkus. Under Clean Air Act Section 307(d), are you
required to review each of these comments?
Mr. Wehrum. We review all of the comments that are
submitted, and part of our obligation in creating a record of
the final rule is to respond to all substantive comments on the
proposed rule, which we have.
Mr. Shimkus. Under the same Clean Air Act subsection, is
there a response required for any significant comments, new
data, criticism, and oral and written presentations?
Mr. Wehrum. You said it better than I did a second ago.
That is absolutely true.
Mr. Shimkus. Good staff work behind me. So I appreciate
that.
Would a final rule be subject to review and potentially be
overturned if the Agency failed to do these things?
Mr. Wehrum. Absolutely true. All of our final rules,
nationally applicable final rules, are directly reviewable in
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Shimkus. What actions are planned to comply with this
requirement?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, we are working on the final rule right
now. We are working on completing the docket supporting our
decision. We are working on making final decisions. And once we
complete that work, we will publish it in the Federal Register,
and then we will wait to see if anyone chooses to challenge
that.
Mr. Shimkus. As I mentioned in my opening statement, our
current Federal transportation fuel standards, namely, the RFS,
doesn't necessarily give us liquid fuel formulations that
maximize energy efficiency. Likewise, CAFE and greenhouse gas
requirements don't necessarily result in the kinds of engines
that would make the best use of available fuel formulations.
Without asking you to endorse any specific proposal or
legislation, do you think consumers would benefit from a more
holistic or harmonious Federal approach to fuels and fuel
economy standards?
Mr. Wehrum. Yes, I agree with that, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Could raising the octane levels of regular
gasoline increase fuel economy in vehicles designed to use
higher octane fuel?
Mr. Wehrum. It certainly could. Higher octane allows for
higher compression ratios, and higher compression ratios allow
for more efficient engines. So, it certainly could have that
effect.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you all for being here.
And with that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The Chair now recognizes Congresswoman
Diana DeGette for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for holding
this really important hearing.
Last week, I chaired a hearing of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee on the mission of the EPA. And we
had four former EPA Administrators, who served both under
Democratic and Republican Presidents going all the way back to
the Reagan administration. And all four of them expressed
serious concerns about the mission of the EPA under the Trump
administration.
Governor Christine Todd Whitman, for example, who was the
Administrator under George W. Bush, testified that the EPA's
current leadership is hostile to its own mission. She told us,
quote, ``by all accounts, industry has captured EPA's
regulatory process. This is a disaster for the Agency, the
environment, and public health.'' End quote.
The other Administrators, all three of them, leveled
similar criticisms. So I want to ask you a couple of questions
against that backdrop, Mr. Wehrum.
Prior to your current tenure in the EPA's Air Office, you
were an attorney in private practice. Is that correct?
Mr. Wehrum. Correct.
Ms. DeGette. And you provided legal services to a number of
industrial companies and trade associations. Is that correct?
Mr. Wehrum. Correct.
Ms. DeGette. And so I have got here your financial
disclosure report that you submitted, and according to this
financial disclosure report, your previous clients included the
American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel and
Petrochemical Manufacturers. Is that correct?
Mr. Wehrum. Yes, and actually, a----
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. Full list of clients is in----
Ms. DeGette. Excuse me, sir.
Mr. Wehrum. Just my recusal----
Ms. DeGette. No, no, excuse me, sir.
So, Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to submit
Mr. Wehrum's public financial disclosure report for the record.
Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so moved.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Now, sir, since coming to the EPA, I would like to ask you,
have you met with the American Petroleum Institute?
Mr. Wehrum. Not that I recall.
Ms. DeGette. And have you met with the American Fuel and
Petrochemical Manufacturers to discuss fuel economy, greenhouse
gas, tailpipe standards, or any aspect of the SAFE Vehicle
Rule?
Mr. Wehrum. Not that I recall, no.
Ms. DeGette. Do you know if any member of your staff has
met with either of these organizations?
Mr. Wehrum. It is possible. We----
Ms. DeGette. Are you aware of it? Are you aware of it?
Mr. Wehrum. I am virtually certain that API and AFPM have
been in on a range of issues, but when those requests come in,
they get delegated. You know, I don't even see them because of
my recusals.
Ms. DeGette. So, you have not met with them. Is that your
testimony today?
Mr. Wehrum. I don't recall having met with API or AFPM
since I have been at EPA.
Ms. DeGette. And can you please provide me with a list of
the meetings and participants of the meetings those two
organizations have had with your staff?
Mr. Wehrum. I would be happy to take that back, that
request back to our congressional office, yes.
Ms. DeGette. So will you provide me with a list, yes or no?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, as I said, I would be happy to take that
back to the congressional office.
Ms. DeGette. So you are not committing that you will tell
me who your Agency is meeting with from the American Petroleum
Institute or the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
Is that correct?
Mr. Wehrum. What I will tell you is that my calendar, and I
believe the calendar of my political staff, are a matter of
public record.
Ms. DeGette. So, therefore, you should be happy to provide
me with a list of those meetings, right, since it is a public
record?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, as I said, my congressional office
manages relations and manages requests. So I would be happy----
Ms. DeGette. So you are not committing. Would that be a
fair statement?
Mr. Wehrum. I am committing to taking it back to my----
Ms. DeGette. You can say yes or no to that.
Mr. Wehrum. I am committing to take it back to my
congressional office.
Ms. DeGette. Right. So I just want to say this is the
problem we are having with your agency every day, is a lack of
cooperation, a lack of documents, a lack of disclosure, and
this will not be allowed to continue. I just want to tell you
that right now, and you can take that back to your
congressional office also.
Now, I want to ask you, given what these bipartisan
Administrators said, and given what you have just told me
today, refusing to even tell me whether your staff has met with
the American Petroleum Institute or the American Fuel and
Petrochemical Manufacturers, why the American people should
have any confidence in your leadership at the EPA.
Mr. Wehrum. Oh, I think the American people should have
great confidence in what we are doing. The American people
elected President Trump. President Trump appointed me to this
position, and the Senate confirmed me to this position. And
every single day I come to work, I work as hard as I possibly
can to meet the laws that have been assigned to us to implement
by the U.S. Congress and to do it in the most robust, fairest,
fullest, and public way.
And, in response to the questions that I got from
Congressman Shimkus, I explained that virtually everything we
do is through a very open process of rulemaking and----
Ms. DeGette. Apparently no so open that you have to work
with Congress.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Wehrum. And I would just recommend on your----
Ms. Schakowsky. No. I now recognize Mr. Walden for 5
minutes for his questions.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope we can get to--
yes, I know. You got that extra set there. I just have the
panel ones.
So we do appreciate your being here, and I hope we can get
back on the issue of the rule and the topic at hand.
And Administrator King, could you explain the process the
administration is undertaking for the SAFE Vehicles Rule? Let's
get to that. There are many inflammatory allegations made in
some of the submitted testimony. So I would like to hear from
you directly and give you a chance to actually respond.
Are you following the law?
Ms. King. Absolutely.
Mr. Walden. Are you accepting comments from all
stakeholders?
Ms. King. Absolutely.
Mr. Walden. Can you confirm that the proposed rule included
many options, and the Democrats' and media portrayal of a
freeze and rollback of standards is not accurate, given that we
do not know what is in the final rule?
Ms. King. That is correct.
Mr. Walden. Assistant Administrator Wehrum, do you believe
the previous administration's rule was outside the bounds of
the Clean Air Act's authority?
Mr. Wehrum. I believe the prior rule was not well justified
in that regard. I do believe it was beyond their authority.
Mr. Walden. And if so, can you explain why?
Mr. Wehrum. Yes, I would be happy to. And in brief, as Ms.
King stated earlier, certain assumptions had to be made to
justify the prior rule, and those assumptions, like an ever-
increasing cost of gasoline, ever-increasing penetration of
advanced technologies, like electric technologies, consumer
choice, where it was assumed that consumers would want to buy
the fuel-efficient cars that would be mandated under this rule,
all of those assumptions proved to be false.
The purpose of the midterm review was to do a reality
check, recognizing this program reached well over a decade, and
it is difficult to predict over a decade in an area like this
that is constantly evolving.
So I believe an honest look, as I believe we did in our
midterm evaluation, of these evolving issues should have caused
the prior administration to conclude that things are different
enough than what they predicted that they should have made
changes, as we are making changes here.
Mr. Walden. And to each of you, could you highlight the
critical differences between the two programs run by your
agencies? Ms. King.
Ms. King. Thank you. And by the way, I apologize if I
answered questions that were directed to my colleague. It is a
sign, I suppose, that we work well together.
So the programs harmonize better than one might expect. In
particular, the Clean Air Act assigns the responsibility to
consider safety to my colleagues at EPA. And of course, NHTSA
is a safety agency, traffic safety, specifically.
One of the differences that must be considered is that the
law that is implemented by NHTSA has requirements that we
cannot consider, I am quoting statute now, ``may not consider,
when prescribing a fuel economy standard, the trading,
transferring, or availability of credits under these
sections.'' So we cannot consider credit. We can't set a
stringent standard that is infeasible and then use credits to
get us out of the bind. We have to actually set a real
standard.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Ms. King. We also have a requirement which is----
Mr. Walden. And these are statutory requirements you are
referencing?
Ms. King. This is from Congress. This is EPCA, yes, the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act. We have a very important
area of law that we implement at NHTSA which says, this is
preemption clause, ``when an average fuel economy standard
prescribed under this chapter is in effect, a State or
political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law
or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel
economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel
economy standard under this chapter.''
Now, this is very important because, as many of you know,
fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions are so closely
related that they are measured in exactly the same way for
compliance purposes, and that is at the tailpipe. So the law
that is the responsibility of NHTSA to execute, as directed by
Congress, would prohibit State standards, whereas, I believe
the Clean Air Act has some opportunity to offer a waiver, which
my colleague can describe.
Mr. Walden. All right. Do you want to speak to that, the
differences?
Mr. Wehrum. Yes, I will just go back to the original
question. We have very different missions. NHTSA, my
understanding of their mission is primarily highway safety. In
this case, you know, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, for
purposes of energy security, our mission is to manage air
pollution.
Now, when it comes to cars and trucks, those missions
overlap substantially, and that is what makes it hard for us to
do the rule, because NHTSA comes at it from a particular
perspective. Congress said, you know, regulate fuel economy,
upon consideration of relevant factors for purposes of making
sure we have energy security and enough fuel economy that it
supports that outcome. And our mission is to regulate cars and
trucks to reduce emissions upon consideration of a lot of
factors like cost and safety so that we strike the right
balance between emissions reduction and other important things
like highway safety.
Mr. Walden. All right. My time has expired. Thank you very
much. We thank you both for your public service.
And I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Now I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of
the full committee, Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In my opinion, the only ones that support the proposal that
the EPA has put forth are oil companies poised to make money
from the increased use of fossil fuels. And yesterday, I wrote
a letter to oil interests asking for details regarding their
lobbying efforts. A month ago, I sent the EPA Administrator a
letter highlighting how the Agency rejected its own experts'
conclusions that the CAFE rollback will result in increased gas
pollution and job losses.
Mr. Wehrum, a few questions, yes or no. If you can't answer
yes or no, I am just going to move on.
Were you briefed on the memo written by the Office of
Transportation and Air Quality detailing the problems with the
proposed rule?
Mr. Wehrum. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. And was Administrator Wheeler briefed as well,
to your knowledge?
Mr. Wehrum. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Has Ms. King or anyone else at NHTSA told
you that NHTSA will correct any of the problems identified by
the Office of Transportation and Air Quality?
Mr. Wehrum. That is not susceptible to a yes-or-no answer.
So I am happy to give you an answer or move on.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I mean, I am just asking you if they
said they would correct them.
Mr. Wehrum. I am sorry, the crowd noise.
Mr. Pallone. I am just trying to find out if anyone at
NHTSA told you that NHTSA would correct the problems?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, so I am sorry, it is not a yes or no, but
that assumes everything my office said is correct. And as I
said earlier, these are very, very complex issues----
Mr. Pallone. All right, let's move on. Let me go to Ms.
King.
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. And we are working----
Mr. Pallone. Let me just ask her directly.
Will you correct the problems identified by the EPA office?
Ms. King. Where we find errors in math or where we find
opportunities to improve the modeling, and those are
opportunities that we can, in the given time and with given
resources, improve, absolutely. We want the best possible
information----
Mr. Pallone. All right. All right. I appreciate it.
Ms. King [continuing]. To improve, to inform the rule.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. Now, I requested a variety of brief--this goes
back to Ms. DeGette and the problems with us getting access to
documents. I requested a variety of briefing materials in my
May 23rd letter, much of which is in your possession, Mr.
Wehrum. Will you commit to providing those materials requested,
yes or no, by the end of next week?
Mr. Wehrum. As I responded earlier, those kind of requests
I have to take to my congressional office, and I would be happy
to do that.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I just want to say I am deeply
troubled by EPA's lack of transparency and its disregard for
science and the expertise of its career staff. EPA and NHTSA
should promptly comply with this committee's oversight requests
moving forward, again, along the lines of Ms. DeGette's
request.
Now I wanted to ask about UARG. Mr. Wehrum, I can't let you
leave here without asking you just a few clarifying questions
about your former association with Utility Air Regulatory
Group, or UARG, and I want to make sure I get my facts
straight.
So first, just to confirm, you represented UARG when you
were at Hunton. Is that correct, yes or no?
Mr. Wehrum. That is correct. UARG was a client.
Mr. Pallone. And correct me if I am wrong, but that means
you represented each individual member of UARG. Is that
correct?
Mr. Wehrum. That is not my understanding.
Mr. Pallone. All right. So was each individual member of
UARG also a client of Hunton as individual members?
Mr. Wehrum. That is not my understanding.
Mr. Pallone. And then finally, you told Politico in
February, and I quote, ``UARG is an entity. It is a legal
entity.'' End of quote.
Just explain to me what you meant by that, if you can. When
you said that it was an entity, a legal entity, what did you
mean?
Mr. Wehrum. I don't recall that conversation, so I am not
going to speculate as to what that was about.
Mr. Pallone. OK. You know, I am just trying to confirm
statements that you made to the press. So, you know, I don't
know why it is so difficult to answer, but whatever. I guess if
you are not willing to answer some of these things, we can find
another time to summon you back to answer them.
But the reason I am asking these questions is because, in
April of this year, this committee opened an investigation into
the Utility Air Regulatory Group, and that is the secretive
litigation group formerly run by Mr. Wehrum and his former
colleagues at the law firm then known as Hunton and Williams.
And I was very pleased that 1 month later, in response to the
investigation, the group announced it would dissolve. And so we
are closely monitoring their progress.
I just want to reiterate again, because my time is almost
gone here, it is very important, wherever possible, to give us
documents, whether it is the request from Ms. DeGette, who is
our Oversights and Investigations chair, or my own in these
letters. To be honest, we have had a certain level of
cooperation from the EPA on other issues, and I just would like
to see more cooperation from your office, if at all possible.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member
of the full committee, Mr. Upton.
Mr. Upton. Well, I don't have that spot anymore.
Ms. Schakowsky. Oh. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Upton. Walden is leaving the room angry.
Ms. Schakowsky. What was I thinking? Fred, I am sorry.
Mr. Upton. There has been a coup. There has been a coup.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. I recognize you anyway.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Good to have you here and Ms. King,
particularly, your role before. You know, for me, particularly
not only from Michigan but as an American, and one that knows
the importance of the industry and also clean air, it is
important that we have the right standards. I have supported
better safety standards, better fuel standards for everyone.
And I was part of the group, I guess, a long time ago, that
looked at this long fuel economy standard issue. And it was
important, and we had an agreement by both Republicans and
Democrats that we were going to have another look at this and
that we would, in fact, we insisted on a midterm review so that
years out we would see where the assumptions were, and where
things were, and we would be able to recalibrate, if we had to.
And as one that supports a one standard, knowing that we can't
really have 50 standards, or 10 standards, or whatever, it was
important that we have our act together and see if we can't
accommodate all the many different interests there that protect
not only the industry and the jobs, but also the consumers, as
well as the environment.
And you said something early on in your testimony that,
literally within a day or 2 of your becoming Administrator, you
met with folks in California and indicated that EPA had done
the same thing. I just know that, as we are in this crux as to
where we are going to go as it relates to the midterm review,
has California--so you have met with them. You know who they
are. Have they made a proposal, an offer back to you in the
time that you have been there, in terms of where we should go,
knowing that we had to relook at these standards?
Ms. King. I am----
Mr. Upton. In essence, have they had a counteroffer? Have
they put anything on the table that they might be able to
accept, other than the path that leads us to 54 miles per
gallon?
Ms. King. At the end of the year of conversations, there
was--well, first of all, we had a gentlemen's agreement--or
gentlewomen, given that both my colleague from CARB, Mary
Nichols and I, we are both Californians; I, a former California
State park ranger, and she leading the California Air Resources
Board--we had a gentlemen's agreement to maintain the
confidentiality of our conversations in order to assure the
maximum probability that we could find a common point.
That being said, it was not until the very end of the
conversation when something was floated that had not yet been
vetted either by the outgoing or incoming Governor or the
attorney general of California. So we very much appreciated
that there was the suggestion that there might be a path
forward, but I don't know whether or not the full authorities
of the State of California would have been there to support it
as an offer.
Mr. Upton. So there has not been--you are really not
prepared to say where they are and there is no--there is
nothing out there in the public realm for us to look at in
terms of a counteroffer, other than the original standard.
Ms. King. No, I am afraid not. Because the auto
manufacturers, as most in this room know, need to actually
design and build cars, they need to have some advance notice--
--
Mr. Upton. Right.
Ms. King [continuing]. We need to make decisions and get to
the final rule. So, at some point, after a year of meetings,
after a year of traveling, both California colleagues coming to
Washington, us traveling to California, at some point we need
to say it has been a year, we are not making progress. We need
to just work from the public docket, from the public comments,
from the best possible science, engineering, and data, make
decisions, and move on. And that is the stage we are at now.
Mr. Upton. And Mr. Wehrum, at EPA is it the same story? Is
there anything different?
Mr. Wehrum. No difference, sir.
Mr. Upton. You know, let me just ask a quick question,
knowing my time is expiring.
You indicated, Ms. King, that early on you saw that there
was a real spike in fatalities, when you came on. And I am
just--was your conclusion that it was just smaller vehicles? Is
that why? I mean, I am just looking at all the safety
standards.
And, you know, I had to rent a car this weekend because my
flights were canceled. And it has a lot more safety stuff than
my car and comes with a little design in the mirror so you know
that there is a car there in your blind spot. You know this
committee pushed forward on tire standards. I mean we have done
a lot of things over the recent years, but why--what was the
basic conclusion as to why fatalities really spiked?
Ms. King. The truth is we don't know. It is complex, and it
is likely a number of factors. Economic growth means that
people are driving more. That means there is more exposure to
roadway hazards.
The increase in people choosing to walk and bicycle, that
is a cultural change we see in our cities, certainly here in
Washington.
Mr. Upton. Scooters.
Ms. King. We have seen a growth in the use of drugs among
drivers. So our roadside survey shows more and more people are
driving with marijuana, opioids, or impairing pharmaceuticals
in their blood.
So the individual vehicles are safer than they have ever
been. Newer cars are safer than older cars, but complex factors
come to our roadways. It is something that we--because we don't
collect the data on things we don't know about, we don't have
the data to fully explain the increase in fatalities, but we
have launched programs to do everything we can on all fronts to
reduce those fatalities.
Mr. Upton. If I can just have 10 more seconds, and I won't
ask a question for a response, and I hope that I have got a
colleague down on the other side here that might ask about, as
you look at alcohol and opioids, some devices that might be
added to vehicles.
But I will yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize Congresswoman Matsui for 5
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to bring up an issue that I believe no one has
brought up yet, and that is the California waiver. And it is
the authority for the State of California, under the Clean Air
Act, and 13 other States to set its own standards for vehicle
emissions through a waiver.
Now, since 1968, California has requested and been granted
waivers more than 100 times, and the legislative history of the
Clean Air Act clearly states that Congress intended California
to have the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best
means to protect the health of its citizens. Our State's
leadership has led to cleaner air, improved public health, and
has driven technological innovation in the automotive industry.
Ms. King, and quickly here, when did NHTSA decide to
conclude that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempts
the Clean Air Act's special grant of authority to California?
Ms. King. So the language that I read is the language from
EPCA. It is not a decision of NHTSA. And that language is
described and discussed in the proposed rule. There is no final
rule yet.
Ms. Matsui. OK, moving on here. Mr. Wehrum, when did EPA
decide to revoke California's waiver?
Mr. Wehrum. No decisions have been made yet, Congresswoman.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, the Clean Air Act was carefully
crafted with the obvious intention to grant California this
authority. Two Federal courts have already rejected the
preemption argument and the Clean Air Act does not provide EPA
with authority to revoke a waiver. This deeply flawed legal
argument is an enormous mistake that will throw the entire
American automobile industry into chaos for years.
Now, in April of this year, Administrator Wheeler appeared
before this committee and testified that the final rule had not
been completed at that time but the EPA was moving forward to
revoke the waiver. Administrator Wheeler also testified that
the EPA is bound by administrative law to consider all evidence
and comments submitted before making a final decision.
Mr. Wehrum, isn't it true that a California waiver has
never been revoked. Yes or no?
Mr. Wehrum. No.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Wehrum. Well----
Ms. Matsui. What?
Mr. Wehrum. And I am sorry. We denied a waiver request at
the end of the Bush administration. So that wasn't strictly a
revocation, but it wasn't----
Ms. Matsui. It has never been revoked. You say it has been
revoked?
Mr. Wehrum. I was just clarifying my statement,
Congresswoman. I wanted to be clear. At the end of the Bush
administration, when I was previously at EPA, we denied a
waiver request from the State of California for greenhouse--you
know a waiver request that would allow them to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions. That denial was in litigation at the
change of administration, and the Obama administration reversed
it.
Ms. Matsui. Right. So we can move on.
So let me just say this. Obviously, if this was rejected at
this time, we know there would be disastrous outcome should the
administration move forward.
Now--and it could be avoided. Let me tell you this is a
back and forth here with good faith negotiations with
California. In fact, and I really wish that Chair Nichols could
be with you because we can answer the question right there, but
Chair Nichols actually states that California was open to
accommodation, such as adjustments to compliance, timing, and
flexibility. So it wasn't California's fault. They were open
with the--if you actually had just the same situation always,
you wouldn't move at all.
Now, Mr. Wehrum, given the evidence that California clearly
put forth a compromise, why won't you engage? Why did you walk
away from the table, given you had these options?
Mr. Wehrum. Administrator Wheeler sent a letter to members
of the committee, and I think it was made available to all
members of the committee this morning.
Ms. Matsui. And what did he say?
Mr. Wehrum. And he is addressing the testimony provided by
Ms. Nichols that----
Ms. Matsui. Well, let me----
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. In essence, that we were not
negotiating in good faith. So I would recommend each----
Ms. Matsui. Well, I will ask Chair Nichols about that.
Now I would like to discuss another issue that most
certainly will arise should your Agency move forward with its
unlawful decision to revoke California's Clean Air Act waiver.
Under the Clean Air Act, federally funded transportation
projects must demonstrate that they meet air quality goals set
forth in the State's Clean Air Act Implementation Plan. In
other words, those projects can't adversely impact a State's
ability to meet air quality requirements. If they do so,
Federal transportation funding can either be delayed or lost
entirely.
The proposed rule concedes that California and other States
that incorporate California standards into these implementation
plans would be compromised in their ability to meet Federal air
quality standards for criteria pollutants like ozone, which
means planned transportation projects in those States will not
be able to show, as required by Federal law, that they will not
worsen air quality or delay attainment of air quality goals.
Mr. Wehrum, California is projected to receive tens of
billions of dollars of Federal transportation funding in the
coming years. Wouldn't revocation of California's waiver and
implementation of the proposed rule jeopardize these billions
of dollars of Federal transportation funding for needed
projects?
Quickly, I am running out of time.
Mr. Wehrum. CARB submitted supplemental comments to the
record of this rulemaking yesterday or the day before. And I
think their supplemental comments answer your question that the
tone of the comments is that this is going to create a great
problem.
Ms. Matsui. Yes.
Mr. Wehrum. But if you read their letter carefully, they
don't conclude that it does. They said it might, it may, and--
--
Ms. Matsui. Well, I think that there was that question
and----
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. When you look at the analysis that
we did in support of the proposed rule----
Ms. Matsui [continuing]. I think Chair Nichols will--OK. I
think I have run out of time. So, I yield back.
Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
I know recognize for 5 minutes of questions Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
thanks for today's hearing. And thanks to our witnesses for
being with us today.
If I could start my questions with you, Administrator King,
if I could. Back in 2012, under the Obama administration, when
it first finalized that rule, quite a few assumptions were
made. And again, as had been pointed out a little earlier, that
it was thought that gas prices would be over $4 a gallon and
that most Americans would say they would rather have a much
smaller vehicle than a larger vehicle, and being in the
midsized range, and going with electric and hybrid vehicles.
And pretty much what we have heard today is that these
assumptions have been pretty much proved wrong over time.
As my friend from Oregon mentioned, when he was in
California, he almost paid $4 for gasoline. Over the weekend,
when I was in my district, I paid $2.34. I just checked, and in
one of the parts of my district you can buy gas for $2.25.
So also in the State of Ohio, just last year, that hybrid
and electric vehicles amounted to less than 2.5 percent of the
new vehicle purchases. And as I said, where the gas prices have
gone down in the $2.30-$2.40 range in a lot of areas and down
to $2.25 in some areas in the district right now. And when you
look at it, 65 percent of all the new vehicle purchases in 2018
in Ohio were crossovers, SUVs, and trucks.
So let me ask, did you take these assumption failures into
account when you decided to revise the SAFE Vehicle Rule?
Ms. King. The updated information was inserted into any
analysis performed at the proposed rule stage.
I want to describe briefly--this may also help address some
of Chairman Tonko's questions--the two agencies' career staffs
have worked very closely together, as directed by President
Obama, for 10 years. We are now at the 10-year anniversary of
the two agencies working closely together. That means sharing
information, sharing analysis, sharing input files, some of
which is provided from Department of Energy or other sources.
The modeling takes inputs from EPA to go into the model. We
share modeling. We help improve, through criticism and through
debate, one another's modeling. And the two agencies have done
so as recently as in the midterm evaluation technical analysis
that was performed at the end of the last administration before
the EPA acted independently in issuing the determination alone
in January 2017.
So the agencies have always and will continue to consider
updated fuel prices, vehicle fleet information, technologies
that are used to improve fuel economy, the prices that are
described to us, you characterize them----
Mr. Latta. So it is actually important that, when you are
doing this, that you are looking at accurate current
information----
Ms. King. That is right.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. To make sure that, when you are
working those rules and the regs out there, that they are
current----
Ms. King. Yes.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. That they have current information.
Ms. King. Absolutely.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Would you speak in more detail about how the standards set
in the SAFE Vehicle Rule would still push for cleaner, safer
vehicles, while still providing for more consumer choice?
Ms. King. Because the statute requires that we set a
maximum and not choose the individual types of vehicles that
are available, the maximum means that there can be very low or
minimum vehicles that are within that bound. Highly fuel-
efficient vehicles can and will continue to be manufactured for
consumers who would like them, but some consumers need a
vehicle that maybe has more power or other attributes. And
setting maximum feasible allows the opportunity, at a fleetwide
average, for there to be diverse vehicle----
Mr. Latta. Well, if I can interrupt for a second because,
again, when you are looking at these numbers and these averages
that we are hearing from different States, like in Ohio, you
know where you are looking at over 60-plus percent of the
people wanting an SUV----
Ms. King. Correct.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. Or they want a crossover, or they
want a pickup-type truck, type vehicle. So again, you are
saying that when you are looking at these numbers, now are you
taking those percentages in, or how did you say you are going
to do that, again? Because, again, if one area's percentages
are going up----
Ms. King. Right. Over time----
Mr. Latta [continuing]. Do you factor that in there?
Ms. King. Over time, we are seeing fewer and fewer
consumers who are choosing passenger vehicles. Instead, people
are moving to trucks, or SUVs, or other types of vehicles.
Because the fuel economy standards are calculated as a
fleetwide average, when consumers choose larger or less fuel-
efficient vehicles, that means that our prior forecasts of what
would be achieved will be wrong.
Mr. Latta. OK, and that goes back to the earlier question.
You have to make sure that, when you are working on these
regulations, that you have got to constantly be revising your
information that you have received.
Ms. King. Yes, the direction given to NHTSA by Congress is
that we are not allowed to set standards for more than 5 years
at a time. Congress explicitly says the Secretary shall issue
regulations prescribing fuel economy standards for at least 1
but not more than 5 years, because Congress recognized that
technology changes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, my time has expired and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now I recognize Congresswoman Castor for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Trump administration's rollback of our fuel economy and
Clean Car Standards is poor public policy. It is not just poor
public policy, it is downright harmful to our ability to tackle
the climate crisis and to keeping America's competitive edge.
Mr. Wehrum, EPA's mission is to protect the public health
and environment, and clean air is critical to that mission, but
in 2017 and 2018 the U.S. has more polluted-air days than the
average from 2013 to 2016. And in 2018, carbon pollution
increased after 3 years of decline.
The EPA has found that carbon pollution endangers the
health and welfare of Americans. And the Fourth National
Climate Assessment, that EPA was part of, found last fall that
impacts from climate change on extreme weather and climate-
related events, air quality, and the transmission of diseases
through insects, pests, food, and water increasingly threaten
the health and well-being of the American people, particularly
populations that are already vulnerable. And American families
and businesses are now dealing with the escalating cost of the
climate crisis.
But now EPA is making it worse. Yesterday, EPA finalized a
rule that will achieve less than 1 percent emissions reduction
from the power sector. But it is transportation that is now the
largest source of carbon pollution. But today, you are here
defending a proposal that provides for a massive increase in
carbon pollution, the tailpipe standards for the cars that we
drive.
With carbon pollution increasing and more polluted-air days
happening, EPA freezing tailpipe standards at 2020 levels
through 2026 is clearly at odds with the Clean Air Act
requirement of protecting the public health and welfare, isn't
it?
Mr. Wehrum. No, Congresswoman.
Ms. Castor. But Mr. Wehrum, last August you admitted, as
reported in the L.A. Times, that rolling back the standards
would hurt public health and the environment. You said, quote,
``If we lock in the 2020 standards, we're not getting as much
emissions reductions as we otherwise would, and that translates
into incrementally less protection of health and the
environment.''
The Trump administration's rollback of fuel economy
standards is harming American families and businesses in other
ways as well. Fuel economy standards drive investment and
innovation. Every time we have encouraged automakers to do
better, they have met the challenge. They have made parts
lighter and stronger, transmissions and engines more efficient,
and vehicles more aerodynamic. But by freezing the CAFE
standards, the administration seems to want to aid foreign
automakers instead. Because this is a global and very
competitive market for the cars we drive and the trucks we
drive.
And you seem to say America can retreat. We are not going
to be the best anymore in building cars. America is last.
America last in innovation, last in fuel efficiency, last in
air quality. We are not going to stand for it.
Deputy Administrator King, given that automakers have
written President Trump raising concerns about the effect of
the rollback on innovation and investment, how can you claim
that the American automobile industry would continue to be a
leader in clean-car innovations under the administration's
proposal, which freezes Clean Car Standards?
Ms. King. I would be delighted to answer that question. Of
course, when we set a very stringent regulatory standard that
requires advanced engineering, all the engineers need to work
on that standard. Whereas, if we set a maximum standard that is
feasible, as required by law, as Congress has directed us to
do, that allows engineers to innovate on safety as well.
Ms. Castor. No, you are letting them off the hook in doing
that. That just flies in the face of experience over the last
decades.
Ms. King. Advanced safety technology----
Ms. Castor. Every time we have set better standards, they
have met them----
Ms. King. Advanced----
Ms. Castor. [continuing]. Because this is the United States
of America, and we will not retreat----
Ms. King. Not in 2017.
Ms. Castor [continuing]. And it is not time to retreat.
Ms. King. Not in 2017.
Ms. Castor. Canada is increasing their clean-car standards
to 55.2 miles per gallon for cars and 40.6 miles per gallon for
light-duty trucks. And the European Union has proposed to
increase their clean-car standards to 64.3 miles per gallon for
cars, 45.7 miles per gallon for light-duty trucks. China,
Japan, and South Korea continue to meet aggressive fuel economy
targets.
Why wouldn't Europe, Asia, or Canada become the epicenters
of clean-car investment and innovation under your proposal?
Ms. King. It is important to look at how those numbers are
calculated. And remember, in 2017 most automakers could not
meet the standard in the United States. So I don't know where
the information is suggesting that folks were able to meet
that.
Ms. Castor. It is plain as day, and thank you.
I yield back my time.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. McKinley, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to acknowledge, first, Administrator King and
Administrator Wehrum for your service, and thank you. I know
when you and I, we served together here on the Committee on
Energy, and I was with you yesterday at a special celebration
about the ACE Rule. Despite what some people were whining about
that, I think it is going to be a very effective rule over the
long term.
Let me just quickly get into it. One thing that I have
learned, Madam Chairman, to change direction here a little bit,
is that in my 9 years here on the committee following the
Constitution, one of the things I have found out, the executive
branch, pardon the pun here, but the executive branch trumps
the legislative branch.
We are seeing time and time again that, as House Members
and Members of Congress, that we have given up a lot of our
authority to the agencies. Now, we are having this hearing
today. Why? Because once again, the administration is
unilaterally changing a regulation and someone is disapproving
of it. That is the way this system has worked. I don't like it.
So my question goes back to more fundamentals, Madam Chair.
If we don't like something, why don't we change the law? If we
have a problem with 1975 CAFE standard, change the law, not
whine and complain about it. They have been doing it for
decades. When the GOP had the majority, we complained about
what Clinton and Obama did. And when the Democrats are not
whining about what happened under Trump, they did the same
thing under Bush.
But let me understand--let me point out, if we continue to
give up this authority to control how these agencies operate
that are passing the rules and regulations, we are going to see
more of this.
As an example, this is something we prepared. Our office
prepared something about 4 or 5 years ago. These are--just let
it roll out. These are the rules and regulations that were
passed against the fossil fuel industry under the Obama
administration--1,500 rules and regulations.
We need to regain control, I believe, of this process,
instead of whining about what the agencies are doing because
every 4 years, potentially, we change administrations and they
change direction. We don't have certainty. When we had the
Clean Air Act, it was passed and it gave certainty. We need to
get that back again, instead of complaining about what the
rules are. Then let's tighten up what the CAFE standards are,
or whatever those might be.
We had back under the Obama administration, there was an
interesting book written by Professor Howe, and it said--the
title was ``Power Without Persuasion,'' and it was using the
rulemaking to influence what we should be doing here in
Congress. And he talked about Obama, the State waivers under
Federal mandates, if they agreed to education overhauls, if
they increased the greenhouse standards through environmental
regulations, I could go on. We have all got some lesson of what
the administrations have done. I don't care whether we are
Republican or Democrat, we just have given up that power on it.
So Madam Chairman, I would say what is our authority in
Congress? Is it every 4 years, we are going to sit there, we
are going to have people come before us as these two folks, and
we are just going to criticize them and rip them apart? Why
don't we tighten up how our agencies should be operating, so
that we have a role, instead of whining about them when they
come in, or the next administration?
So I would ask just, and quickly, Heidi--Administrator
King, what problems would be presented to your group in
transportation if Congress had a voice in the regulations
before they go final? Would that crush you?
Ms. King. Representative McKinley, first, let me assure you
for myself, on behalf of the entire Department of
Transportation, that we are seeking to comply with all of the
direction and laws given to us by Congress. We are not seeking
to trump Congress. In fact, I believe that the difficulties and
the challenges we are having here and the purpose of this
hearing is because we are trying to restore regular order.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires that we complete
analysis, that we put it out for public comment, and that the
public be allowed to replicate the modeling on our website and
submit comment, and then we inform a final decision, not
backroom deal-making where you take manufacturers and have a
meeting at the White House and pick a number, and not violating
statutory direction.
Mr. McKinley. I respect that, but you saw the list, 86,000
mine jobs, coal mining-related jobs were lost because of those
1,500 regulations that were passed without congressional
approval.
So it is not you, it is the process. We need to perfect the
process instead of criticizing you.
Thank you. I yield back my time.
Ms. King. I don't feel criticized. I am very pleased to
comply with the direction of Congress in this very----
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman has yielded back.
And now I recognize Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair, and I will resist the
temptation to respond to Mr. McKinley's comments there.
Mr. Wehrum, do you support the role and expertise that the
EPA Science Advisory Board can provide to assess underlying
science backing regulatory actions?
Mr. Wehrum. The SAB gives us important advice on a lot of
important issues, absolutely.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I think the same thing.
Four former EPA Administrators testified before this
committee last week. All supported upholding the science in
deciding Agency action.
Now, the SAB has recently decided to review the rule that
is being proposed. Will you commit to cooperating with the
SAB's review of the proposed rule?
Mr. Wehrum. Congressman, the Administrator has already
responded to that request in a letter back to SAB a few days
ago. I don't have the exact date here.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I am asking you. Will you commit to
working with the Science Advisory Board?
Mr. Wehrum. I guess what I am telling you is my boss made a
decision, so I have got to do what my boss decided to do.
Mr. McNerney. What was the decision of your boss?
Mr. Wehrum. He said, and I am reading from his letter, and
this is on the topic of, you know, SAB recommended that this
rule, the SAFE proposal, be submitted for further review. So I
am just reading from the letter.
And the last sentence of the Administrator's response on
this particular topic says, ``The EPA believes that the Clean
Air Act Advisory Committee, which is one of my standing FACA
committees, and its Mobile Source Technical Review
Subcommittee, which is a mobile source-oriented subcommittee of
the Clean Air Act''----
Mr. McNerney. But those aren't science boards. Those are
committees of some kind.
Mr. Wehrum. Well, they are full of folks who are
interested--with expertise. And particularly, the Subcommittee
of Mobile Sources Technical Review is full of folks from car
companies, and environmental groups, and outside experts.
Mr. McNerney. So will you commit to not finalizing the
proposed rule until the Science Advisory Board has had time to
complete its review?
Mr. Wehrum. The proposed rule was finalized a good while
ago. I think you meant the final rule.
And again, the Administrator has responded to the SAB, and
he said that we will get advice that we need from these other
advisory committees.
Mr. McNerney. That is not acceptable.
Do you think it is OK to continue business as usual with
carbon dioxide emissions?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, business as usual includes our efforts to
regulate carbon dioxide through a wide variety of regulatory
mechanisms. Yesterday, we finalized the ACE Rule, which
regulates greenhouse gas emissions. We are working hard on
finalizing the SAFE Rule that will regulate greenhouse gas
emissions. I administer a major source permitting program that
regulates greenhouse gas emissions.
And I think my job here with regard to greenhouse gas
emissions is to faithfully and fully execute my
responsibilities in the Clean Air Act, and that is exactly what
we are trying to do.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I mean, do you agree that the climate
is changing largely due to carbon dioxide emissions, that the
change is accelerating, that the impacts of climate changes are
likely to be very damaging to catastrophic well before the end
of this century? Do you agree with that?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, Congressman, what is most important is
what I do in my job. And the EPA, prior to my arrival, made an
endangerment finding and a contribution finding that authorized
and actually obligated regulation of the Clean Air Act and a
wide variety of provisions.
I think it is noteworthy we have not sought to reverse that
endangerment or those contribution findings. What we have done
is continued the regulatory program and process, in the way
that I described earlier.
Mr. McNerney. And weaken the carbon dioxide emission
standards, despite the evidence that we are seeing about the
climate.
Mr. Wehrum. No, the Obama administration was trying----
Mr. McNerney. So do you believe that human-caused climate
change is happening and that it is a danger?
Mr. Wehrum. The Obama administration tried to use the Clean
Air Act----
Mr. McNerney. I am not asking about the Obama
administration. Do you believe that climate change is a danger
to this country?
Mr. Wehrum. I am regulating greenhouse gases every day of
the week.
Mr. McNerney. So you are not going to answer that question
directly.
Mr. Wehrum. Like I said, what is most important is how I
administer my authority. My authority and obligation is to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and that is exactly what we
are doing.
Mr. McNerney. Well, your office told the SAB that the EPA
and NHTSA jointly proposed the standards that public records
shows career experts at the EPA Office of Transportation and
Air Quality disagreed with NHTSA's work on that rule.
Your office also claimed that, quote, ``the EPA believes
the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and its Mobile Source
Technical Review Subcommittee would be more appropriate venues
for any necessary advice on these actions.''
It does appear that your office has been dismissive of the
SAB at the time of its rulemaking to avoid input from the SAB
on this action. Nothing you have said today has changed that
conclusion.
I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes
for questions.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I was sitting here observing what my colleague Mr. McKinley
did. I wish I had thought of that. That was pretty neat,
rolling out all of those thousands and thousands of pages of
regulations that you know many of them, many of them under the
previous administration that had very little to do with
protecting the environment and solving the problems that my
colleagues on the left want to talk about. They were about
shutting down fossil fuel industries, particularly the coal
industry.
And I applaud what the administration is doing and what the
EPA is doing to reverse that course. And you can count me in as
a champion to help you do that every chance I get.
You know, like other Members on this committee, I come from
a State that has a history of manufacturing and producing
automobiles. I know firsthand that these manufacturing plants
are typically steady and reliable sources of good-paying jobs,
but with the recent closure of the GM Lordstown Plant, I have
unfortunately also witnessed the kind of devastating impact
that plant closures can have on local economies and communities
when they do shut down.
Now, there were a lot of factors that went into that
plant's closure, but the Federal Government--we know this, I
believe this--the Federal Government should not be issuing
overly burdensome rules that make it too costly to manufacture
or for consumers to purchase American-made new automobiles,
especially as the market trends further towards trucks and
SUVs.
If another company decides to buy the Lordstown facility, I
want to ensure that that company has a clear set of
transparent, cost-conscious Federal rules to follow. The
Federal Government should be a partner in American auto
manufacturing and production, not a barrier.
So Administrator King, in your testimony, you highlight the
effect the SAFE Vehicles Rule will have on the types of
vehicles that will be available for consumers. Can you please
explain how the proposed rule will help improve consumer
choice?
Ms. King. The proposed rule is considering the factors that
Congress has required we consider to set a standard that is
maximum feasible. Now within maximum feasible, there can be all
kinds of cars that on average meet the maximum feasible fleet
standard.
What we are reconsidering is a standard that is infeasible
because the forecasts and the projections that were made in
2012 turned out to be wrong, one of those being that consumers
don't want to drive only passenger cars, they increasingly want
larger trucks. So we are trying to make sure that, following
congressional direction, we set a standard that is in fact
maximum feasible, considering all of the statutory factors that
allows for the consumers to have access to vehicles they need.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, how can fuel economy standards drive
up the price of cars?
Ms. King. When a very, very stringent or infeasible
standard is set, the investment that goes into meeting that
standard could be very, very expensive. So for example----
Mr. Johnson. And they just pass that on to consumers,
right?
Ms. King. That is right.
So, for instance, moving cars into all electrified power
trains, because----
Mr. Johnson. Sure.
Ms. King [continuing]. That is a very expensive technology.
Not every consumer wants it, but that might be the only one
that fleetwide average could meet the standard.
Mr. Johnson. OK, well, thank you. Let me move on to Mr.
Wehrum.
Mr. Wehrum, vehicle choice is important. And as
Administrator King's testimony states, the SAFE Vehicles Rule
contains no language that would prevent any auto manufacturer
from designing and building different types of vehicles.
Natural gas vehicles are an important part of that mix, and I
hope that any final rule can help ensure regulatory parity
between vehicles like NGVs and EVs.
As EPA and NHTSA continue to move through this rulemaking
process, will you work with my staff and colleagues to ensure
greater parity is achieved for NGVs?
Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Congressman. We have heard from many folks
in the natural gas vehicle industry about these issues, and I
think we have a good appreciation of what the concerns are, and
that is one of many things that we continue to deliberate as we
put the final----
Mr. Johnson. Well, I appreciate that, because I think that
is an area where, you know, if we are smart, we can find
bipartisan agreement on. Everybody agrees that natural gas is
much cleaner than many other forms of energy, and it makes
perfect sense that we move in that direction and bring about
that parity.
So thank you both for your testimony. I, too, appreciate
the service that you are providing to our country.
I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Clarke
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank our
chairs and our ranking members for this very important hearing
on the Trump administration's proposed rollback of the fuel
economy and Clean Car Standards. And I thank our panelists for
bringing your expertise to bear today.
Since 1975, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards,
otherwise known as the CAFE standards, have played a critical
role in improving vehicle fuel efficiency, increasing vehicle
safety, spurring American innovation and investment, and
significantly decreasing tailpipe emissions. As a direct result
of these standards, families in my home State of New York have
already saved nearly $2 billion today, not to mention the
invaluable public health benefits that have accrued, thanks to
cleaner vehicles, especially in low-income communities and
communities of color.
Unfortunately, even with these standards in place,
greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector
officially surpassed those from the electricity sector in 2017,
making transportation the single largest source of climate-
warming emissions in the United States. In fact, the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions from our transportation sector alone
is greater than almost every other single nation's total
emissions. Now, at a time when we should be strengthening
vehicle emission standards to protect our most vulnerable
communities from the worst effects of climate change and air
pollution, the Trump administration's EPA is once again
abdicating its responsibility to protect public health and the
environment. Instead, they are proposing a rule change that
benefits no one except for the oil and gas industries.
So having said that, according to American Lung
Association's most recent State of the Air Report, nearly 4 in
10 Americans live in areas with dangerous air pollution. My
district might not be home to major auto manufacturers or
suppliers, but it is home to over 700,000 Brooklynites, whose
health is threatened by this proposal.
Mr. Wehrum and Ms. King, with a simple yes or no, would you
agree with the medical community's determination that tailpipe
pollution is linked to numerous health problems, such as
aggravated asthma and other respiratory and cardiovascular
conditions?
Ms. King. Congresswoman, from the proposed rule, if we
finalized a flat standard, there is no noticeable impact to net
emissions of smog-forming or other criteria air pollutants.
There is no impact.
Ms. Clarke. But would you agree that it would be a health
concern----
Ms. King. In this rulemaking, no.
Ms. Clarke [continuing]. Such as for those with aggravated
asthma and other respiratory and cardiac-cardiovascular
conditions?
Ms. King. The impacts of this rulemaking, no, I do not
agree, as the modeling and science show us.
Ms. Clarke. Currently. So you are saying that with this
rule, we are going to be decreasing the emissions, we are going
to be decreasing the number of individuals who will be impacted
by tailpipe emissions?
Ms. King. I am glad you asked. It is about the same, and
the reason for that is, if cars are----
Ms. Clarke. So then you have answered my question.
Ms. King. [continuing]. More expensive, people can't afford
to buy a new car.
Ms. Clarke. You have answered my question. It is not going
to abate it.
Mr. Wehrum, yes or no?
Mr. Wehrum. Excuse me, I didn't have my mic on.
You are asking simple questions about complex issues.
Ms. Clarke. OK.
Mr. Wehrum. No, we are balancing----
Ms. Clarke. All right, if we can't----
Mr. Wehrum. We are balancing highway safety against
environmental----
Ms. Clarke. If we can't even talk about health concerns----
Mr. Wehrum. No, we are not going to put blinders on.
Ms. Clarke. Yes.
Mr. Wehrum. We are not going to put blinders on and seek
additional emission reductions to the exclusion of what our
analysis predicts to be substantial----
Ms. Clarke. OK, let me----
Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. Impacts on highway safety,
fatalities, and----
Ms. Clarke [continuing]. Move on. Let me move on. You are
not going to filibuster here today. You are not going to
filibuster. I am going to reclaim my time.
Are you both aware of how premature death rates among white
children with asthma compare to those among black and Latinx
children with asthma, yes or no?
Mr. Wehrum. I haven't seen the latest data.
Ms. Clarke. OK. Well, it turns out that Latinx children are
twice as likely to suffer from asthma than their white peers.
African American children are 10 times more likely.
These stark public health consequences are the primary
reason that my home State of New York adopted California's
Clean Car Standards in 1993, 26 years ago, to improve air
quality, clean up our communities, and protect our children.
I only have 13 seconds left, but I think that you know this
is a very critical issue for our communities. And as cities
continue to grow and to expand, you have an obligation to know
these stats. You have an obligation to know this information,
because at the end of the day, the rulemaking that is taking
place here will have an impact on human life.
Ms. King. Your constituents won't be able to----
Ms. Clarke. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. King [continuing]. Afford a clean, new, safe car. We
want to----
Ms. Schakowsky. She has yielded back.
And now I recognize Congressman Long for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you.
Ms. King, I drive a midsized SUV. It is 13 years old, and
that puts me right along with most of my constituents. And the
average age of a registered vehicle in my district is almost 14
years old. So I guess when the 2020s come out, mine will be 14
years old.
When people are deciding to purchase new vehicles, a lot of
them are buying trucks and crossovers. Three out of every 1,000
vehicles purchased are electric. With a rural district like
mine, a person's car is not just a means of getting around, it
is oftentimes their business and their livelihood.
When I was a real estate broker and auctioneer for 30-some
years before I came to Congress, on average I put 35,000 miles
a year on my car, and I very rarely got out of what is now my
congressional district. It is about 100 miles across and 100
miles deep. And so I know what it is like to make your living
out of your car and driving 35,000 miles a year in a pretty
limited area.
In your opinion, how did the previous administration's CAFE
standards impact people like those in my district, and me in my
life before Congress, who are looking to purchase a new car?
Ms. King. Certainly, a regulation was estimated and seemed
to have added to the price of the car somewhat. But it is
important to recognize and distinguish between the standards
that have been executed to date and the future standards.
The standards that were issued by the prior administration
had a slow ramp-up in fuel economy, and we are now at the point
where it would dogleg up, and shoot up, and become very costly.
So, whereas the historically implementing fuel economy
standards did not appear to take new cars--new cars are more
expensive than they have ever been, but we are about to see
where the standards are completely infeasible.
So my hope is that we have at least assured both safety and
fuel economy improvements in recent years, but we have to be
mindful before going up that dogleg to a very steep fuel
economy improvement that would raise the price of a newer,
safer, cleaner car, make it out of the reach of an American
family.
Mr. Long. OK. Staying with you, Ms. King, in my estimation,
the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient, SAFE, Vehicle Rule sets a
more realistic goal for automakers to achieve, considering less
than a quarter of major automakers met the performance targets
for the model year 2017 under the CAFE standards. However,
should more automakers reach the new goals, does it say
anywhere in the new SAFE Vehicle Rule that once an automaker
achieves the model year 2020 standards for miles per gallon,
they can no longer continue to innovate further and increase
the average mile per gallon of their fleet?
Ms. King. Automakers can, and should, and I believe will
continue to innovate to meet consumer demand and safety
improvement requirements.
Mr. Long. Aren't car companies incentivized to make safer
and better cars, based on consumer demand instead of Government
mandates?
Ms. King. We, as consumers, depend upon it.
Mr. Long. There is a lot of----
Ms. King. Yes.
Mr. Long [continuing]. Competition out there in the auto
world, as you know, and I think that they all want to innovate
and improve their miles per gallon as much as possible.
So thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. I am happy to yield now, for 5 minutes, to
Congresswoman Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
organizing this hearing today.
Before I begin my questions, just in case you didn't know
it, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. One National
Program for fuel economy with strong reasonable standards that
increase year over year and balance between goals of
environmental protection and affordability are critical. Strong
fuel economy standards have kept our environment clean, reduced
our dependence on foreign oil, and have saved consumers money
at the pump.
The administration's proposed rule has listed several
options, the most unacceptable being the flatlining of fuel
economy standards. Flatlining is harmful to American leadership
and innovation, as well as the environment.
Additionally, the administration needs to respect, it just
needs to respect California's role in the process. I am saying
this as a Michigander who has had real--you know, it has been a
history. And you have got to treat them as an equal partner in
negotiations, rather than revoking their waiver under the Clean
Air Act, which would result in years of litigation and
uncertainty for an industry and their employees across the
country that simply can't take this uncertainty.
I am really not interested in a pissing contest between
California and this administration, to be perfectly blunt. And
I take offense at this letter because I care about this and,
just like I have nagged you two and everybody else in the
administration, I have talked to Mary Nichols regularly, and I
know she has wanted to come back to this table. And you all,
quite frankly, have not put this table together, and it really
bothers me.
I understand that you don't believe California has got a
right to regulate in this space, but we do know that cutting a
deal with them can save the industry money, give them more
certainty, and reduce emissions as well. That is why they have
written you a letter, and that is why they have written
California a letter, and said we need one standard.
Mr. Wehrum and Administrator King, what is more important
to this administration, scratching your ideological itch by
picking a fight with California or solving a problem by cutting
a deal that maximizes environmental benefits and affordability?
Ms. King. Executing the laws given by Congress that we
execute in the executive branch.
Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Wehrum, and your law is clear.
Mr. Wehrum. Yes, ma'am. The President gave us two
overarching instructions with regard to this rule: one, he
instructed us to go try to make a deal with California. Last
year, he said, ``Go try.''
Mrs. Dingell. Yes, I know he did.
Mr. Wehrum. And he said, ``Get this rule done.''
So, from my perspective, we made an honest and a good-faith
effort to find----
Mrs. Dingell. Even the industry doesn't believe that, Mr.
Wehrum. I talk to everybody every single week, and that is why
I am coming at all of you. American people are tired of
conflict. They are tired of partisan bickering. They want us to
get something done. They want us to come up with practical
solutions to practical problems. It is not rocket science.
The Obama administration put 5 percent increases. You are
proposing a flat line. There is not a way to compromise
someplace in here? Would you two commit if we hear Mary Nichols
on the next panel say she is willing to go to the table, will
you commit to resume discussions immediately on a compromise,
yes or no?
Mr. Wehrum. My answer is we will keep doing what the
President said. So----
Mrs. Dingell. So I have to call the President and ask him
to ask you to go back to the table?
Mr. Wehrum. No, no, no, no. He said make a good-faith
effort. So I am willing to go----
Mrs. Dingell. Well, I don't think your effort has been in
good faith.
Mr. Wehrum. Well, I disagree, but I am willing to continue
making a good-faith effort, but I am also going to get this
rule done as soon as I can.
Mrs. Dingell. So if she says she will come to the table,
can we get that--and the autos want you to go. What is it going
to take?
Ms. King, would you go back to the table?
Ms. King. I don't know whether that would actually achieve
the goal. I think it would be--first of all, of course, we did
meet for more than a year, or did meet for about a year. I----
Mrs. Dingell. And then you stopped.
Ms. King. I would be concerned about the uncertainty for
automakers, should this rulemaking be dragged out for several
more years.
Mrs. Dingell. But they are worried about the uncertainty.
If it is going to be dragged out, this is going to the courts.
You and I both know that this is going to end up in the courts,
and that is an uncertainty they don't want, and they have
written you and written the President and told people that that
is not what they want.
Ms. King. In my experience, these rules tend to go to the
courts, regardless of whether or not----
Mrs. Dingell. This rule is going to the courts.
I am just going to make--you know, the auto industry is
really fragile right now, and that is a message I want
everybody here to take too. And we can't take its health for
granted.
President Trump came to my State. He promised we would
improve manufacturing in this country, yet everything you do
creates chaos. Trade is creating chaos. The lack of clarity in
the rule for autonomous vehicles, which this committee and the
House did pass, and now your two agencies are seeking to throw
another wrench into this mix with misguided proposal on fuel
economy, revoking California's waiver, flatlining the standards
will take years to litigate and will cost this industry a
significant amount in regulatory uncertainty and the inability
to move ahead.
I urge you to go back to the table, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, and I now recognize Mr. Bucshon
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. I mean, based on what my friend
just said, it sounds like if we would just give into
California, as a country, then we wouldn't have a problem.
Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't say that.
I also want to talk about what Mr. McKinley said about
Congress and usurping our authority. I totally agree with him.
We have passed, over the last few Congresses, through the House
what is called the REINS Act, which would give Congress the
ability to approve rules and regulations that have more than
$100 million impact on our economy, and Democrats haven't
supported it. So maybe they want to reconsider. I think it had
something to do with the fact that it was the Obama
administration that didn't want it. Now we have Trump
administration, and here we have conflict again.
As a Congressman in the 8th District of Indiana, this
hearing is important, and it directly impacts the Hoosiers
across all 19 counties. In my district, the auto and auto
supplier manufacturers provide 191,495 jobs, and that changes,
obviously, to Hoosiers, who contribute more than $15 billion to
Indiana's gross domestic product each year, the second highest
in the Nation.
It is imperative that the CAFE standard creates certainty
and uniformity. I do, I agree with that. And while we must take
steps to curb emissions, we want to make certain that standards
are feasible for the industry and address technological
constraints in the current market realities within the
industry, which have been described by both of you.
I wanted to directly bring up some concerns, though, about
some statements in the NPRM on the statement of rationale that
suggested that lightweighting vehicles is unsafe. This is in
contradiction to two NHTSA studies from 2012 and 2017, where
researchers concluded that lightweight materials meet or exceed
Federal safety performance requirements. Furthermore, the
statement puts at risk many high-skilled jobs, potentially, in
Indiana in my congressional district.
I would request that you would consider removing this
language from the NPRM, since it is contradicted by studies
from NHTSA. Can you comment on that, Ms. King, and then Mr.
Wehrum?
Ms. King. Lightweighting is very important. It is not
unsafe. Lightweighting is one of the most, and I believe it is
the most cost-effective way to achieve increased fuel economy.
So lightweighting is not unsafe. However, the laws of physics
do apply. If I have one cup here of paper and an identical cup
of lead and the two met, the lead cup, physics tell us, may
endure better. So weight does matter because, when two objects
collide on a street, the lighter weight object is likely to
suffer more----
Mr. Bucshon. I would agree, but if you crash a '57 Chevy
into a new automobile today, which one is more likely to cause
injury to the passenger?
Ms. King. The newer cars are safer than older cars, and
over time, because of the innovations and engineering, the
relationship between safety and lightweighting has been broken,
basically. So engineering techniques, safety technology, cars
have never been so safe.
Mr. Bucshon. Agreed.
Ms. King. I go back to lightweighting is not unsafe.
Physics still apply, but lightweighting is not unsafe.
Mr. Bucshon. OK, Mr. Wehrum.
Mr. Wehrum. I agree with Ms. King.
Mr. Bucshon. OK, great.
Mr. Wehrum. She is the safety expert.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you for that. I just want to--you know,
like I said, you crash a '57 Chevy into an automobile today,
which has a lot of plastic, aluminum, other lightweight
products in it, it is more likely, for a multitude of reasons,
why the lighter vehicle actually results in more safety for the
passenger than the heavier, all-steel vehicle that we have had
in the past.
So this is for Mr. Wehrum. On January 12, 2017, 8 days
prior to President Trump's inauguration, the Obama
administration implemented the final determination of the
midterm evaluation, as we have talked about, providing only 30
days for public comment and 13 days for the administration to
review those comments--13 days.
Mr. Wehrum, can you discuss how--is it feasible on
something this complex for the EPA to review and address all
the comments in 13 days, in your view?
Mr. Wehrum. In my view, it is virtually impossible to do a
good job in 13 days.
Mr. Bucshon. And so did this play a role in the reasoning
for reopening the midterm evaluation, the expediency of this
proposal?
Mr. Wehrum. The decision was made before I joined the EPA,
but from discussing the issue with Administrator Pruitt, it is
very clear he was concerned that there was a rush to judgment,
and it is very clear he was concerned, as I said earlier in
this hearing, that fundamental things had changed and that
those changes had not been adequately considered. So, we
believe there was a firm, firm basis for reconsideration.
Mr. Bucshon. OK, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. And now I recognize Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
A bleeding-heart liberal chairman, Bill Ford, stated his
company, the Ford Motor Company, didn't want to roll back and
supported increasing Clean Car Standards through 2025. The cost
of not believing in climate change, quote, ``is just too
high.'' So it kind of makes me curious why we are here today.
Why are we rolling back standards when even major industry
leaders aren't asking for it? And we would be lowering people's
gas bills at the pump.
And I think a little back to the fact that, from the
enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1963, under Johnson, through
Obama we have had this progress made. So why are we pulling
back? I mean, it is an aberration, I think, in history. We are
going to look back on this period and say, ``Why?'' And I
empathize because you all have to do what President Trump tells
you to do. So I get the position you are in today. But,
nonetheless, we have to talk about these things.
So we saw the rollout of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule,
potentially a misnomer, that will lead to higher emissions than
the EPA initially anticipated in the proposal. The increased
carbon pollution resulting from this rollback would be equal to
the annual emissions to 82 percent of the counties on Earth.
That is a lot.
Ms. King, NHTSA used a new model to calculate fleet
turnover. Why would you use a new model, and was this method
ever peer-reviewed before you used it?
Ms. King. Over the many years of issuing fuel economy
standards, since NHTSA was first directed by Congress to do so,
we used modeling econometrics and statistical analysis to
inform the statutory factors. So the model we used is one that
has been--the primary model--has been used in prior
rulemakings. And each time we use that model, we take public
comment, we hear from experts how we can improve it, and we
continue to improve it.
Two of the improvements this time are accounting for
vehicle turnover and accounting for consumers responding to
price changes. And that is because we know that consumers are
less likely to replace their older, less safe car with a newer,
cleaner, safer car if that newer, cleaner, safer car is 20
percent more expensive.
Mr. Soto. Why did NHTSA exclude several pieces of valuable
modeling data, notably the fleet turnover model, from the
public docket?
Ms. King. I don't know what you are referring to, but we do
take very seriously scrutinizing all public comments. And
everything that can improve the model that is backed in facts,
and science, and rigorous methodology, and can be done with
available resources, we will incorporate.
Mr. Soto. So you have the world-class OMEGA model that is
being used by the EPA. Why wasn't that used for the modeling?
Ms. King. So Congress directed fuel economy standards to be
established by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, or NHTSA, and the CAFE model was developed
exclusively for that purpose. We work with EPA. We work with
Department of Energy. It has been peer-reviewed. It has been,
for many years, publicly available. It performs--I understand
from career staff comments, given identical inputs it would
provide similar outputs to the OMEGA model.
But we did decide to use one model for this rulemaking
because the public found it confusing to be navigating multiple
models in prior rulemakings, and essentially we are
representing that newer cars are safer than older cars, that if
you increase prices, consumers are less likely to afford a new
car, and fundamentally, more expensive, rigorous technologies
to meet stringent standards would increase the price of a car.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Ms. King. My time is limited.
I guess the concern is that adding in these new economic
factors is really--can fudge the numbers, can cook the books,
could get to a desired result.
Mr. Wehrum, do you believe that NHTSA's unproven modeling
was ready for prime time, or would EPA's OMEGA model have done
the trick, as it has in the past?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, as Ms. King just said, we decided early
on we would use one model and not two models. It doesn't make
any sense to keep two sets of books here.
And we have been working hard----
Mr. Soto. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wehrum. Forgive me,
my time is limited.
The last thing I just want to comment about is, we saw that
long list of fossil fuel regulations rolled out, and I worry,
you know, this rhetoric about a rural and urban divide in
vehicles--big vehicles in the rural areas, smaller vehicles in
urban areas--but these hurricanes don't discriminate. The
floods in the upper Midwest don't discriminate. The tornadoes
in the lower Midwest--you know there is going to be a longer
list of disaster victims, of climate change victims, than that
fossil fuel regulation list ever was, if we don't come
together. It is not whining to combat climate change. It is our
job.
And I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
I recognize Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank
both of you for being here. It has been an interesting hearing
to listen to.
I think there are a lot of misconceptions perpetuated by
some of the media and the other side related to the SAFE Act.
This was not so much a rollback of regulations but an effort to
maybe correct the course, regulatory assumptions that swung and
missed on the realities of the market and what consumers want
to drive.
Look, I am from South Carolina. I am in a rural district.
Billy Long was in the auction business and was a broker. I was
in the auction business and a broker. He drove 35,000 miles. I
drove about 65,000 miles chasing business. I drive a Chevy
Duramax diesel truck now to this day because of it.
In my district, according to Auto Alliance, almost 50
percent of my constituents that own a vehicle either drive an
SUV, a pickup truck, or a minivan; 99 percent of the vehicles
in my district are gasoline or diesel; 0.02 percent are
electric vehicles.
This breakdown is emblematic of several of the Obama
administration misconceptions that they based their
aggressively high standards on. People in rural America do not
want electric vehicles because they don't fit their lifestyle,
their pocketbook, their needs, and they don't have the charging
availability. People in rural America don't own small vehicles.
Many of the jobs that my constituents have, they require pickup
trucks or bigger vehicles.
The median household income in my district is just over
$47,000, but the price of a new vehicle continues to increase
and they are now above $37,000. Go price a new pickup truck, a
Chevy Duramax diesel right now, and tell me what that cost is
going to be, if you need that in your job. Maintaining the
Obama-level standards will price the middle class of America
out of the new vehicle market.
Now, I was thinking about an analogy, and I will try this
one. South Carolina is a right-to-work State. So we don't allow
the union security agreements, OK? What if the Department of
Labor was given a tremendous rulemaking and regulatory
promulgation ability under a broad act like the Clean Air Act
that gave the EPA these broad rulemaking abilities, and the
Department of Labor said, ``You know what, we are going to
reach out and we are going to grab South Carolina's right-to-
work standard, and we are going to make that the standard for
all the other States''? Because that is what is happening now,
is this California standard is becoming the standard for all
the other States, who are sovereign.
We are a republic. There is federalism. We, the Congress,
has given a law so that we don't have one State dictating what
other States have to do.
But what if the Department of Labor said, ``We are going to
make all the States adhere to right-to-work laws of South
Carolina''? I don't think the other States would like that.
And so I am sitting here listening to a lot of the argument
on the other side that takes market forces out of the equation
of what the consumers want, because I believe the vehicle
manufacturers, they are trying to see what the consumers want,
and they are building the vehicles that they can sell.
But we are from the Government. We know best. We are going
to tell you what you have to build, and we are going to force
that on the American people. Because that is what is happening,
is that Government is telling the automobile manufacturers what
you have to build, regardless of what the consumer market
wants, what you have to build and what you have to offer.
We don't want the vehicles that they are selling in Europe.
Small, tiny roads require small, tiny vehicles, and that is not
appealing to the American consumer.
We got to talking about federalism a while ago. And I am
going to ask Administrator Wehrum, How does cooperative
federalism factor into the Clean Air Act?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, there are certain parts of the Act where
Congress said that is how we should implement it, split
responsibility between us and the States and local governments.
And importantly, there are certain parts of the Act where the
Congress said don't do that.
And the motor vehicle emission standards are one of those
places. There are general Federal preemption in place. There is
opportunity for a waiver for California, but that is under
particular circumstances. And if those circumstances aren't
met, then general Federal preemption is in place.
Mr. Duncan. Administrator King, real quickly, can you
elaborate on how the California requirements create perverse
disincentives on the national auto market, things I talked
about, and not just for choice and affordability, but for
safety as well? Real quick, you have got 20 seconds.
Ms. King. We want to make sure that the innovators are
focusing not only on fuel economy but on safety and other
attributes that consumers value, and not only on that one
dimension of fuel economy.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you both for being here.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now I recognize Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As we will hear today, the standards implemented by the
Obama administration are driving innovation, creating jobs, and
saving consumers thousands of dollars at the pump over the
lifetime of the ownership of their vehicle, and not to mention
it is a major victory for the things that we are trying to
accomplish for the environment. Despite these benefits, the
Trump administration seems intent on rolling these standards
back.
Mr. Wehrum--am I pronouncing that right, Mr. Wehrum?--and
Ms. King, I assume that you have both seen the letter from the
automakers to President Trump opposing the administration's
actions. You both have seen the letter?
Ms. King. I have not seen the letter from consumers or the
public to the President, only from the automakers.
Mr. Veasey. You have seen it from the automakers. The
letter states that the automakers support a unified standard
that both achieves year-over-year improvements in fuel economy
and facilitates the adoption of vehicles with alternative power
trains.
Do you agree with the automakers on the value of these
goals? If not, why?
Ms. King. We must comply with the direction that Congress
gave us, which is to include economic factors and which is to--
--
Mr. Veasey. So do you disagree with the automakers?
Ms. King. I agree in some parts and not in other parts. But
again, I want to be very clear about the mission of NHTSA is to
serve the public, 327 million Americans, and not one specific
private-sector entity.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Wehrum, do you agree with the automakers?
Mr. Wehrum. We have tried real hard to get to a deal.
Mr. Veasey. Do you agree with the automakers?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, their letter says keep trying. And I said
earlier in the committee that the President said that we should
try, and I am willing to do that. The President also said get
the rule done, and I am working on doing that.
Mr. Veasey. The letter goes on to say that, ``for our
companies, a broadly supported final rule will provide
regulatory certainty and enhance our ability to invest and
innovate by avoiding an extended period of litigation and
instability, which could prove as untenable as the current
program.''
Do you agree with the industry that the litigation, that is
certain to occur as a result of these new proposed rules, will
be extremely costly, create uncertainty, and make investments
more difficult? Either.
Mr. Wehrum. Well, I will start. I can't control whether
anybody challenges a final rule that I issue, and, frankly,
virtually every final rule I issue gets challenged by somebody.
So the fact of litigation doesn't change my thinking.
Mr. Veasey. So you don't think the litigation is going to
stifle that?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, I was just going to say the fact of the
litigation doesn't influence the decisions. We have to decide
under the law, based on specified factors, and that is what is
most important. And if we can avoid litigation, that is great,
but it is awfully hard to do in my business.
Mr. Veasey. In a regulatory filing in 2018, Shell Oil
Company said improving fuel economy is an important lever for
reducing DHG from vehicles while emerging technologies continue
to develop. To date, efficiency standards have demonstrated the
greatest impact on CO2 abatement in transport
relative to other policies.
Do you agree with Shell that the fuel economy standards are
one of the strongest tools we have in the fight against climate
change, Ms. King?
Ms. King. Forgive me. Do I agree with Shell that fuel
economy standards are one of the most important----
Mr. Veasey. Do you agree with Shell that fuel economy
standards are one of the strongest tools we have in the fight
against climate change?
Ms. King. Based solely upon the analysis completed by NHTSA
and EPA together, I would have to disagree only because, if you
will see in the proposed rule analysis, there is almost no
impact whatsoever on climate change between the proposed
standard and the preferred alternative because of the impact of
price that many families cannot afford a cleaner, safer, newer
car with a strict price increase. So that means that we have
the choice of either keeping families in older, dirtier cars or
helping them get into newer, cleaner cars. That is where the
impact comes.
So there is very, very little climate impact associated
with this rulemaking.
I believe they may be referring to transportation more
broadly, which I believe is responsible for between 25 and 30
percent of anthropogenic carbon emissions in the U.S.
Mr. Veasey. And I understand that bringing more of these
cars to scale makes them more affordable for a lot of the
families, as you just mentioned.
Ms. King. It depends.
Mr. Veasey. Madam Chair, I wanted to also state for the
record that myself and Congressman Ron Wright, a Republican
from Texas, we both share General Motors' most profitable plant
in their entire division. We make the SUVs in Arlington, Texas,
the Tahoes, the Denalis, the Suburbans, and I will do anything
that I can to make sure that that plant stays open and that it
stays operating. It has been a plant that has been a very
stable employer, particularly for many people in the black and
Hispanic community. And I don't think that these standards that
we are trying to put into place and keep in place that will
keep our environment clean is going to harm the workforce at
that facility in Arlington, Texas.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Now I recognize for 5 minutes Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank both of you for being here. Obviously, it is a
very important subject.
Ms. King, I was struck earlier in your testimony by your
concern of safety and some of the figures that you cited about
the number of fatalities having gone up, and I couldn't help
but think to myself about what has changed. And one of the
things that I know--and full disclosure, I am adamantly opposed
to the recreational use of marijuana and particularly those
States that allow that. And impaired driving is something that
is of concern to me. And being on the Health Subcommittee and
being currently the only pharmacist serving in Congress, the
opioid epidemic is something that I have worked diligently on.
And I am wondering, what role does NHTSA have in any of
this? Is there anything that the Agency can do to help in this
fight?
Ms. King. Very much so, and we have been very active since
I took office at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. First, we launched a campaign demonstrating
Federal leadership in educating the public that driving
impaired by any substance, whether it be marijuana, opioids,
pharmaceuticals, or illicit drugs, is dangerous.
We have also increased our support for local State
programs, Offices of Traffic Safety grant monies, support for
law enforcement, whose activities to identify impaired drivers
and remove them from the roads. We support prosecutors who help
make sure that, if there is a repeat offender, an impaired
driver, that they have the tools, they are educated and have
the tools to make sure that driver is directed appropriately in
court.
So we have been supporting not only public education, but
the system at the State and local level that can remove those
dangerous drivers from our roads. I believe it starts with
public education, because the market research has shown us
again and again that marijuana users, in particular, think they
drive better when they are high and yet, when they are in a
test simulator, the evidence shows they are impaired. They are
not driving better. They are slower to decide. They make bad
decisions and their reaction time is slowed.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. I can't believe anyone would assert
anything to the contrary.
Nevertheless, is there any technology? You know, you get to
alcohol and you have got the breathalyzers and you have got,
you know, we can lock the steering wheels and everything. Is
there anything technologywise that can help us with something
like that----
Ms. King. There are numerous technologies----
Mr. Carter [continuing]. Specifically the marijuana, and
opioid use, and impaired driving?
Ms. King. Of course, blood tests can show the evidence of--
--
Mr. Carter. But you can't take a blood test before you
crank a vehicle every time.
Ms. King. Oh, I understand. So there is not something that
is related to actually stopping operation of a vehicle. There
are roadside tools being developed. There is something, oral
fluid testing, where something like a swab can test for active
THC or other marijuana constituents. And we should be issuing a
report soon that discusses some of those technologies.
Mr. Carter. But no kind of technology on the car itself
that NHTSA might be able to say, you are going to have do this
or do that?
Ms. King. Not yet. We have for alcohol. We have supported
innovations that can detect alcohol on the presence of breath
and that can be related to whether or not the vehicle can be
operated, but that has not been developed for marijuana. Not
yet.
Mr. Carter. Well, and I do thank you for your efforts on
that, because it is something that is very important, and
should be very important to all of us, and certainly something
that is very important to me.
Mr. Wehrum, I would like to ask you very quickly, it looks
like, from what I understand, the proposed SAFE Rule that
should be finalized sometime soon freezes targets at the model
year 2020 levels. And I understand that, but yet we are still
going to, from what I have gathered hearing here that, by 2026
because of certain elements, if you will, certain changes, that
we are still going to be able achieve the decrease in emissions
that was proposed by the previous administration. How is that?
How can we possibly do that?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, part of what we are trying to do with the
rule is make it cleaner and simpler. And I will give you an
example of something that effects the standards on paper versus
what they do in real life, which is for every electric vehicle
sold, it counts as more than one vehicle for compliance
purposes. And that doesn't produce any additional emissions
reduction. That is purely an accounting exercise for purposes
of trying to promote the development of electric vehicles.
So that is one example of where you look at the paper and
it looks like, you know, that the current standards are
considerably more stringent than the alternatives we have
proposed, but when you take into account the practical reality,
it is not so much.
Mr. Carter. Well, good. Again, I want to thank both of you
for doing this.
I am one who believes that this is what we should be doing
when we come to policies and, particularly, legislation. I have
never seen a perfect piece of legislation. It has to be
tweaked. It has to be massaged over time, and I think that is
exactly what we are doing here, and I applaud your efforts and
thank you.
And I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize Congresswoman Blunt
Rochester for 5 minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you Madam Chairwoman. And thank
you to the panelists.
I wanted to first start my questions to Deputy
Administrator King. Also, I wanted to thank Congressman Tonko
as well for this joint hearing.
I wanted to first direct my questions to you. And there
were more surrounding NHTSA's rulemaking and setting of
standards. And it is my understanding, and you can just confirm
or deny, that NHTSA was to set a standard on side impact
requirements for child restraints systems by October 1, 2014.
Are you familiar with that?
Ms. King. I am familiar with the rulemaking but not the
date, and I am familiar with the work. As you know, these very
important safety rules that rely on engineering, we have to get
them right if we are going to save lives. And so research is
involved in developing the rules.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. OK. And then the rear seatbelt
reminder rulemaking was due October 1, 2015. Are you familiar
with that one?
Ms. King. I am familiar. And similarly, we want to make
sure we are making decisions from the best possible
information.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. And then the rulemaking ensuring that
consumers are notified of safety recalls via email, in addition
to the mandate requiring consumer information about crash
avoidance technologies to put on vehicle labels.
I guess the line of questioning is really to ask, how do
you prioritize? What is the process that made NHTSA really
focus less on these congressional mandates that are in the
pipeline and change the CAFE standards? How did you come to
that determination of the prioritization?
Ms. King. First, I am pleased to find a fan of our safety
rulemakings. They are very important to us, and our teams work
very, very hard. I can't say that it is--we issue the
rulemakings when we are ready.
With vehicle technology, vehicles are more complicated than
they have ever been before. They now are among the most complex
digital products that each of us own--not our computers, but
our cars. So when we are responding to congressional direction
to issue a new rulemaking, we have to make sure that the
researchers design and do research to inform that rulemaking so
we don't accidentally issue a standard that could have
unintended consequences, including unintended safety
consequences.
So we have research in progress. Oftentimes, the
rulemakings on our regulatory agenda that are not meeting
timelines, that is because the engineers at NHTSA and the
academic universities are finishing the research that will
inform the rulemaking.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. So basically, you are saying these 5-
year-old missed deadlines are because you are waiting for
external forces to influence and that the change in the CAFE
standards, which seems to be complicated as well----
Ms. King. Yes, and a different team. We have a dedicated
team on the fuel economy standards. Now these, the folks
working on this, the engineers, rulemaking, they have an
expertise in fuel economy engineering. We have a team of
vehicle safety research engineers that work on the other
research to inform rulemakings.
I am happy to sit with you or have my team sit with your
staff and walk through all of our rulemakings. But I will say
we will always be science- and data-driven to make sure we do
the right thing for safety.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Well, one of the concerns I have is
that, when it is 5 years out and they are congressional
mandates, that is a concern, and 40,000 deaths on the roads
really, in our country, is a priority, particularly when we are
trying to decrease the standards of something that have, I
think, been for the betterment of our country.
And I want to turn now to Mr. Wehrum, because I wanted to
follow up on Ms. Clarke's line of questioning. In the State
where I am from, Delaware, we are one of the lowest-lying
States in the country, and so we are the lowest, and it is--the
whole issue of air pollution is a priority for us, especially
emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides from other States that
travel across State lines and settle over Delaware. Twenty-five
percent of children in the city of Wilmington have been
diagnosed with asthma. The rate is nearly 30 percent for
African American children in my State.
And my first question is really just a yes-or-no question,
which is: Is the EPA mandated to consider public health when
developing environmental regulations? Is the EPA mandated?
Mr. Wehrum. Of course.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Yes. And then, will this proposed
rule--this is also yes or no. Will this proposed rule, if
promulgated, result in the increase of emissions of more
localized air pollutants?
Mr. Wehrum. As Ms. King pointed out, it is a mixed bag. Our
projection says some pollution would go down and a couple of
pollutants would go up. And when you put it all together, it is
kind of a wash.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. So, Mr. Wehrum, please, in the Federal
Register, you actually stated that it ``will increase emissions
of more localized air pollutants (or their chemical
precursors).'' That was in the Federal Register, Volume 83,
Number 165, page 4,367.
Chairman Schakowsky, I ask unanimous consent to submit a
copy of the Federal Register that I am quoting from.
Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
I just want to end up, because I know my time has run out,
by saying we, as a country, want to be improving, not just
maintaining or going backwards. And so I hope that this hearing
will impress upon you the importance of it, not just for my
State, not just for our country, but for the world.
Thank you and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, Mr. Gianforte, you have 5 minutes for your
questions.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for our
panelists being here today.
Administrator King, could you explain how costly
regulations for fuel economy standards are forcing Americans to
stay in older cars longer?
Ms. King. I am happy to. Today, vehicles are more expensive
than they have been in memory, certainly, more than $37,000 is
the average price of a new car.
Now, because vehicles have been developed to last for a
while, the average age of our cars is also older. It is almost
12 years now. So one could say nobody needs a new car. There
are more cars licensed to operate on our roads than there are
adults, about 270 million cars licensed to operate on our
roads, about 240 million drivers with driver's licenses.
So the question is, How do you get folks into newer, safer,
cleaner cars to have the environmental safety and fuel economy
benefits? Raising the price is not going to get people into
newer cars. We know that consumers are price-sensitive because
they have fixed budgets. So increasing the price of a new car
will reduce safety and not help with the other goals either.
Mr. Gianforte. Could you explain a little more about how
people staying in older cars longer impacts safety?
Ms. King. Newer cars include technologies, whether it be
lightweighting or whether it be crash avoidance. There are new
designs for vehicles that help protect the passenger
compartment. Airbags, that has been a fantastic innovation to
improve safety. So we want to make sure that folks have the
opportunity to buy a newer, safer car and take advantage of
those technological advances, not only crash protections now,
but also crash avoidance. Occupant protection and crash
avoidance can save a lot of lives on our roads.
Mr. Gianforte. OK, a follow on the same question, except
related to air quality.
Ms. King. Yes.
Mr. Gianforte. What impact does keeping people in older
cars longer have on air quality?
Ms. King. Older vehicles are not as fuel efficient. Older
vehicles, on average, emit more. So the decision or the policy
that helps get folks into newer, safer, cleaner cars, while of
course those newer, safer, cleaner cars, if they are a very
stringent standard, folks may not go into--not as many people
will buy the newer car. If it is a less expensive standard,
more people can get into the newer, safer, cleaner cars.
And the effect on emissions is somewhat of a wash. So for
the criteria pollutants that are associated with asthma or
other health problems, particulate matter, ozone, NOx, those
pollutants, it is all a wash because you get more people into
cleaner cars when the standard is realistic.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Just to put a point on it, you stated in
your testimony that newer cars are safer, and cleaner, and you
repeated that here. Is one of the objectives of the SAFE
Vehicle Rule to get more Americans into the newer cars? And if
we do that, instead of the negative side, talk about the
positive side of that. What would the outcome be if we got more
people in newer, safer, cleaner cars?
Ms. King. Now of course the standard is set, as it needs to
be. Congress directed us to make it maximum feasible, which
takes into account economic practicability.
So the positive effect of getting folks into newer,
cleaner, safer cars is not only safety and reduced emission at
the family level, improved fuel economy at the family level. So
at the individual family level, there are tremendous benefits.
And in aggregate, it is a very good option as well.
Mr. Gianforte. So everybody benefits?
Ms. King. We believe so, but we have not made a decision
yet. We are modeling. We are reading the public comments, and
we are considering all public comments we receive before make
decisions in the final rulemaking.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. And then Administrator King, I have a
real problem with Government dictating consumer choice and
repetitive, inconsistent bureaucracy increasing cost on
consumers. Can you explain how the proposed rule is taking
those concerns into consideration?
Ms. King. Yes, this is a maximum feasible standard, which
allows for innovation that suits people who do want highly
fuel-efficient, battery electric alternative power train
vehicles, as well as someone who might need a vehicle which is
large, and powerful, and can help meet their needs in rural
America, perhaps working in a setting where they don't have
capability to plug in, charge.
So we are trying to set a standard that is maximum feasible
across the entire fleet, taking into account market realities
and consumer needs, safety, and prices.
Mr. Gianforte. Our needs in Montana are different than L.A.
We need four-wheel drive in the winter. We need bigger vehicles
just for road safety and other things. So I appreciate you
taking that into account. We shouldn't be telling consumers
what they can and can't buy. So I appreciate your testimony
today.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, Mr. O'Halleran, you have 5 minutes for
questioning.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, a little brief statement. I think on your modeling,
and your safety issues, and stuff like that, I would like to
know a little bit more. And are you going to allow those to be
transparent to others within the public of how that modeling
process works and what information went into the modeling
process?
Ms. King. Yes, in fact, it is on our website. It has been
public for quite some time. It even has videos. You can
download the model. You can run it. You can watch a video on
how.
Mr. O'Halleran. Great. And also I am aware that health
experts from around this country, hundreds and hundreds of
them, have clearly indicated that health would be affected by
this change. And as a grandfather, as a parent, folks, I just
don't understand how we are going to balance this concern about
healthcare and then, obviously, experts around the country are
also concerned about the carbon emissions, and the impact we
have seen on both our climate, our weather, and the long-term
viability of some of the systems that we have in our country
and our health.
So first of all, Deputy Administrator King, your agency
received comments from the National Tribal Air Association,
which has 136 principle member Tribes as participants, opposing
the proposal to roll back carbon pollution standards and fuel
efficiency standards. The association urged EPA and NHTSA to
uphold the current standards.
Are you aware of this comment?
Ms. King. I am aware of commenters who have that concern,
yes.
Mr. O'Halleran. But this comment here, are you aware of it?
Ms. King. We had received about 650,000 comments----
Mr. O'Halleran. OK, thank you.
Ms. King [continuing]. And I don't remember them all. I am
sorry.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you. Did your agencies consider the
impact of this proposal on Tribal sovereignty?
Ms. King. I am sorry?
Mr. O'Halleran. Did your consider the impact of your
proposal on Tribal sovereignty?
Ms. King. We are required by law to consider so, and so I
believe that we must have. I don't recall the specific language
here yet, but there are certain executive orders that apply to
all regulations which we address rigorously in all rulemakings.
Mr. O'Halleran. OK, thank you.
To both witnesses: Is it your intention to finalize a rule
that will weaken Tribal authority to improve air quality and
reduce carbon pollution on Tribal lands?
Ms. King. It is not our intention, no. And I am not
familiar with the issues that may be raised there. So I would
be happy to learn more.
Mr. O'Halleran. Is it because you didn't reach out to the
Tribal Nations?
Ms. King. No, that is not so. It is because we have 650,000
comments.
Mr. O'Halleran. Well, I will get to that in a second.
Is it your intention to finalize a rule that will prevent
Tribes from reducing air pollution and its accompanying health
problems in their communities?
Ms. King. That is not an intention, no. Our intention is to
execute the direction of Congress to the agency to set a
maximum feasible fuel economy standard.
Mr. O'Halleran. And Mr. Wehrum, what about you?
Mr. Wehrum. That is not our intention, Congressman.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
Considering these severe impacts on Tribes, did your
agencies reach out to Tribes for consultation? Specifically,
did your agency comply with Executive Order 13175, which
requires consultation and coordination with Tribal Governments?
Ms. King. I will check back with my agency and reply to
you, to make sure I provide the most accurate information.
Mr. O'Halleran. I am disappointed by the lack of
consultation. It appears, at least from my perspective, from
the start, EPA and NHTSA have shut Tribal Governments and
communities out of discussions about this rule. This is my
input from--I represent 12 Tribal Nations and the largest
number of population of any district in the country of Tribal
members.
Will your agencies commit to engaging in a Government-to-
Government consultation on this in future actions related to
carbon pollution and emissions, and air pollution, especially
considering the unique and disproportionate vulnerabilities to
climate change experienced by Tribes?
Ms. King. Our engagement with all partners is very, very
important to us because safety is where the rubber hits the
road in our communities, whether they be Tribal, city, county,
State. So we will continue in all of our programs, whether they
be regulatory or safety programs, to be very eager to partner
and hear from our very important partners.
Mr. O'Halleran. And what about the EPA?
Mr. Wehrum. I agree with Ms. King.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
And so I just guess that I hope we all agree, eventually,
on the concerns about healthcare, and climate change, and all
those other elements, and how they factor into your decisions,
and how they factor, if at all, into your modeling processes
into the future.
So thank you very much, and I yield.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now welcome to the subcommittees, Mr. Loebsack, who is
waiving on, and you are recognized now for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank
Chairman Tonko and the Ranking Members McMorris Rodgers and
Shimkus for allowing me to waive on today.
I am doing this for an important reason. I am from Iowa.
That is corn country, and as you might imagine, Mr. Wehrum, we
are going to be talking about some things that have to do with
the RFS.
And I do want to thank you, first, you and the folks at the
EPA and the President, who worked to finalize the rule for
year-round E15. That is something I have been working on since
I got to Congress, quite honestly. I took the previous
administration to task on that. I have taken this
administration to task on that. I am fully bipartisan in my
concerns because I am from Iowa, and as you might imagine, it
is very important for us.
And, unfortunately, the rule cannot possibly undo the
damage that is being done to the biofuels industry by the
literal explosion of small refinery waivers that the EPA has
issued under this administration. We have seen those numbers
skyrocket in recent years.
I understand you were with Administrator Wheeler and the
President in Iowa recently. Is that correct? Did you accompany
them?
Mr. Wehrum. Last week, yes.
Mr. Loebsack. Yes, thank you. Thank you for being there.
I understand, during that visit, that Kevin Ross from the
Iowa and National Corn Growers Associations made another appeal
to the President to listen to farmers and to stop the abuse of
the RFS small refinery waiver program. I know Kevin very well.
I know all those corn growers, as you might imagine, very well.
EPA recently has not denied a single waiver request for
these small refinery waivers in the last 2 years, and in doing
so, many have argued that essentially they have destroyed over
2 billion gallons of biofuel demand, directly hurting farmers
who grow the corn and soybeans for ethanol and biodiesel,
respectively.
EPA has cited the court decision in the Sinclair case as
justification for granting these additional waivers, but a May
16th Reuters article--you may have seen that--calls that
justification into question and indicates that the decision to
stop denying the waivers was made at least 4 months before the
Sinclair decision. If EPA's justification was valid, then EPA
must have adjusted the criteria for evaluating waiver
applications in response to the court's decision.
If this is the case, Mr. Wehrum, what are the new criteria
for evaluating waiver applications, and why didn't EPA provide
public notice of the change in criteria and obtain public
comments?
Mr. Wehrum. Well, Congressman, to my knowledge, the
criteria we consider are the same as they have ever been, that
we are ultimately obligated to look at whether there is
significant economic hardship on the small refineries imposed
by the RFS program. And we rely a lot on the analysis done for
us by DOE, as I am sure you know, and they do a very detailed
review of the applications we receive for economic viability,
and market position, and other structural issues.
Mr. Loebsack. Yes, I have to say I don't think that is
consistent with the changes we have seen. So I think we are
going to have to agree to disagree on that because, prior to
that decision, the criteria were different. Now, how they get
operationalized by you folks, that is another question, and I
do want to explore that more after this hearing, if we can do
that.
And also you mentioned DOE. We have had DOE here before,
and I have waved on to talk to folks from DOE. And I think that
process is not very transparent, and I think that is a big part
of the problem we have here, is a lack of transparency, quite
honestly, both in DOE and how they do this, and how EPA does
this as well.
So, you know, I guess the question really comes to just
sort of what EPA is doing with respect to these waivers. I
really want to have a lot more clarity on that. I would like to
have a lot more transparency in this process, both EPA and the
Department of Energy.
And I just think this really begs--what this begs is the
question of sort of how close to bankruptcy, if you will, do
these small refineries have to be really to be granted the
waiver? And I think we are going to see some discussion of that
coming up.
I just saw an article. I think the President has called for
a review of this process. And so I am sure that you folks are
going to be part of that review. We are going to continue to
monitor that on a bipartisan basis, those of us who are from
corn country and soybean country.
But I do want to just say that, unfortunately, EPA has
continued to fail to acknowledge the likelihood of waived
gallons for the RVO as well. Because if we are going to see
waivers going down, coming from the EPA, I think when we talk
about RVOs for the upcoming year, we have to take into account
some anticipation that some of that is not going to be
fulfilled because of those waivers, and we haven't seen that.
I just think that the EPA is egregiously undermining the
biofuels industry, and has been the last couple of years, and
its actions really are causing irreparable harm to a lot of
folks in corn country, as you might imagine. Combine that with
the trade issues that we are seeing as well, and it is a real
problem for biofuels producers in the Midwest and for people
who work in those factories, as well.
So I am looking forward to the President's review of the
process. And I will continue to come back and, hopefully, be
waived on and ask some more questions in the future.
Thank you.
Mr. Wehrum. Thank you.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Let me end by thanking our witnesses for being here. And so
Panel 1, we thank you.
And we are going to take a 5-minute break, during which
time if the Panel 2 can gather, we will be right back.
[Recess.]
Ms. Schakowsky. So we will now hear from our second panel,
and the witnesses are Mary Nichols, who is chair of the
California Air Resources Board.
Nick Loris, deputy director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute
for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert & Joyce Morgan Fellow
in Energy and Environmental Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
We have Ramzi Hermiz, who is president and chief executive
officer of Shiloh Industries, Inc.
We have David Schwietert, interior chief executive officer
of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
We have Josh Nassar, legislative director of the
International Union, United Automobile and Aerospace Workers
and Agricultural and Implement Workers of America.
We have Jeff Landry, attorney general of the State of
Louisiana. Welcome. OK. All right. Former member.
Shoshana Lew, executive director of the Colorado Department
of Transportation.
And David Friedman, vice president of advocacy for Consumer
Reports.
We want to thank our wonderful, diverse panel of witnesses
for joining us today. We look forward to your testimony.
At this time, the Chair will begin by recognizing Ms.
Nichols for 5 minutes to provide her opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF MARY NICHOLS, CHAIR, CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD; NICOLAS LORIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND HERBERT & JOYCE
MORGAN FELLOW, ROE INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY STUDIES, THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION; RAMZI HERMIZ, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHILOH INDUSTRIES, INC.; DAVID SCHWIETERT,
INTERIM PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALLIANCE OF
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; JOSH NASSAR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
UNITED AUTO WORKERS; JEFFERY LANDRY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
LOUISIANA; SHOSHANA M. LEW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND DAVID J. FRIEDMAN, VICE
PRESIDENT, ADVOCACY, CONSUMER REPORTS
STATEMENT OF MARY NICHOLS
Ms. Nichols. Thank you very much. It helps to turn the
button on.
I, with your permission, am not going to read my prepared
testimony, which has been submitted for the record, except for
one paragraph, because it goes to something that was said
earlier this morning and to a rather shocking letter actually
that was released just today that I heard about from the press,
accusing me in advance of saying untrue things about the status
of the discussions between California and the administration.
So I am just going to read this piece of it:
``California has worked hard to address the challenge with
the spirit of innovation we bring to all we do. We have met
more than a dozen times with members of this administration,
including at the White House on multiple occasions, to try to
come to resolution. We have been open to accommodations that
would adjust compliance timing and flexibility, that would
create new paths to promote innovative technologies and zero-
emission vehicles, and that would benefit the public. Each
time, the Trump administration has been unwilling to find a way
that works. Their claim that California offered no
counterproposal is false. They unilaterally decided to cut off
conversations--an action which the automakers have asked them
to reverse.''
I stand by every single word in that paragraph, Madam
Chairman, and some of them are of particular significance, I
think, because we have not talked publicly about precisely what
was discussed in those meetings.
I was under the belief that the meetings themselves were
confidential, being conducted under Chatham House Rules, and we
never released specifics of what we talked about in those
meetings.
But I would state categorically that we proposed areas in
which we would be willing to come to a compromise with the
administration, and we never were told precisely what was wrong
with any of those proposals. We were simply told that they were
inadequate and that we had somehow failed to do our job by not
bringing a proposal that the administration found to be
acceptable.
We were told in December that the administration had
decided to cut off any further attempts to talk with us, and so
that was the last conversation that we had.
Now, I want to talk a little bit about where we find
ourselves at the moment. First of all, California is not here
because we are seeking to defy the Federal Government.
We are in the business of setting emissions standards for
vehicles based on a provision of the Clean Air Act that, in
turn, has been part of the Clean Air Act ever since there was a
national Clean Air Act going back to 1970, which recognizes the
unfortunate fact that California is both very big and a very
important market for vehicles, and also has some of the worst
air quality in the United States in any given year, both in the
Los Angeles region and in the Central Valley.
So it is not only the city or urban areas. We also have
severe air quality problems in our more rural areas, and these
areas, in turn, are particularly affected by the transport from
large commercial vehicles that go up and down the freeways and
bring goods from our ports and to our ports to locations
throughout the United States but also have a very serious
impact on the health of the residents of those areas.
So we have been working in these areas for a long time, and
I was personally proud to be part of the negotiations that led
to the standards that EPA and NHTSA are now proposing to roll
back.
I want to just address a couple of things that I think were
said or implied that I think are important for the committee to
understand.
On several occasions when asked a question by members of
the committee, one or the other of the administration witnesses
said these were really complicated issues and therefore they
couldn't really address them directly.
The issues actually are not all that complicated. What
happened was that we adopted a set of standards that aligned
the CAFE standards with the emissions standards that EPA
administers.
California, which derives its power from the Clean Air Act,
came to the table, was part of the discussions, and we then
agreed that these Federal standards would serve as an
alternative to the California standards.
So we deemed the Federal standards to be in compliance with
California, thereby automatically accepting any car or light
truck that meets the Federal standards as meeting California
standards, and we have been in that position together with the
Federal Government for quite some time now, and we have wanted
to be part of any discussions that happened about changes.
We have participated in the technical review of the
standards. We have also agreed that there were issues that were
not entirely contemplated at the time that we adopted those
standards, although I think it is stretching it to say that the
companies have not been able to comply because, in fact, we
have had no companies that were in violation either of the
Clean Air Act standards or CAFE standards ever, and up through
this year.
Sometimes they have complied using credits that they had
banked because of previous overcompliance with the rule. But
that's how the rule was structured.
I know I am using my time. So if you would like me to stop
at this point----
Mr. Tonko [presiding]. Yes. We will have a ton of
questions----
Ms. Nichols. Yes.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. And I agree with your sentiments
that some of these questions earlier were straightforward. But,
Chair Nichols, we thank you for participating.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nichols follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0609.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0609.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0609.136
Mr. Tonko Now we move to Mr. Loris for 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF NICOLAS LORIS
Mr. Loris. Thank you.
Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, Ranking
Member Shimkus, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
The views I express in this testimony are my own and should
not be construed as representing any official position of the
Heritage Foundation.
Fuel economy mandates harm American consumers by
constraining choice and driving up prices for new and used
vehicles. These costs have negative economic effects that
ripple throughout our economy.
In this regard, I would like to make four brief
observations.
First, consumers should control what type of cars they buy
and drive. Consumers like saving money. They don't need the
Federal Government to tell them that, nor do they need the
Federal Government to tell them how to do it.
If car buyers value fuel economy over other vehicle traits,
they will choose to purchase a more fuel-efficient car without
any mandate in place.
In fact, a 2016 Journal of Public Economics study examined
consumers' willingness to pay for fuel efficiency based on
changes in gas prices and found that consumers do in fact fully
value fuel economy in the way that they should.
However, consumers value other vehicle attributes such as
weight, engine size, power, and safety. When the Federal
Government imposes more stringent fuel economy mandates,
regulators override these preferences and skew investment
decisions that automakers must make in order to comply with
CAFE.
Second, forcing automakers to install various fuel-saving
technologies is costly. Mandates that drive up the sticker
price by thousands of dollars per vehicle will price buyers out
of the market.
Several teams of economists and engineers accurately
predicted that the model year 2016 standards hurt consumers by
at least $3,800 per car.
My colleagues estimate that eliminating the more stringent
standards will save 2025 car buyers thousands of dollars per
vehicle more.
Moreover, higher prices for new cars increase demand for
used ones, causing the price of used vehicles to increase as
well. Even after accounting for reasonable gas savings,
economists find that fuel economy mandates impose net costs to
consumers with low-income households being among the hardest
hit.
Higher prices reverberate throughout the market, which
affects fleet turnover and consequently reduces fuel savings
and emission reduction estimates.
My third observation is that fuel saving estimates from
CAFE regulations are not only difficult to project but are also
likely too generous.
When promulgating CAFE rules, the Federal Government
projects gas prices several decades into the future. While
those price scenarios are plausible, increases in oil supply
and changes in consumer behavior could drive prices down even
further, and consumers would save much less money than
projected.
Simply put, when gas prices are low, there is less value to
higher fuel economy. Either way, the reality is it is difficult
to project gas prices 30 weeks into the future, let alone for
the next 30 years.
Importantly, many economic analyses of CAFE standards
disregard the fact that households purchase more than one car.
Three-quarters of American families are multicar households,
and the purchase of their second or third vehicle may have less
to do with fuel economy and more to do with size, storage,
power, and other attributes that consumers desire.
According to a joint paper from economists at Cal Berkeley,
MIT, and the University of Chicago, this substitution effect
erodes a substantial portion of the estimated gas savings.
Furthermore, the well-known rebound effect and the lesser-
known scrapping effect negates some of the estimated fuel
savings. The rebound effect occurs when people drive more
because their vehicles are more fuel efficient, and over time
incentivizing more driving changes where people live and has
perverse effects of creating more congestion.
The scrapping effect occurs because CAFE mandates affect
prices in both the new- and used-car markets. Changes in used-
car prices influence when owners decide to scrap their
vehicles.
In a 2015 American Economic Review study, the authors note
that the cascading price effects on used cars because of CAFE
means consumers disproportionately hold on to their used gas
guzzlers longer, resulting in additional fuel usage.
As more stringent fuel economy standards increase new- and
used-car prices, the authors estimate that 13 to 16 percent of
the expected fuel savings will leak away through the used-
vehicle market.
My fourth observation is that no matter where one stands on
the urgency to combat climate change, CAFE mandates are an
ineffective policy instrument.
By the Obama administration's own account, the 2012 to 2025
standards would abate less then 200th of a degree Celsius
warming by the year 2100.
In conclusion, fuel economy mandates do far more harm to
American families than good. Consumers should have the freedom
to buy the vehicle of their choice.
Neither Washington nor Sacramento should exclusively
dictate those decisions. Rather than relying on regulations,
pricing signals and consumers preferences should inform car
buyers' choices.
The Federal Government implemented CAFE standards under the
false premise of imminent resource exhaustion. They are a relic
of the past.
These mandates were not good policy in the 1970s, and they
make even less sense today in an era of oil abundance.
Americans will be best served when consumers are fully in the
driver's seat.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Loris follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Loris.
Next, we will go to Mr. Hermiz for 5 minutes. You are
recognized now. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF RAMZI HERMIZ
Mr. Hermiz. Good afternoon, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers. Thank you for
inviting me for the opportunity to discuss the EPA and NHTSA's
proposal for greenhouse gas emission standards, CAFE for light-
duty vehicles, and One National Program.
My name is Ramzi Hermiz. I am the president and CEO of
Shiloh Industries, and I am also the chairman of the board of
the Original Equipment Suppliers Association, which is a
division of MEMA.
Shiloh is a U.S.-based company headquartered in Ohio
focused on developing and manufacturing technologies that
provide improved performance, environmental, and safety
benefits to the mobility market.
Shiloh has over 3,800 employees, with operations in North
America, Europe, and Asia. Twenty-one hundred of those
employees are located in Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio,
Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
MEMA represents more than 1,000 companies that supply
components to the automotive industry. The supply base is the
Nation's largest sectors of manufacturing jobs, directly
employing 871,000 workers and creating more than 4.2 million
indirect jobs.
Every day, companies like Shiloh work to provide job
opportunities in the United States. We push ourselves to be
world leaders in the development of innovative and safe
technologies.
As leaders, we challenge ourselves and our teams every
single day. Shiloh and MEMA support the challenge of meeting
continued improvement to fuel economy and emission standards
under One National Program.
We believe that this committee, through its leadership, has
a unique opportunity to enable U.S. job growth, promote the
U.S. automotive industry, and support U.S. technology
leadership while benefiting the consumer and the environment.
Of the alternatives proposed, it is our view that the U.S.
can most effectively seize these opportunities through
alternative 6 and 8, which call for annual improvements to the
standards.
My comments today will focus on three points: jobs,
investment, and technology.
First, IHS market recently found that demand for technology
created by alternative 8 would result in the auto industry
growing an additional 250,000 jobs by 2025 in comparison to a
zero percent improvement path that would result in the loss of
500,000 jobs over the same period.
Second, a zero percent improvement path would strand
billions of dollars in its supplier investments made in the
U.S. already that have transformed the industry's fuel economy
and emissions performance.
Further, a continued improvement objective coupled with One
National Program will provide certainty in economies of scale
necessary for additional investment in R&D, manufacturing,
jobs, and training, which will create a competitive advantage
for the U.S. automotive industry and lead to continued
innovation, reduce compliance costs, and provide more choices
and value for consumers.
Third, continuous improvement to the standards will provide
the U.S. industry with the structure and incentive to innovate
here at home in the U.S. as we pursue global leadership in
safe, fuel-efficient, and emissions-reducing technologies.
Finally, we urge you to set the objectives without
specifying a specific solution, as we believe that our industry
will use its experience, ingenuity, and grit to succeed while
providing the automakers and consumers and with a wide array of
options.
Overall, our strategy for fuel economies and fuel
efficiencies can be achieved through many different
alternatives, lightweighting being one of those opportunities.
In conclusion, in order to preserve and grow jobs in
investments in the U.S. and support U.S. technology leadership,
Shiloh and MEMA urge you to support continuous improvement to
the fuel efficiency and emissions standards and One National
Program.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hermiz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT OF DAVID SCHWIETERT
Mr. Schwietert. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Schakowsky,
Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, Chairman Tonko, and Ranking
Member Shimkus.
I would ask that my formal written statement be submitted
for the record along with the attachments that I submitted to
the committee earlier. But I will give an abbreviated oral
statement.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me make sure that everybody knows who
we are talking to. Mr. Schwietert--is that right?
Mr. Schwietert. That's correct.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. I am sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Schwietert. Wonderful. I am David Schwietert----
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me--one other thing. I wanted you to
know that in the anteroom here I was watching everything. So I
saw the testimony. I don't want you to think that I left the
room on you. I was just in the side room.
Thank you. OK.
Mr. Schwietert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am David
Schwietert, and I am the interim president and CEO of the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and we represent 12
leading automakers who hail from three countries who
manufacture over 70 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in
the United States.
By creating jobs, fueling innovation, building exports, and
advancing mobility, automakers are driving the American economy
forward. No other single industry is linked so much to U.S.
manufacturing or generates so much retail business and
employment.
Nationwide, nearly 10 million workers and their families
depend on the auto industry. Automakers are committed to a
cleaner future, and the auto industry has invested billions of
dollars on power train development, and that investment is
paying off.
Automakers are providing customers with record-breaking
choices in fuel-efficient vehicles. Today, more than 490 models
are available on sale that achieve at least 30 miles per
gallon, an increase of nearly 70 percent from the 2012 model
year, and more alternative power trains are on sale, including
45 models of hybrids, 34 plug-in hybrids, 24 full battery
electric models, and 3 fuel cell models.
These investments are making a difference both for
consumers and the environment. Since 2005, real-world fuel
economy has increased by over 27 percent.
These record gains are also important, but they're not the
only success story. Today, per-mile carbon emissions from new
passenger vehicles have dropped 22 percent in just 15 years,
which approaches the goals of the Paris Climate Accord for the
U.S. to reduce economywide greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28
percent over 20 years.
Alliance members have committed to a roadmap for fuel
economy and clean-car progress. According to consumer research,
our customers want it all, which is why automakers are
committed to offering more fuel-efficient autos with fewer
emissions and the latest safety technologies.
Automakers seek to accomplish this while working to keep
automobiles affordable. Simply put, automakers support year-
over-year increases in fuel economy that align with market
demand, and we support a data-driven final rule in One National
Program.
One National Program is important for many reasons because
in the last decade automakers have been subject to three
different regulators--NHTSA, EPA, and the California Air
Resources Board--pursuing similar objectives in different ways.
Redundant government programs drive compliance costs, and
that ultimately comes out of the wallets of our customers.
Automakers worked with the three regulators to more closely
align standards in two rulemakings covering model years 2012 to
'16 and 2017 to 2025.
The result was what is now called One National Program.
Unfortunately, to this day we still have three separate
programs. However, One National Program is still good policy to
keep new vehicles affordable so more Americans can buy new
vehicles, replacing older, less efficient models.
Automakers also support a data-driven final rule. When the
2012 to 2025 standards were developed, the midterm evaluation
was planned to be completed by April of 2018, halfway through
the 14-year rulemaking.
This evaluation was intended to compare assumptions made in
2012 or earlier with what was actually happening to evaluate
whether future standards should be maintained or adjusted up or
down, depending on a wide range of factors.
This was an agreement by all parties--automakers, the
Department of Transportation, EPA, and CARB. One market reality
is clear: No factor is more relevant than gas prices, which
remain significantly lower than projected in 2012, when fuel
standards were last set.
As a result, consumers are buying more SUVs, pickups,
larger engines and fewer automotive power trains like hybrids
and electric vehicles than regulators expected.
The clear challenge facing automakers is that consumer
preferences do not align with market targets originally
envisioned back in 2012.
Under current Federal regulations, automakers are judged by
what consumers buy, not what they offer for sale in showrooms.
Consumers have many different preferences, goals, or priorities
when purchasing a new vehicle.
The market demonstrates that these many factors--notably,
affordability, safety, reliability--rank much higher than fuel
economy. Despite record numbers of models of alternative power
trains and fuel-efficient vehicles being offered in dealer
showrooms, sales of these vehicles remain low--less than 4
percent of all new vehicle sales last year.
If you remove hybrid vehicles, plug-in electric vehicles
account for less than 2 percent of all sales nationwide. To put
it concisely, at present consumer preference and market
realities do not align with policy aspirations outlined in
2012.
The previous '22 to '25 standards do not reflect market
realities and therefore warrant adjustments. In conclusion,
this requires compromise, understanding, and a willingness to
find a path forward that serves all interests, and this is why
automakers remain steadfast in our support for an agreement
that balances environmental goals, consumer preference, and
market realities.
When it comes to fuel economy, the auto industry is
committed to ongoing progress and a journey that has no end.
After all, automakers have invested substantially in energy-
efficient technologies that we would like to see consumers
embrace. We expect that fuel economy will keep rising. The only
issue is at what speed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwietert follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Schwietert.
Let me now recognize Mr. Nassar for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOSH NASSAR
Mr. Nassar. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking
Member McMorris, Chairman Tonko, and Ranking Member Shimkus and
members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today.
I am testifying here on behalf of, and it is a real honor,
of the 1 million members and retirees of the United Auto
Workers, our president, Gary Jones, and the International
Executive Board, and I want to just talk about why we care so
much about this.
Obviously, a lot of our members work in the industry and
their very livelihoods are on the line here with the decisions
that are made.
It is not just that. It is also the wellbeing of our
retirees is greatly dependent on the success of the auto
industry. So, simply put, we look out for what is best for our
members and what is going to create the most good jobs. That's
our priority here.
Now, as far as this proposal, we--after real careful
consideration--we do not support the preferred alternative
because we are really concerned that it is going to actually
stifle companies from innovating and also from, you know,
competing in a global economy as far as being export markets.
And I do want to say that, you know, many of the new
technologies you see in cars and more efficient cars are built
here in the United States, and we want to keep it that way.
Now, for us another reason why we oppose this is because
protracted legal chaos and just uncertainty of what's going on
really does damage investment decisions. It absolutely does.
So our concern is how policies being made today impact
workers today and tomorrow. And so, in other words, for us this
is not an abstract exercise, and I could point to new
technologies that our members make that probably would not have
been made without the existing standards.
So, for us, you know, we really see this as something that
can be a win-win. I mean, we are proud of the role we played in
helping set previous standards, where there was compromise,
where people did work together, and we think that should happen
again.
We also do believe that, you know, very much that climate
change is real and that we really have to do something about
it. We all have an obligation.
So good CAFE and GHG policy is good for our membership. It
is good for the auto industry, if it is done right--and it has
to be done right--and the only way that's going to happen is if
all the parties are around the table working on a compromise.
That's what we want to do. That's what we did last time.
Now, there are a lot of headwinds facing autoworkers. Over
the past 15 years, when adjusted for inflation, wages have
dropped over 20 percent for autoworkers in parts and final
assembly--over 20 percent, adjusted for inflation. And those
are official stats.
So for us, we are looking at, you know, why is that the
case, and there's a few--there's many, many reasons. One has to
do with, you know, frankly, we have trade agreements which have
really encouraged offshoring, and we are hoping that these
adjustments made to trade agreements will deal with that
situation.
You know, we also--there are perverse incentives in our tax
code that really reward companies investing overseas rather
than in the U.S.
We also lack an industrial policy as far as worker training
and really encouraging workers--you know, an alternate career
path to college. We really don't do enough to encourage that at
all.
And, you know, at the end of the day, we also have very
weak labor laws, and we have a lack of enforcement of our labor
laws, which has really led to a really hostile environment many
workers face.
These are the reasons why wages are dropping. It is not
because of CAFE standards. So CAFE standards are not the main
problem facing autoworkers, is what I am here to say.
And finally, I want to talk for a minute about EVs. There's
been a lot of talk about EVs.
We agree there's a low acceptance. It is just--the question
is the world's moving forward with EVs. What are we going to do
to make sure they're made here in the United States?
We are really concerned that more and more EVs are made
overseas, if you look at a lot of investments from the
companies, and we are falling behind as far as, you know,
building a lot of the technologies here in the U.S. and we are
worried that trend is going to continue.
The CAFE standards help encourage some of that. But we need
other policies, too. We need to really improve the
infrastructure for charging stations. We also think that
companies who receive Federal subsidies through the tax code or
otherwise do have an obligation to build more in America and to
treat their workers right. That is not the case today.
So for us, this is a situation where we can have a win-win.
We have had a win-win. But that's going to take a different
approach, and I just want to say we are ready to work with
everyone and this should not be a partisan issue. This is about
what's best for the U.S. and what's best for workers.
Thanks for your time. Look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nassar follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Nassar. You hit it right on
the button, too.
Now, Mr. Landry, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFFERY LANDRY
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking
Member Rodgers, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
As stated, I am Attorney General Jeff Landry from the great
State of Louisiana. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge
my former colleagues in the 112th Congress who are here on the
committee.
It is great to see so many of my friends before me. I was
honored to serve in this body on behalf of Louisiana's 3rd
Congressional District, and I am grateful for the opportunity
to testify before the people's representatives.
I am here today to support the administration's proposed
Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient vehicles rule, which will
safeguard lower-income Americans from unnecessary costs,
increases on newer safer vehicles. I support the proposal for
the following reasons.
One, a national standard should apply. Congress has made it
clear that a single policy should apply, and no compelling air
quality concern exists that is unique to one State.
California should not be able to effectively dictate fuel
economy standards, tailpipe emission requirements, and mandates
for zero-emission vehicles for Louisiana and the rest of the
Nation.
When a State is allowed to usurp congressional intent for
their own design, all other States in our republic suffer, and
by enacting its own regulations California is circumventing
Congress and using its size to create a de facto national fuel
efficiency framework affecting the national economy.
Recognizing this abuse of authority, I joined a coalition
of other State attorneys general in requesting the
administration revoke California's waiver for emissions
regulation.
Number two, the rule of law should be--it must be upheld. I
am a firm believer in the separation of powers and the rule of
law.
I am committed to these principles even when it may not be
politically prudent to do so, and I recognize that maintaining
consistency in these arenas is critical for our republic and
our economy to thrive.
I also concur with the assertion in a proposed rule that
State-based greenhouse gas tailpipe standards mandates are
preempted under the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975.
That legislation was enacted to address the United States'
dependency on OPEC by establishing uniform motor vehicle fuel
economy standards across the Nation.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to achieve those uniform
standards under current Federal policy. Instead, the voters of
States that prefer more stringent standards are allowed the
latitude to legislate as they see fit while voters in States
that prefer less stringent standards find themselves subjected
to the more stringent State standards.
When we allow one State's authority to increase Federal
standards for the entire Nation while preempting any State that
seeks to decrease them, we are acting inconsistent with bedrock
principles of federalism.
The current policy originated with the purported waiver
issued under the Clean Air Act. I agree that this ostensible
waiver was likewise preempted by the terms of the Energy Policy
Conservation Act.
Contrary to the Environmental Agency's prior interpretation
of the correlation of these statutes, State standards preempted
under the Energy Policy Conservation Act cannot rationally be
afforded a valid waiver of preemption under the Clean Air Act.
Number three, California's GHG waiver is inconsistent with
the Clean Air Act. Finally, I believe that the administration
improperly approved the California GHG waiver, as it is
inconsistent with Section 209 of the Clean Air Act.
After the Bush administration rejected California's
application in 2007, the Obama administration granted it in
2009. In doing so, EPA completely disregarded its own
administrative duty and refused to consider opponents' waivers
argument.
California was then allowed to enact its own emissions
regulations. There is no sound basis on which to conclude that
California standards address compelling and extraordinary air
quality concerns unique to California.
Finally, manufacturing costs associated with a moving
target standard create a great burden on our citizens.
Accepting this approach will increase costs that are borne by
consumers.
We should not be in the business of letting one State drive
the policy of the Nation. This is inherently undemocratic and,
in this case, inefficient to accomplish national goals.
I support the implementation of President Trump's safe-
vehicle rule and urge a revocation of the EPA's previous waiver
to California. After all, CAFE does not stand for California
Assumed Federal Empowerment.
Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Landry follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. And now I recognize Ms. Lew for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHOSHANA M. LEW
Ms. Lew. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member
McMorris Rodgers, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus,
members of the committee.
My name is Shoshana Lew, and I am the executive director of
the Colorado Department of Transportation. Thank you for
inviting me here to address the State's opposition to the
proposed rule which would freeze fuel efficiency standards that
require year-over-year improvements to cars and light trucks.
With the transportation sector on track to become the
leading source of emissions in Colorado, it is of the utmost
importance that we act boldly and aggressively to reduce
congestion in the air and on the road.
Achieving a cleaner fleet is a key component of Governor
Polis' roadmap to achieving 100 percent renewable energy by
2040.
At the State level, we are making tremendous progress.
Colorado electric vehicle sales in 2018 were over 2\1/2\ times
what they were in 2016. We are cutting ribbons at charging
facilities.
We are building fast-charging stations along five major
routes, and our legislature and Governor enacted a range of
bills to accelerate electric vehicle updates, including
extending tax credits in 2025.
We are encouraged to see bipartisan collaboration in our
legislature and cooperation between States and local partners.
We are also encouraged by the commitment that automakers and
dealers are showing to expanding ZEV sales in Colorado.
This is an important moment with great promise for cleaner
cars if we move together to move the ball forward.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration's proposal and the
contentious tone that it has perpetuated nationwide threatens
just the opposite.
If finalized, this proposal would unravel an effective
consensus-based program that has brought together Federal
agencies, States, automakers, and environmental and labor
partners.
The proposal would also seek to undermine States' rights to
retain strong standards. Improving the fuel efficiency in cars
and trucks has historically transcended Federal administrations
and party lines.
Both the Bush and Obama administrations increased fuel
standards, and fuel economy has improved by over a quarter
since 2004.
Predictable standards help industry to focus on
improvements that benefit the environment, create jobs, and
keep the American auto industry competitive.
By contrast, if Federal agencies finalize their current
proposal, it will be rightly challenged, creating needless
uncertainty for an industry that employees over 7 million
Americans, including over 3 percent of Colorado's workforce.
In sharp contrast to the administration's proposal, calls
to compromise on a continued program of strong national
standards have been widespread from States, carmakers,
suppliers, and utilities.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has repeatedly
encouraged collaboration to retain a program of strong
standards that continue increasing fuel economy year after year
because, quote, ``climate change is real and we have a
responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases.''
This month 17 automakers reiterated that call in letters to
President Trump and Governor Newsom, asking for a, quote,
``unified standard'' with consensus that includes States at the
negotiating table.
Even President Trump at one point directed his team to make
a deal with California, but that directive was followed by the
current flat-line proposal which is based on deeply flawed
modeling conclusions that defy common sense.
Let me give you just a few examples. First, while
conserving energy is the premise of NHTSA's statute, they argue
that cutting oil consumption is now a lesser priority.
Their proposal would increase U.S. fuel consumption by
about half a million barrels per day. It is no surprise that
much of the oil industry supports that pathway, though recently
several oil companies have called for consensus as well.
Second, new modeling of consumer behavior doesn't make
sense, though it is a good idea to analyze this topic further
in the future.
For example, modeling predicts that stronger standards by
virtue of increasing retail costs would depress new car sales,
keep many more old cars on the road with the new cars they
displace, and result in 692 billion extra miles driven because
of higher standards.
In the real world, why would you defer one new car
purchase, hold on to multiple old ones, and then drive farther
to the grocery store than you would have in a shiny new
crossover?
Third, the model shows that freezing standards would reduce
roadway fatalities by 12,700, breaking from a long literature
on the relationship between safety and fuel economy.
The model is driven by problematic and internally
conflicting assumptions about how stronger fuel standards would
increase driving and crashes. Vehicle weight, the best research
area in the safety literature on fuel economy, accounts for
just 1.2 percent of assumed total fatalities.
These are just a few examples of the many problems with
this proposed rule. There's a lot here that needs to be fixed,
and serious and substantive dialogue between all parties could
still yield a thoughtful resolution if the administration were
willing to come to the table rather than force to conclusion a
deeply flawed and ideologically driven proposal that lacks the
backing of stakeholders across the country.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions, and I would
ask that my full statement be submitted to the record.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lew follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Let's see. Thank you.
And Mr. Friedman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID J. FRIEDMAN
Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking
Member Rodgers, and Ranking Member Shimkus and committee
members. Thank you for inviting Consumer Reports to testify
today.
Now, we are here because the current administration, at the
request of automakers and oil companies, has proposed to take
money out of consumers' pockets to harm auto sales and to
reduce our Nation's energy security, all while failing to
address a public health epidemic on our Nation's roads.
Consumer Reports is a data-driven nonprofit, so let's start
with some facts. First, newer cars are safer and more
efficient, thanks primarily to NHTSA's safety and fuel economy
standards.
The former saved more than 600,000 lives through 2012, and
the latter will save Americans over $660 billion going forward.
Second, Consumer Reports survey after survey show that
consumers want safer, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and yet
they face very limited choices on both counts when automakers
don't have to meet strong efficiency and safety requirements.
Just look at the rollover-prone, gas-guzzling SUVs of the '90s
as Exhibit A.
Finally, Americans like to spend money when they can afford
it. So when consumers save money, thanks to strong fuel economy
standards, they spend it on things like going out to dinner,
getting cool new tech, and buying new cars with more safety
features.
As we've seen over the last decade very clearly, this
creates jobs, boosts auto sales, and insulates our economy from
future price shocks.
Despite these clear facts, the current administration
released a plan to roll back fuel efficiency and emissions
standards based on a fundamentally flawed proposal filled with
errors, untested modeling, faulty logic, and unsupported
conclusions.
I have to say, before, during, and after my time at NHTSA,
I had never seen anything like this come out of the joint NHTSA
and EPA efforts. Quite the opposite.
In the end, it appears this administration was so
determined to roll back the standards that no fact, no data,
and not even basic economic theory would stand in their way.
Making matters so much worse, they actually claimed and
continue to falsely claim they're doing it for safety.
Members of the committee, over the last 2\1/2\ years more
than 7.5 million Americans were injured and more than 90,000
were killed in traffic crashes. And yet Department of
Transportation leadership has failed to finalize or even
propose a single significant life-saving vehicle safety
standard. That is not putting safety first.
No wonder people aren't taking their claims seriously. So
let me end instead where I started, with the facts.
One, time and again, consumers, leading academics, and
researchers and the agencies themselves have made clear that
strong fuel economy and emissions standards are in the best
interests of consumers and our Nation.
Two, the data show there is no such thing as an
affordability crisis in today's car market. In fact, sales rose
steadily since 2009 and have been at or near record highs since
2015.
Consumers with more money in their pockets are simply
spending more on bigger vehicles with more luxury features. If
you take those away, inflation-adjusted prices for new cars
have not changed, even while cars got more efficient and safer,
and the price of used cars has actually dropped.
Third, when it comes to highway safety, at worst the
standards will have absolutely no effect. At best, raising the
standards will provide a small but positive effect by taking
dangerous weight out of the heaviest vehicles and helping
consumers afford newer safer vehicles.
At the end of the day, Americans are more likely to upgrade
to newer, cleaner cars if they're actually on the market and if
consumers have more money in their pockets to buy them because
they're spending less on gas.
And when it comes to safety, the only way to guarantee that
those newer, cleaner cars will be safer is if DOT leadership
allows staff to propose and finalize strong new safety
requirements for technologies like automatic emergency braking
with pedestrian detection and vehicle-to-vehicle safety
communications tech.
That is the future we can all look forward to if existing
fuel economy and emission standards are kept in place and DOT
leadership lets NHTSA get back to its safety mission.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank all of you for your testimony, and
I now want to begin the section where we ask questions of the
witnesses. Each Member will have 5 minutes, and I will begin.
Let me just start with a statement that clean-car
technologies do not develop in a vacuum. Automakers produce
vehicles that are more fuel efficient and less polluting
because of fuel efficiency standards.
That's why Congress gave NHTSA the mandate to set the,
quote, ``maximum feasible,'' unquote, fuel economy standards.
So Mr. Friedman, will automakers, given your experience
with NHTSA and being a regulator yourself--will automakers
voluntarily produce vehicles with the maximum feasible fuel
efficiency, or are Federal standards absolutely necessary?
Mr. Friedman. History makes clear that, unless fuel economy
standards are increasing, automakers leave technology after
technology on the shelf--technology that could be saving
consumers millions of dollars they don't put to work without
standards.
Ms. Schakowsky. And we haven't seen a scenario where the
kind of innovation--I think you mentioned that, Ms. Lew--that
develops from these standards has then hurt the auto industry.
Is that true?
Mr. Friedman. Quite the opposite. I mean, A, it is basic
economics. If people are saving money on gas, they're going to
spend it in this country and they're going to spend it on a
whole host of different things, including buying new cars. The
last 10 years have shown this very clearly. Auto sales are up.
Fuel economy is up. Safety is up.
Consumers can have their cake and eat it, too, as long as
they've got a government watching out for their backs.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
With standards setting a target for the automobile
industry, there is no certainty for companies developing clean-
car technologies in this country.
Billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs
will go overseas to countries that prioritize clean air and oil
independence.
So, Mr. Nassar, I want to ask you, would auto manufacturers
continue to invest in American clean-car development,
engineering, and manufacturing should the clean-car rollback go
into effect?
Or would this investment go overseas? Are we losing the
opportunity to export clean-car technology and set the standard
for the global market?
Mr. Nassar. Thank you for the question.
Absolutely, standards encourage the development of new
technologies in vehicles here, and there is a real danger that
if you have--you know, if you don't have standards or if you
have standards that don't push at all, that'll be done
elsewhere.
A big lesson is here, too. We need to have diverse fleets,
OK, because oil prices, yes, they are low now, but that can
change, and we've lived--this has already happened. We don't
need to repeat history here.
So it is really going to be important that we have
standards and I think to be sensible, but we have got to have
standards that really do encourage, you know, new technologies
here.
I just want to point out that the vast majority of lithium
ion battery production is projected by 2021 to be in China, and
so as a country we really have a lot to do to get those new
technologies here.
Thank you for your question.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Let me ask another one, Mr. Nassar. How would weakening our
Nation's fuel economy standards impact the UAW members and the
auto industry, and how has the uncertainty impacted the
workforce, and why should all members of this committee be
concerned about the potential economic impact of the proposal?
Mr. Nassar. Yes. Well, the reality is that, you know,
investments for--in plants and new vehicles have to be made
many years out--many years out--and you really do need to know
where we are heading.
And the fact that we don't know where we are heading is
creating some real problems because companies are--they're
global and they look around the world and at places where there
is more certainty, where they do know where they're heading,
that's where they are inclined to make more of the investments.
As I said before, you know, we have other policies--tax and
trade--that hurt as well. But absolutely it is going to be
important to have strong standards here.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And, Mr. Friedman, again, if clean-car technology and
production moved overseas, what actions would American
consumers have if they want to buy Next Generation clean
vehicles?
Mr. Friedman. Well, it looks like they'd be out of luck.
Maybe they could spend some extra money and fly overseas. But
if the technology isn't available here, they can't get it. It
would, basically, leave it off limits to the average American,
and that's just not good for consumers or our Nation.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Nassar, how can Congress and the administration best
protect these jobs?
Mr. Nassar. A whole host of policies. We really need to
have a pro-labor law, like, pass the PRO Act is going to help--
would help a lot. You need tax policy. You need to have
sensible standards that last for a long time and investments in
new technologies here. Make sure they're made here and with
good worker standards. That would help a lot.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much.
I yield back, and the Chair will now recognize Mrs.
Rodgers, subcommittee ranking member, for 5 minutes to ask
questions.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for
being here today. I am always amazed with American ingenuity
and the entrepreneurial spirit, and we time and time again lead
the world in new innovation and thinking of the better ways to
solve our problems, and I think this is an important discussion
today.
America also leads the world in environmental standards and
setting--really, leading the world in combatting--in bringing
down carbon emissions. I do think it is noteworthy that the
average car today costs $37,000. For most hard-working
Americans, that is out of reach for them, and from 2016 to--
when you look at fatalities in America, 2016 to 2017, 2017 to
2018, we had the largest increase in fatalities in 50 years.
Thirty-six thousand people died. So there's a lot of
considerations that go into making these decisions that are
before this Congress in this discussion today.
It is great to have former colleague and the attorney
general of Louisiana here. Mr. Landry, I wanted to ask you just
why do you support the SAFE vehicles rule?
Mr. Landry. Well, again, there's this--still a clause in
the Constitution called the Commerce Clause, which is supposed
to allow the Federal Government in certain circumstances to
allow for national standards, and so to allow for California to
dictate its policy on the rest of the country would be
problematic and, again, would be in violation of the Commerce
Clause.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Schwietert, in a letter sent by several of your member
companies on June 6th, it stated that, quote, ``market
conditions have changed materially since 2011,'' and then it
went on to say that the administration's decision to review and
update future auto standards was the proper choice.
And you described the current program as untenable. Why is
the current regulatory structure untenable for automakers? What
are we leaving on the table in jobs and R&D investment with
fines if the current program is locked in place with
litigation?
Mr. Schwietert. Thank you for the question. I think that it
speaks to something that auto manufacturers are committed to,
and that's a concern about effectively breaking up One National
Program, which could lead to a bifurcated market.
So you're absolutely right. As it relates to the standards
that were set back in 2012, if standards aren't right sized,
that causes concern not only for litigation risks and
investment risks but also what consumers can actually afford.
So that's ultimately why automakers have been clear from
the beginning that we support a re-evaluation of the standards
that were envisioned back in 2012, because market conditions
have changed.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Loris, can you explain further why you have described
the proposed SAFE vehicles rule as a welcomed, quote, ``victory
for consumers' wallets?''
Mr. Loris. Sure. Again, I think the fundamental aspect here
is consumer choice, and while there are a lot of vehicles in
the marketplace today, consumers do have choices. Every time
the Federal Government chooses to impose more stringent
standards, they're overriding that choice.
They're taking opportunity costs away from manufacturers to
invest in different technology that ultimately consumers might
want.
So from a consumer standpoint, I would rather see the
automakers make cars that people want to buy. I think that's
the first fundamental problem with CAFE standards.
The second issue really is price. We've seen across the
academic literature that every time fuel economy standards are
more stringent, they impose higher prices that ripple
throughout the new- and used-car market.
Mrs. Rodgers. So it is my understanding right now
nationally 4 percent of vehicles are the alternatives--1.2
percent are electric.
Ms. Lew, I just wanted to ask, what percentage of vehicles
in Colorado are electric?
Ms. Lew. This past year's sales were just in excess of
7,000. I can get back to you on the percent of the total
market. But that was nearly double what it had been the year
prior and the year prior to that.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. I'll look up, then, what percentage. I
was just curious if you were meeting the national standard or
not. Anyway, I am going to yield back.
Mr. Friedman. Just to clarify, no electric vehicles are
required to meet the national standard, and projections, even
by 2025, indicate even a couple of percent or two is more than
enough, and we are already at or above that level.
I would also just quickly say----
Mrs. Rodgers. Excuse me. My time has expired.
I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Cardenas [presiding]. The gentlewoman yields back.
Next, we have the congresswoman from California,
Congresswoman Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Nichols, it is nice to see you here--my constituent.
That's great. I want to thank you for the extraordinary work
you have done throughout your career to really clean the air
not only for Californians but all the rest of the country.
And for the last decade, you have been at the forefront of
the fight against climate change and to improve public health.
Now, I just want to make a comment here that I just found
it kind of rich that Administrator Wheeler wasn't here to
testify today, but I think you addressed this. He sent a letter
supposedly refuting your testimony.
But I am going to say, it is hardly surprising that he's
hiding behind the letter instead of joining us here today,
because it is kind of a pattern of behavior--refusing to
negotiate with California in good faith.
So enough said about that. I want to ask you a couple
questions about the zero-emission vehicle waiver. Chair
Nichols, the fight against climate change and the fight to
clean our air and improve public health are intertwined.
Decades ago, California's leadership contributed to the
creation of the modern catalytic converter. In 1990, California
implemented a requirement that companies sell zero-emission
vehicles to help achieve Federal clean air goals.
Yet the administration attempts to justify revoking
California's ZEV waiver on the grounds that it is solely about
carbon pollution.
Chair Nichols, can you describe the role of ZEVs in meeting
health-based air quality standards, reducing emissions of toxic
pollutants as well as meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets?
Ms. Nichols. Thank you, Ms. Matsui.
First of all, I want to make it clear that, as Mr. Friedman
said earlier, the CAFE law and the emissions law that we are
talking about here today, the regulations, do not contemplate
electric vehicles. Any kind of zero-emission vehicles are not
covered by these regulations.
That is actually a part of what makes this whole effort
somewhat of a parallel universe to what's actually going on in
the real world, where all the car companies are investing
heavily in the transition to either hybrids or all-electric
vehicles, and they are not doing that because of California's
mandates, although I think we played a role in getting that
started and we are by far the largest market--now four electric
vehicles.
But because it is now quite clear that the world as a whole
is moving in the direction of electrified transportation and
all of the companies want to be competitive, not just in
California or in the U.S. but in the international and the
global market as well.
Our interest in these vehicles stems from our concerns
about air quality, however, and it is really based on the fact
that--and there is a connection here, of course--using--burning
petroleum is the source of the emissions that cause health harm
in all of our communities, both urban and rural.
Burning of gasoline as well as the production,
distribution, et cetera--the network, if you will--is the major
contributor to health-harming air pollution, even now with all
the tremendous progress that the industry has made and which we
commend them for.
Ms. Matsui. Right.
Ms. Nichols. The sheer numbers of vehicles are such that we
continue to have a serious problem.
Ms. Matsui. Now, could I ask you--I think you may have seen
that we had the EPA Administrator Wheeler before the committee
in April and I asked him about the proposed rule, and he
claimed that the carbon dioxide reductions in the SAFE vehicles
rule would be pretty similar to what the Obama administration
would have received under their rule.
Chair Nichols, CARB has obviously done extensive analysis
on this. How would you respond to this claim?
Ms. Nichols. I, frankly, don't know to what Mr. Wheeler was
referring. The proposed rule initially had a number of
different alternatives that they took comment on. But the
preferred alternative and the one that we understand is going
to be sent for the final rule did not involve any continued
improvement in emissions.
And so the assumption had to be that somehow by the magic
of the market that consumers would go out and buy these
vehicles because they'd be cheaper and therefore we would see a
faster fleet turnover.
But that same analysis in the--again, in the proposal--was
that there would also be a safer rule. We would have more
safety because people would buy cars but they wouldn't drive
them. So they would be leaving the cars in the garage, in
effect.
We've also seen some, frankly, unsupportable citations in
the rulemaking record regarding the costs of the standards in
any event with wild swings.
Somehow between President Obama and President Trump, the
cost doubled. Just happened that way without any noticeable
change in the state of the economy.
So I think we are skeptical. We, of course, will look very
closely at whatever the final regulation is. But that's all I
can say.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, thank you very much for appearing
today, and I yield back.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentlewoman yields back.
And next we have the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman
Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I don't want to
tangle with my friend, Doris Matsui. She's just too nice of a
lady, and I am glad Debbie Dingell is here because I think
the----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shimkus. Well, I will tangle with her, but she'll
tangle back.
You know, the elephant in the room is, are you guys talking
or are you not, and are we going to get to some type of
agreement? So I would like to ask unanimous consent that this
letter that we are all talking about that I don't think has
been appropriately asked to be submitted for the record, be
submitted for the record.
Mr. Cardenas. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And, Mary Nichols, it is great to
have you here. Obviously, you work for the State of California.
I have great respect. Don't take this in any adversarial role.
We are just trying to get the answer.
So Administrator Pruitt--I mean, Wheeler--in this letter
said, ``When she finally offered a counterproposal maintaining
the previous administration's standard with one extra year of
compliance, she''--referring to you--``conveyed that outgoing
Governor Brown and incoming Governor Newsom had not approved
her counterproposal. She also informed me that the Attorney
General Becerra had not approved her counterproposal, having
already said that he planned to sue EPA. Further, she informed
me that the members of the California Air Resources Board had
also not approved her counterproposal.''
Of course, now, the letter is a couple more paragraphs. I
think you saw it. True or false, or yes or no, or----
Ms. Nichols. How about if I say ``out of context and
therefore false''? Because he's taking words that were stated
on different occasions about different things and putting it
together.
Mr. Shimkus. So maybe--yes, reclaiming my time. You know, I
know Debbie Dingell pretty well. I think what she and I would
want to do is get you two in a room and see what the facts are
and see how we can get some negotiated agreement, because I
think everyone said we need a national standard. We don't want
to destroy Federal--there's the interstate commerce clause.
We don't want it perceived--I am telling you, rural
southern Illinois, if it is perceived that California is
driving this train, that's not positive, right. Just telling
you. How about it, Larry, right? Same thing in southern
Indiana.
So we just need a national standard. We need to move
forward. We need to get in the room and someone--it could be
he-said/she-said. But we are not going to know that until we
get focused, and I hope we do that sooner rather than later.
You know, President Trump was elected to be a disruptor,
and he has--and he disrupts about everything in agencies and in
government. And I will tell you there's a lot of people in this
country who like that. They feel government is too big, costs
too much, and directs us and tells us what's best for us.
I think that's the gut of this problem, too, is that I want
to make my own decisions. I want the autos to build cars that I
want to buy. I don't want big government and a nanny State
telling me, well, it is best for kumbaya and the world and you
can only have these type of choices. That's the uniqueness of
this environment we are in.
And so eventually--I tell people--they think we are very
dysfunctional here in Washington, and we are, most of the
time--we eventually get to compromise, and that means give and
take on both sides.
So I would appeal to you all and I would appeal to the EPA.
You know, we had our--the first panel, they said they're
willing to talk, they're willing to listen, and I am sure
there's some of us that would--if there's any way we can offer
assistance in getting people into the room, I think we'd be
willing to do that.
Ms. Nichols. May I just comment on the elephant that's in
the room, and that is the option of California.
Mr. Shimkus. And it is not me.
Ms. Nichols. No, it is not you, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. I've got my elephant tie on.
Ms. Nichols. This is about the fact that in those
discussions it was made very clear to us from day one that this
administration was determined to take away California's waiver
for the current standards that we have in effect as well as for
any future standards, and then we were told it was up to us to
come up with a counterproposal that the administration would
accept, and if they somehow found it acceptable they might
possibly--and this was really only hinted at--consider not
moving right away to take away the waiver.
I ask you whether you or any State official, if you were a
State official, would have considered that to be a starting
point for negotiations, when you're already being told that
there's a determination to treat you as illegitimate to begin
with.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, I am in the minority party, so that's
not a good person to ask right now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shimkus. So, but I appreciate it, and thank you for
your service.
I wish I would have had 5 minutes with all of you, but I
wanted to make sure we addressed this issue.
I yield back.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentleman yields back.
Next we'll go to the gentleman from Oregon, Congressman--
California, I am sorry--McNerney. Yikes.
Mr. McNerney. Yikes. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McNerney. Well, anyway, I thank the chair and I thank
the panel. I will say, really good testimony. I appreciate all
of you really, and I appreciate Mr. Shimkus' willingness to be
bipartisan and compromise. So we'll work it out.
Chair Nichols, I would like to ask about the success story
of the Clean Air Act, which is that the Government sets the
industry standards and then industry figures out best how to
meet those standards. So please answer briefly, if you would.
What role do you think California regulations have played in
driving innovation? What do you think their proposal rule would
do to incentives for innovation?
Ms. Nichols. Over the years--thank you, Mr. McNerney--the
California standards have resulted in a number of important
innovations, one being, of course, the catalytic converter,
which was first adopted in response to California's emissions
standards and then became a national standard, and another
being on-board diagnostic equipment, which took away a lot of
the questions and burdens for certification of vehicles,
because there's now a computer chip that basically tells you
what's going on with the car. So it has been very successful.
Mr. McNerney. Well, there are plenty of examples.
Ms. Nichols. Yes. So there are lots of examples of that.
The current proposal, we believe--and I think this is what the
industry has said--by taking away the year-over-year
improvement requirement is, assuming they go forward with this
proposal--does take away a major incentive for continuous
improvement by the industry.
So we think it is a step backwards.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. On another topic that's similarly
related, my understanding is that there was substantial
technical collaboration between the EPA, NHTSA, and CARB in the
past. Is that correct, and did that happen in the development
of this proposed rule?
Ms. Nichols. It did not. There has been a long history of
EPA and CARB working together, taking on different pieces of
analyses, sharing information at the technical level, and this
did not happen in this rule at all.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, I urge the EPA in this to
invite Chair Nichols back to the negotiating table and do this
again in earnest.
Mr. Hermiz, you had an interesting testimony. I appreciate
your comments. At one point, you said you were--you urged
objectives but without specific prescriptions--something in
those words. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?
Ms. Nichols. When I was referring to the negotiating
process or----
Mr. McNerney. No, I was talking to Mr. Hermiz. Mr. Hermiz.
Ms. Nichols. Oh, excuse me. I am sorry.
Mr. Hermiz. That's OK.
From our perspective of Shiloh and MEMA, we are pursuing
and feel that alternative 6 or 8 would bring both jobs as well
as investment into the U.S. and continued growth.
So we feel that it is important to have continuous
improvement--year-over-year improvement in the CAFE standards.
We did recommend alternative 6 or 8.
Mr. McNerney. OK. But you don't want specific
prescriptions?
Mr. Hermiz. Well, in alternatives 6 and 8, they had 2
percent and 3 percent objectives built in. The difference
between 6 and 8 was just the year that they started.
So there are specific numbers in that proposal. There are
the different alternatives presented. There was a different
percentage.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Lew, you refuted the safety claims that are made by the
administration. Could you detail that a little bit, please?
Ms. Lew. Yes. First, I would state that safety is the
highest priority in transportation policy, and there's a long
history of this being considered as a factor when setting fuel
economy standards. It has always been part of the process of
contemplating the standards.
The issue in the way that the matter of safety has been
treated is that it kind of evolves based on the very faulty
assumptions about driver behavior. There are kind of two pieces
that go into that.
One is much-inflated assumptions about what's called the
rebound effect, which is the assumption that more fuel-
efficient cars make people drive more. The second is actually a
claim that is in the opposite direction, which is that stronger
fuel economy standards make people keep a lot of old cars and
then those old cars drive more.
The combination of these two factors is that the model
projects a significant increase in vehicle miles traveled,
which is correlated to crash rates. So it is projecting crash
rates based on kind of inflated numbers of miles assumed about
how people drive.
You know, I think another piece--you know, the most tested
component relative to safety and fuel economy is about the
effects of mass reduction, and, you know, the administration's
own analysis actually shows that for larger vehicles, which is
where mass reduction is typically applied, later cars are
safer.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
And I wanted to ask Mr. Friedman a different question. I
know you're shaking your head in agreement.
But then you said there's no affordability crisis.
Inflation-adjusted prices are stable. In 7 seconds or so could
you answer that?
Mr. Friedman. Absolutely. That's the case. All the data
shows that cars today are affordable. You know, before folks
talked about how $37,000 is out of reach of most Americans. I
mean, new cars have been out of reach for most Americans for
decades.
The market works because there's--two-thirds of people buy
used cars, and when fuel economy was terrible it was the same
case.
So the sad reality is Americans need to be paid more to be
able to afford new cars. I would also just say on safety the
argument that NHTSA uses would indicate that any tax credit
would----
Mr. Cardenas. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Friedman [continuing]. Cost lives on our highways. It
makes no sense.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, sir. The gentleman's time has
expired.
Next, we have the congressman from Indiana, Congressman
Bucshon.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much.
Mr. Friedman, I am just curious. Is your testimony the
official position of Consumer Reports and the publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine?
Mr. Friedman. My position is the official position of the
nonprofit organization Consumer Reports. We guard our
journalistic independence----
Mr. Bucshon. Right. So what you're saying is--what I can
say is that Consumer Reports magazine, publishers, and
everyone, that your position and, really, a strong defense for
your work at the Obama administration, is the official position
of Consumer Reports, including the what I would call
substantially--can't say the word--unsubstantiated claims about
the administration ignoring safety?
Mr. Friedman. Well, first, I would say I am not involved
with the----
Mr. Bucshon. I just want to make that clear to the American
public, that Consumer Reports is----
Mr. Friedman. Second, I would just say----
Mr. Bucshon. I take back my time. Consumer Reports, and
we've had others from your organization testify, are making
unsubstantiated claims about an administration that they don't
like.
Ms. Lew, could you----
Mr. Friedman. There's nothing unsubstantiated about no----
Mr. Bucshon. This is my time.
Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Friedman? Mr. Friedman?
Mr. Bucshon. This is my time. So the American people should
know that Consumer Reports magazine and the publisher and the
organization, the nonprofit, which I read all the time--my in-
laws love--is taking your testimony as their official position
on this issue.
So, Ms. Lew, whose data did you use to refute the
administration's safety assumptions?
Ms. Lew. The comments that I made are based on having read
the regulatory impact analysis and the----
Mr. Bucshon. So it is your opinion?
Ms. Lew. It is my analysis of the table----
Mr. Bucshon. So it is your analysis. There's no one who's--
that you have read the data that they have assessed it. This is
your personal opinion that you are refuting their safety
assumptions yourself?
Ms. Lew. I have read many of the documents in the--that are
docketed as part of the legal----
Mr. Bucshon. OK. So the answer to that is yes, it is your
opinion. There's no--there's no solid data. You're giving your
opinion, and you're here to testify and give your opinion.
But just don't make it sound like that everybody in the
world thinks that the safety assumptions that are being made
are not necessarily correct.
There's a reasonable--reasonable people can have
disagreements.
So Mr. Schwietert, it is my understanding that company
fleets are not attaining the tailpipe standards despite
investment in conventional technology. Can you describe how
compliance attained through credits generated when the
standards were less stringent?
Mr. Schwietert. Sure. Basically, the existing program
allows manufacturers to earn credits, which of course you might
accumulate on the front end and burn on the back end. It is
almost a bell curve.
So manufacturers aren't just given credits. They're awarded
credits as a result of certain technologies or efficiencies.
Mr. Bucshon. Sure.
Mr. Schwietert. Now, the most important thing here when
everybody's talking about the 2012 rule is that the standards
envisioned into the future today are unattainable, and I can
point to----
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, can I make a comment on that? Because--
and you can answer this too--the current pace of credit use, is
it sustainable and is it expected to run out? Based on what you
were probably getting ready to say.
Mr. Schwietert. That is a very good point.
By our estimates, all existing credits will be exhausted by
2021 and in particular, even with the EPA trends report, which
is not a political document--it is a compliance document issued
from year '17--this is very important--that there's a
substantial gap between government targets and what Americans
are buying.
In fact, only about 5 percent of 2018 model year's vehicles
meet the 2023 greenhouse gas targets, and there aren't
available credits into the future.
Mr. Bucshon. So what happens when they run out?
Mr. Schwietert. Basically, unattainable standards don't
help anybody. They don't help autoworkers, they don't help
manufacturers, and they price people out of vehicles.
Remember, it is not what manufacturers produce. It is what
consumers buy. We have a success story related to the increased
efficiency of vehicles. But if consumers cannot afford those
cleaner, more efficient vehicles, then we all lose.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, that goes into my question, you know, and
you just discussed it. The consumers' preference, based on
vehicle purchases and the burden of these consumer preferences,
puts some pressure on the standards, right? That's what you
just said, basically.
If the consumers can't feel like--their preferences are
different or they can't afford it, then it puts pressure on the
standards, right?
Mr. Schwietert. That's absolutely correct. It is not a
question of whether automakers support increased standards. We
do. No automaker has asked for flat standards.
And, really quickly, Mr. Friedman made a point as it
relates to polling. As part of my submitted testimony, I
submitted charts that show the breakdown of what your
consumers--not what polling shows, not what aspiration shows--
of what consumers may want to buy in the future.
It actually shows you the vehicles that your constituents
are buying, which is a huge success story when you look at the
improvement that's being made.
No automaker is asking for flat standards. We believe all
sides can come together, find an agreement in the middle
somewhere between flat----
Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
Mr. Schwietert [continuing]. Somewhere between the previous
standards.
Mr. Bucshon. Agreed. I want to--and finally, I just want to
associate myself with the comments of Congressman Shimkus about
how, you know, we need to sit down and find a resolution to
this in a way that everyone is comfortable with.
I yield back.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Friedman, you were asked a direct question and, as the
chair, I am taking the prerogative to allow you to briefly
respond to that question that was directed at you.
Mr. Friedman. Thank you. I appreciate that.
First, I just want to clarify the record. The light-duty
vehicle fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas standards----
Mrs. Rodgers. Can we clarify what the question was, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Cardenas. My recollection, a few minutes ago Mr.
Bucshon did direct a question. OK, so on that can you--can you
please clarify the response?
Mr. Friedman. Well, sure. To clarify, as I understood the
question, it was whether or not those are the official
positions of Consumer Reports and tied to my past work in the
previous administration.
I want to be clear that I was not in the previous
administration when the light-duty vehicle standards were
established.
So yes, this is a data-driven position----
Mr. Schwietert. That's not correct.
Mr. Friedman [continuing]. According to the Consumer--I
believe I know when I was in the administration and the light-
duty vehicle----
Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Schwietert--Mr. Schwietert--Mr.
Schwietert, you do not have the floor. Mr. Friedman has the
floor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Friedman. I do believe I am quite aware of when I
joined the administration, including when the auto industry
brought many safety challenges in front of us. So I would be
happy to discuss that further if you'd like.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Friedman. But I will say again I was not there----
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Friedman [continuing]. When these standards were
established.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Friedman.
And Ms. Lew, you were also directed a statement that you
were trying to answer, so I am going to give you an opportunity
to respond.
Mrs. Rodgers. Mr. Chairman, would you state what your
statement is or what we are----
Mr. Cardenas. The statement did not--the statement didn't--
the statement did not come from me. It came from Member
Bucshon, and she was in the middle of answering the statement
that was directed at her.
Mrs. Rodgers. Can we review what that statement was? I
think we were talking about----
Mr. Cardenas. We can, but she'll restate it as best she
can. Go ahead.
Mrs. Rodgers. I believe we were talking about the----
Mr. Bucshon. Can I--parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Cardenas. Sure, Mr. Bucshon. Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes. I asked a question, she answered it, and
now you're giving her out-of-order time to clarify and further
talk about her position. She answered my question.
So I would say that that is out of order of the committee.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Duly noted.
Congressman Bucshon?
Mr. Bucshon. Someone on your side can ask for time and then
allow her to clarify. But taking the liberty of the chair to
allow people to clarify answers that you disagree with----
Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Bucshon, your----
Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. The person asking the question is
out of order.
Mr. Cardenas [continuing]. Parliamentary inquiry is
understood by the Chair. That being the case, I will recognize
my time, as I was next on the list.
So I will, on my time, in my 5 minutes--Ms. Lew, please
briefly clarify your answer to the statement earlier.
Ms. Lew. I believe that we were discussing my observations
about the safety assertions in the rule, and I would just
clarify that, you know, my evaluation of this comes from, you
know, my knowledge of the topic from when I worked in the Obama
administration very closely on the NHTSA model and have a deep
understanding of the kind of differences between what was
modeled before and what was modeled since and, you know, from
kind of juxtaposing the conclusions and measuring them against
common sense.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you so much for that clarification.
On my time again, for decades California has used its
waiver authority to increase the number of zero-emission
vehicles on the road in order to decrease traditional tailpipe
pollution in already polluted and overburdened regions like Los
Angeles and its basin.
The bottom line is that we in California have been working
hard to reduce the air pollution so we can breathe cleaner,
safer air.
The safe rule proposes to revoke California's authority to
continue mandating increased sales of zero-emission vehicles in
the State.
I would like to ask you, Ms. Nichols, if the Trump
administration revokes California's waiver, what effects do you
anticipate on the public health of California's residents,
particularly those who live near highways--what the effects
would be.
Also, could California see increased hospital visits, lost
work days, and lower life expectancies?
Ms. Nichols. Yes, we are concerned about the direct
relationship between petroleum consumption and emissions, and
we have done some analysis. We've also attempted to obtain from
the administration--I know this came up earlier in questions of
others--but in terms of facts that are relied.
We need to see all the studies that the administration is
using to base their proposal on, including the claims that
there won't be environmental effects, and we are now actually
in court on that issue because they will not give us the
underlying data that we are requesting.
Mr. Cardenas. I would also like to note that long-term
children's health studies in Los Angeles and the region have
demonstrated a significant positive correlation between
increasingly stringent vehicle standards and positive health
outcomes near highway communities.
That means that our children, our grandkids, et cetera,
will be able to breathe cleaner air if we were to continue with
the standards.
I know for myself, having grown up in Los Angeles and so
did my 10 brothers and sisters, we were not allowed to play
outside when we had smog alerts.
I am very proud to say that, because of the leadership of
people like you, Ms. Nichols, and a few other folks around the
country that agreed with California, we have improved those
standards to the point that my children never had to deal with
a smog alert.
But what I am really concerned about today is, if we go
back in the opposite direction that my two grandchildren are
going to be facing smog alerts like my children don't have to--
however, like I had to.
I am hoping that we can come up with a responsible
compromise that takes public safety first, the health of all
Americans as well as our top priority, all of us, both the
administration and the legislature.
In addition, I would like to say that it has also been
documented positive health outcomes resulting from science- and
health-based vehicle standards. Recent research also shows that
children living near highways and communities are
disproportionately likely to suffer cognitive impairment as
well.
Ms. Nichols, what role has California's vehicle regulations
played in improving children's health, and how do you expect
the Trump administration's rollback to affect the health and
development of our children?
Ms. Nichols. Thank you.
The long-term studies that you refer to that have been
carried out over many years now have shown really for the first
time an actual decrease in cases of asthma and hospitalizations
of children as a result of the improved air quality standards
that we have in effect.
And so we now have the positive side of the story to talk
about, and it's one that we are very determined not to see go
back. I think there may be an assumption that somehow people in
California drive, you know, different kind of vehicles than
other people do.
We drive trucks. We drive crossovers. We drive SUVs. All of
those vehicles are sold in California, and people love them and
we want to see them continue to be able to drive all those
kinds of cars and trucks.
I think the problem that we are facing is that, as we move
forward with the standards, there are some companies that are
going to have to buy credits, and that's a problem.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Ms. Nichols.
With that, my time having expired, next we'll go to
Congresswoman Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Nichols, I want to thank you for flying across the
country to be with us this afternoon.
My first question is just a yes or no, but I will give you
time to elaborate further on it in a minute.
The world has changed from the last time there was a
negotiated deal on fuel economy standards in 2012. Gas prices
are significantly lower today than we expected back then, and
the overall adoption rate of electric vehicles is also far
lower than predicted, and contrary to Mr. Friedman, I do think
they matter.
Chair Nichols, would you agree that conditions have changed
since 2012 and are different than what we expected, yes or no?
Ms. Nichols. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
It is hard to make projections far into the future, and
it's clear there is a need to make some tweaks. But we don't
have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Trump
administration has been reckless in proposing these flat-line
standards which would hurt jobs in my State and harm the
environment as well.
Chair Nichols, do you agree that cutting a deal with the
Trump administration is the best way forward to address our
twin goals of environmental protection and affordability? Are
you prepared to go back to the negotiating table in good faith?
Ms. Nichols. We have always been prepared to go to the
negotiating table in good faith. We still are.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
I am going to go to Mr. Nassar now for a minute because I
want to make sure that everybody did understand you in your
testimony, asking you the same questions that I asked. I assume
that you don't think that flat line is correct.
But do you agree that there is a need to go back to the
table--that circumstances have changed? And how does the
uncertainty of the standards impact UAW members and the
industry?
Mr. Nassar. Well, first of all--thank you for the
question--first of all, the uncertainty, you know, as I said,
these are global companies, and they're just looking at where
the most stable investments and the growth can be, and if it's
less attractive here, they'll go elsewhere. So that's that
part.
As far as flat line, we think that that is taking us
backwards. I do want to say what we like about the current
standards is the footprint model in general, because that
really takes it, you know, not one size fits all, and also the
credit system in general is a good idea.
So the framework is already there. We do think some
adjustments could be needed. But that's why we should all be
talking and working together.
Mrs. Dingell. But you do think they're needed? You don't
think existing standards--or do you not think the existing
standards are a problem?
Mr. Nassar. Oh, no. The----
Mrs. Dingell. That's what I want to be clear on.
Mr. Nassar. Today----
Mrs. Dingell. I don't want anybody thinking UAW thinks that
there haven't been changes in the climate.
Mr. Nassar. No. No. No. What I am saying is, going forward,
when we look to 2025, we should be talking and making--we
always looked forward to the midterm review, and we think that
discussion is needed. It is just not happening now.
And by the way, we played a role in getting all the parties
together before. We want to do it again, but we need----
Mrs. Dingell. Well, you were at the table last time. Do you
believe you should be at the table again?
Mr. Nassar. Yes, I think we all should be. For sure,
everyone here.
Mrs. Dingell. Yes. Thank you. I am going to come back to
you in a minute, but I want to make sure I get my questions in.
Mr. Schwietert--David, I am sorry--is it correct that fuel
economy targets in other countries across the globe are harder
than in the United States?
Mr. Schwietert. That's not necessarily the case, if you
look at the types of vehicles that are driven in the U.S. The
U.S. is certainly an innovator as it relates to the vehicles
that can----
Mrs. Dingell. So we actually have higher standards?
Mr. Schwietert. We do.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Are your companies investing millions of dollars today to
meet those higher global requirements? Yes or no?
Mr. Schwietert. Not just millions, but tens of billions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. Does the Auto Alliance have member
companies which are investing large sums of money into R&D for
electric vehicles?
Mr. Schwietert. Absolutely. They're fully committed.
Mrs. Dingell. I hope, therefore, it's clear to people here
that the Trump administration--California is the best way to
proceed for the environment, for jobs, and for the future of
technology, and there are Republicans and Democrats here who
want to help get everybody back at the table.
I am going to go back to you, Mr. Nassar, for a minute
because it sounds like the United States is falling behind in
the production of electric vehicles.
I am not sure it's in the production, but what do we need
to do to support EVs? What will happen if the Congress does not
support policies to support EVs?
Mr. Nassar. Well, first of all, the investments in EVs is,
you know, Germany, China, other places really have a more I
would say systematic and greater investment plan.
So what's simply going to happen is, we don't want to look
up one day and say, hey, we are not making the vehicles that
people are buying or needing and therefore our industry has
really taken a hit and a lot of working people, you know, don't
have a job.
And I just want to say, you know, it's really important
that, when we do these standards, we do them in a way that
looks at the longer-term impact as well as the short term.
Mrs. Dingell. So do we also need to be investing in
infrastructure and tax credits?
Mr. Nassar. Absolutely. So as far as EV, infrastructure is
needed, also tax credits also. But I want to say it again that
with Federal subsidies there should be requirements that it has
to be built in the United States, that I mean that's tax
credits as well and also, yes, we need to build out the EV
infrastructure a lot more.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentlewoman yields back.
Next we go to Congresswoman Barragan from California.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Friedman, I want to start with you. I saw an article by
Jeff Plungis with Consumer Reports. He writes for the magazine,
the auto section, is that correct?
Mr. Friedman. Yes, that's correct.
Ms. Barragan. The article that I am looking at that I saw
that he wrote for the magazine, it says, ``Trump administration
fuel economy freeze would cost consumers.'' Are you familiar
with that article?
Mr. Friedman. I am, yes.
Ms. Barragan. And is this something that would have been
published in the magazine?
Mr. Friedman. I would have to double check whether it was
in the magazine or online. We are now a full digital publisher
as well.
Ms. Barragan. It says that a new Consumer Reports survey
shows that most respondents across party lines value more
efficient cars even if gas is cheap. Does that sound about
right?
Mr. Friedman. Absolutely. In fact, survey after survey
shows that not only do consumers value it, by a factor of four
they want more fuel economy more than they want things like
horsepower.
Ms. Barragan. It also goes on to say that automakers have
shown that they can make more efficient cars that can create
more power and speed without dramatically raising the cost to
consumers.
Is that also accurate?
Mr. Friedman. It is actually amazing. I mean, we talk about
the innovation of the American auto industry, and when you
unleash that innovation, look out. It is amazing what they can
do. The challenge is it often takes support from the Government
and a push from the Government for them to truly unleash that
innovation.
But absolutely, they can do it. That's not the issue.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. We are hearing a lot today about
the average cost of cars, and then it prompted me to say, well,
geez, how much are these clean cars costing versus luxury
expensive cars that maybe folks in lower-income markets may not
even qualify to get even before Clean Car Standards went into
effect?
I, myself, purchased a hybrid back in '07 because I wanted
to, A, do my part on the environment, and too I wanted to help
the environment, and what I've seen is a dramatic savings in
cost overall in what I'm spending.
So maybe I pay $3,000 or $4,000 more at the outset to buy a
cleaner car. But out in California, we got a rebate. We have
tax credits, which made me think, why can't more people in my
community afford to get these kind of cars so they could save
long term?
I represent a district that includes Compton. It is Watts.
It is one of the most heavily polluted districts in the
country. It's surrounded by the Port of Los Angeles. It's
surrounded by three freeways. So when you talk about air
pollution, you're talking about my constituents.
And where is that coming from? The number-one source it's
coming from, you know, diesel, fossil fuel-burning cars. And so
I am all for the investment in clean cars and really appreciate
what California has been doing to lead on this.
Chair Nichols, how will California continue its efforts to
clean up the air for constituents like mine if this proposed
rule is finalized?
Ms. Nichols. We will have a serious problem, of course,
because we've counted on these emissions reductions in our
State implementation plans that we submit that are required by
the Clean Air Act and by EPA to show how we are going to try to
meet the national clean air standards.
So in addition to the environmental justice concerns, which
you have raised and others have also, which the Agency did not
address in their proposal, we just have a basic compliance
question of how we will meet air quality standards.
We will have to look at other alternatives, and frankly,
they're none of them terribly attractive. But there would have
to be measures taken to reduce the amount of driving of
existing cars and to otherwise try to find ways to keep pushing
for cleaner cars.
We already, as a State, use funds from our greenhouse gas
reduction fund to subsidize the purchase of new vehicles--
cleaner vehicles--to turn over the plate. This is a program
that's had a lot of support from the auto industry.
But there's a limit to how much of that we can do, and so
we would have to be looking at industry, at other sources
perhaps, to make up the gap.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, and I want to thank you for
your leadership on this issue and in California. We hear from--
today we've heard that, you know, this is bad for consumers.
It's costing them money.
There has been no discussion about the cost on public
health and the cost on the negative impacts for people who live
in communities that are disproportionately having to take the
burden of higher air pollution and being surrounded by
freeways, which, by the way, you're not seeing in the high-
income communities.
You're seeing them put into low-income communities. You're
seeing them put into communities of color. And so we need to
also consider the cost to public health, which I believe is a
public health crisis.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentlewoman yields back.
Next, we have the Congressman from California, Dr. Ruiz.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Thank you to all of you for coming
here today. It's especially great to see Mary Nichols from
California Air Resources Board.
For the past four decades, California has been a leader in
the Clean Car Standards. California's fuel economy standards
have helped push the entire automobile industry towards
vehicles that are safer, cheaper, and better for the
environment.
The Trump administration's rollback of the standards is
misguided and unacceptable. We've heard all the numbers today.
The rollback would add an additional 7 billion tons of carbon
to our atmosphere by the end of the century, more than 500,000
additional barrels of oil used per day.
But I want to focus on the effect this regulation will have
on the health of my constituents. Riverside County has long
suffered from some of the worst air quality in California.
The mountains--the beautiful mountains that surround the
Coachella Valley--trap the smog and pollution from the millions
of vehicles that clog the roads from L.A. through my district
on Interstate 10.
The Clean Air Act grants our State the authority to set its
own motor vehicle standards because of the unique air quality
issues that we face.
Yet, there are still communities where exposure to harmful
air pollutants such as particulate matter is significantly
higher than the State average, sometimes more than twice as
high.
And this is an environmental justice issue because research
shows that Latinos, African Americans, and low-income
communities in California are exposed to more tailpipe
pollution than any other demographic.
Chair Nichols, could you please provide some insight into
the health risks that minority and low-income communities in
our home State of California disproportionately face?
Ms. Nichols. Certainly. I think we have seen and in some
cases have helped to sponsor some of the research that
indicates hospitalizations and days of missed school by
schoolchildren, the increased use of asthma inhalers on smog
days.
I would be happy to provide you with some additional
statistics on that. But I think we now know for a fact that
there's a direct correlation between poverty and living in
areas that experience a disproportionate amount of pollution.
Mr. Ruiz. And that pollution and poverty is also correlated
with mortality?
Ms. Nichols. Correct.
Mr. Ruiz. So people that live in high-polluted areas live
less than people who live in nonhigh-polluted areas due to air
quality?
Ms. Nichols. Yes. And if you will permit me, one of the
things that has given California a lot of encouragement over
the last few years has been that, in other parts of the world
such as China or India where they experience air pollution
problems that are much worse than we ever see anymore in our
State, they are turning to California and looking to our
standards and our experience, which we think will also lead to
them buying better cars.
Mr. Ruiz. Over the past 10 years, Riverside County's air
quality has been steadily improving, but we have a long way to
go. You mentioned in your testimony that air pollution will
jump in areas like L.A. if these regulations are approved.
How will the Trump administration affect air quality and
the presence of pollutants in the areas like the Coachella
Valley?
Ms. Nichols. The correlation between changing the
greenhouse gas emission standards and other pollutants is a
direct one. Technologies that would be used to improve the
emissions, including things like better air conditioning
systems, also will have an effect on health.
Mr. Ruiz. And I am an emergency physician. As a physician I
am all too familiar with the health effects associated with
particulate matter exposure.
These are small particles that penetrate the lungs that can
go straight into the alveoli blood barrier into your
bloodstream, which can cause premature death, asthma,
cardiovascular ailments, and a lot of other lung problems.
In developing this proposal, the EPA and NHTSA weighted
eight different policy options--eight different policy options.
They picked the one with the highest particulate matter
emissions--the highest of all these eight options, not to
mention the highest sulfur dioxide emissions.
NHTSA's own draft environmental impact statement admitted
that each policy option would lead to increased adverse health
outcomes including, quote, ``increased incidences of premature
mortality, acute bronchitis, respiratory emergency room visits,
and work loss days,'' end quote.
Again, they chose the option with the highest pollution
increase. So yes or no, is it correct to say that EPA and NHTSA
picked the policy option that poses the greatest risk to human
health?
Ms. Nichols. That would be the effect, yes.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentleman yields back.
I would like to take the opportunity to clarify for the
record. A few minutes ago, I allowed and made the mistake of
allowing a courtesy of finishing one's thought of a witness.
However, I should have done it on someone's time, and I
made that mistake. So I just want to apologize to all the
committee members and also to the witnesses and everybody else
who's taken the time to listen to this committee.
[Indeterminate speaker.] Thank you.
Mr. Cardenas. So--you're welcome. I've only been the chair
for just a few minutes, and I made a mistake. I am not going to
do that again.
Mr. Shimkus. It's your first one all year, I hear.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cardenas. There you go. Tell my wife that.
Anyway, next I recognize Congressman Flores from Texas.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schwietert, I would like to clarify a point. The
proposed SAFE Vehicle Rule is a proposed rule, not a final
rule, correct?
Mr. Schwietert. That is correct, as of right now.
Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you.
I would like to yield the balance of my time to Republican
Leader McMorris Rodgers.
Mrs. Rodgers. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I
appreciate the former chairman--that was in the chair, at
least--Cardenas for just acknowledging the importance of
keeping regular order as we are working through this discussion
this afternoon.
And I also think it is important to just--yes, as Mr.
Flores just pointed out, there's eight alternatives that have
been brought forward. There is no decision. There's no
recommendation right now.
We are having a hearing and a discussion today that I think
is very important. I, too, want to just join those who have
been urging people to come back to the table. Get the parties
back to the table.
We have some shared goals here. We want to reduce carbon
emissions. We want to increase safety. We do not want to price
hard-working Americans out of the cleaner, safer cars, and I
think we need to acknowledge that the cars on the road today in
America are 12 years old. Those aren't the clean, new, safe
cars on the road.
I wanted to go back to the--just the question around
Consumer Reports, and we had a--we were working through
Consumer Reports and their statements and what their positions
are.
I wanted to give Mr. Schwietert just the time to just give
some more insights as to the development of the former rule in
the former administration.
Mr. Schwietert. Thank you much, Congresswoman McMorris
Rodgers.
I guess similar to Congressman Lujan, I guess, obviously,
in relation to the quorum, certainly apologize if I interjected
during the chair's time.
My only point as Mr. Friedman was responding was just to
underscore, during his time and tenure at NHTSA as both Acting
and Deputy Administrator, obviously, there were updates that
were made to the model that then eventually found their way
into the draft technical assessment reports.
I was just trying to underscore that, obviously, there was
work that was done during his time period that then influenced
what ultimately led to where we are today.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, and just a followup, would you
speak to innovation in America versus what's going on in
Europe, in China, whether it's--yes, just what's--how are we
doing competitively?
Mr. Schwietert. Competitively, the U.S. is a leader, and
it's not by accident. Obviously, the policies not only from
Congress but regulated entities spur the development of not
only innovations, whether it's, you know, automobile fuel
economy or alternative power trains.
Of course, this committee knows firsthand. It has been
referenced that--close to 40,000 fatalities on our roadways.
That's also innovations that are being led by American
companies and ingenuity that have profound impacts, both when
it comes to not only the traveling public but also constituents
of yours and customers of ours.
So the innovation that's appearing in the U.S. is higher
than most. But it's also something that we shouldn't take for
granted, and I think that speaks to where Congresswoman Dingell
in the past has noted where the U.S. auto economy is actually
pretty fragile and, obviously, there's a lot of headwinds that
we are facing.
So the regulations that you're having this hearing on today
are a core baseline as it relates to the overall health of the
industry, which then spurs that R&D investment--those plant
expansions, those developments that lead to jobs and the
innovative products that I think everybody comes to expect.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I would like to yield to the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Let mee also just in this minute and a half also highlight
the fact that, you know, I have a copy of the Federal Register.
So I think sometimes we get off the rails because we are saying
this is going to be a zero-change rule, and many of you in your
testimony--I think, Mr. Schwietert, you said, like--who said 6
and 8? We'd like 6 and we would like 8. Mr. Hermiz.
So I was going, what's he talking about, 6 and 8. Well, 6
and 8 are 6 and 8 of the alternative change in stringency
issues, right, on this.
So we could go back now using your 6 and 8, and 6 is the
same standards through model year 2020 and then 2 percent
increases for passenger cars, 3 percent increases for light
trucks in model years 2021 to 2026.
So that was helpful to me. There is no rule. There is fear.
I understand that. Back to our comments beforehand, it's
important that we have a national standards constitutionally.
The interstate commerce clause--I am a big believer in it.
And then--and I will just yield back my time. I think we
are going to get some more time, and then I am going to talk to
my former colleague from Louisiana.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
I thank the gentleman from Texas. I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back.
I will now yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Schwietert, 17 automakers, including nearly all of your
members, recently sent the President a letter noting that the
proposed rule lacks industry support and creates untenable
uncertainty, and that a final rule must be supported by
California.
You really haven't commented on the preferred alternative
in the proposed rule today. We know you prefer a deal with
California, but there's no indication that the administration
will return to the negotiating table.
So, in a yes-or-no response, absent a negotiated solution,
does the Alliance oppose the preferred alternative in the
proposed rule?
Mr. Schwietert. [Inaudible.]
Mr. Tonko. So the answer is----
Mr. Schwietert. Which is the preferred proposal.
Mr. Tonko. So it's no?
Mr. Schwietert. Correct.
Mr. Tonko. And Mr. Hermiz, do your businesses or other
businesses in the auto industry face global competition and
operate in a global marketplace?
Mr. Hermiz. Yes, we do.
Mr. Tonko. You mentioned that the administration's proposal
may result in Europe or Asia presenting better business
opportunities for emerging innovative technologies.
It takes years to develop products in this sector. Is it
possible that the uncertainty caused by this proposal will
either strand existing investments or discourage businesses
from making new ones in the United States?
Mr. Hermiz. Yes, that is our premise.
Mr. Tonko. And what role can increasing and certain
standards play in driving innovation from the U.S. auto
industry?
Mr. Hermiz. Well, as we highlighted with alternative 8,
that that investment in technology could actually drive
additional 250,000 jobs.
Not doing that investment or having a flat standard puts
the estimation of 500,000 jobs at risk. So that technology
investment needs to be here--need to encourage it to be here.
Mr. Tonko. I appreciate that.
And Mr. Nassar, from the workers' perspective, do you agree
with that assessment?
Mr. Nassar. I think absolutely that we need to have
continued innovation standards that really push us to continue
to move forward. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. And so you're concerned that this proposal might
limit the research in manufacturing?
Mr. Nassar. Yes. Yes, concerned, and also I want to just
say that one thing too when we are talking about new vehicles
is I want to separate mass production manufacturing from
research and development.
They're not two of the same thing. Sometimes in this
conversation they get conflated. But the answer is yes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And Chair Nichols, thank you again for your participating--
in fact, all of the members of the panel.
We all hear about how these standards are critical for
reducing climate pollution. But I hope you can help us
understand just how important they are.
The New York State Legislature, you may or may not know,
just passed am ambitious, legally mandated emissions target
schedule. Transportation is our biggest source of emissions.
If California and, by extension, New York State and other
States are not able to use these tools to address greenhouse
gas emissions from the transportation sector, what options are
there to hit our targets, and how likely are we to succeed?
Ms. Nichols. Well, first of all, in terms of what we are
relying on, the vehicle emission standards which we began
working on back in 2004, represent the single largest reduction
opportunities that we have, and as a Nation our ability to
comply with the Paris Agreement is also fundamentally based on
the existence of the so-called Obama standards.
So anything that weakens or delays those standards would
need to be made up by other improvements. There are other
improvements available in the area of fuels, in the area of
construction, in the area of agriculture. There are many ways
in which our country could be reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
But in terms of technologies that we know about and have
available to us today, this is by far the most effective.
Mr. Tonko. All right. And the transportation sector is
something that we are trying to focus on with climate----
Ms. Nichols. Transportation sector, again, is the single
largest if you take together both the driving, the light-duty
and the heavy-duty vehicles.
Mr. Tonko. And the added benefits of California's ZEV
standards--the ZEV standard?
Ms. Nichols. The ZEV standard, which is really intended to
push the manufacturers to develop technology, was very
effective in beginning the process of getting investments made
by all the major manufacturers in zero-emission vehicles.
Now the problem we face is that, while the vehicles are
there, there are obstacles to fueling because of the lack of a
deployment of a thorough network of charging stations.
There's also issues about consumer awareness, because
there's been a reluctance, I think, on the part of some to
advertise the availability of these vehicles.
So there are still impediments to the kind of take-off that
we'd like to see. But when we've added those issues to the
equation, as we have been doing in California in the last few
years, we've seen a very quick uptake in the purchases.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
We now recognize Representative Duncan for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, there's a big difference between being an elected
official and representing a constituency and being appointed to
a position where you're just accountable to that one person
that appointed you, whether it was a President or what.
I think Attorney General Landry gets that, having run for
Congress and also running as an attorney general in the State
of Louisiana.
I want to bring up a letter, General Landry, that six State
attorney generals signed, including you and attorney general
from my State, Alan Wilson.
In short, this letter expresses support for bringing
national harmony to the CAFE standards, and Mr. Chairman, I
would like submit that for the record, if I can.
Mr. Tonko. Without objection, so granted.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Duncan. General Landry, you state in your testimony,
``when a State is allowed to usurp congressional intent for
their own designs, all of the other States in our republic
suffer.''
In the letter it says, ``one State should not be able to
effectively dictate fuel economy standards, tailpipe emission
requirements, and mandates for zero-emission vehicles for the
entire Nation where Congress has set a clear policy favoring a
single Federal standard and no compelling air quality concern
exists that is unique to that State.''
It is a great letter. I appreciate you doing that. You have
sat here patiently all day. I want to give you an opportunity
to address these issues one more time, how they affect your
State manufacturing and your constituents.
Mr. Landry. Well, thank you, my good friend.
You know, the one thing that's interesting is that the road
that we are traveling by allowing California to do that and
basically have a waiver, which we believe is probably
unconstitutional and certainly improper in the way that it was
granted, is that it's discriminatory.
It is discriminatory against rural and smaller States by
allowing the State of California to basically set national
policy. National policy should be set in here.
I would remind you all that the State of California
controls 53 to 52 seats in the House of Representatives. That's
12 percent of this body.
And so, if they can't with that large number be able to
influence national policy, we shouldn't have the State back
home, right--the State of California back home--dictating
national policy. That is inherently unconstitutional and a
complete violation of the Commerce Clause.
Also, what's interesting is that competition, right, should
be driving technology, not the Government. The Government
certainly has an opportunity to encourage technology.
But I want to be able to drive a truck which I've driven my
entire life, right. I want to be able to own an SUV. At some
point, there becomes a point of diminishing return, and then
all of a sudden California dictates what size vehicle I get to
drive, right.
What happens in Illinois or Kansas or Nebraska or Iowa,
right? What happens to those farms or those people who want to
use larger utility vehicles?
Certainly, we want the automobile industry to drive the
vehicles that we want to--we want to purchase, and certainly if
they can create a truck that has a higher fuel efficiency, it
is attractive to consumers, it certainly would be attractive to
me as well.
But I can tell you that the way that this is going is
disruptive to our constitutional principles and the way that
our structure of government should operate, and all we are
asking for--and remember, attorney generals are responsible for
protecting consumers, and this is absolutely not a protection
of consumers because what it does is discriminatory in fact
against consumers in Louisiana rather than, basically, placing
the policy decisions inside the hands of State consumers or
elected officials in California.
Mr. Duncan. You make excellent points, and we are a
republic. And you talk about in terms of State sovereignty, one
State shouldn't dictate what other States do, and I think the
letter that you and other attorney generals have put forward is
very, very clear on that.
And I mentioned earlier in the first panel, I drive a Chevy
Duramax diesel. I was in the auction business, a real estate
brokerage. I drove about 65,000 miles a year. The reason I did
that wasn't because I necessarily needed all that towing power
and capacity of that truck.
I was wearing gasoline engines out. So Chevrolet had a
product that was appealing to me. That's what
entrepreneurialism, capitalism is all about, is that the
manufacturers see a need in the market and they produce a
product that the buyer wants, not a product that the Government
tells them they have to produce and tells the buyers they have
to buy.
That's what happens in socialist societies, not capitalist
societies. We are a market-driven economy and we are a republic
of sovereign States, and I think the attorney general has made
some great points there.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for having this panel
and for this hearing, and with that I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
I believe that concludes all those who were looking to
question our panel.
With that, I thank all of our witnesses for their
participation in today's hearing. Very important to have your
input. We thank you for that.
And I remind my colleagues, the Members, that pursuant to
committee rules they have 10 business days by which to submit
additional questions for the record to be answered by the
witnesses who have appeared. I ask that each witness respond
promptly to any such questions that they may receive.
And then I request unanimous consent to enter the following
list of documents into the record:
A report by Bill Becker, the former executive director of
the National Association of Clean Air Agencies; a report from
the BlueGreen Alliance and the Natural Resources Defense
Council; the UAW's research paper on electric vehicles; a
letter from 17 automakers to California Governor Gavin Newsom;
a letter from 17 automakers to President Donald Trump; a letter
from Ceres; a General Motors proxy memo; a Ford proxy memo; a
letter from General Motors investors; a letter from investors;
a letter from the Ceres BICEP Network; a letter from 10 State's
attorneys general; a letter from John Bozzella, president and
CEO of the Association of Global Automakers; a letter from
Securing America's Future Energy, or SAFE; a statement from the
American Chemistry Council; EPA's Assistant Administrator
Wehrum's ethics disclosure report; a letter from the
Competitive Enterprise Institute; a letter from BP CAFE to EPA
Administrator Wheeler; a letter from EPA Administrator Andrew
Wheeler; a fact sheet from Auto Alliance; a statement for the
record from the Consumer Federation of America.
And any objection?
Hearing none, without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.]\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Becker and BlueGreen Alliance reports, the UAW paper, the
Competitive Enterprise Institute letter, the Auto Alliance fact sheets,
and the Consumer Federation of America statement have been retained in
committee files and also are available at https://docs.house.gov/
Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tonko. And at this time, I thank my colleagues. The
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Three supplemental documents submitted with Mr. Friedman's
responses have been retained in committee files and also are
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20190620/
109670/HHRG-116-IF17-Wstate-FriedmanD-20190620-SD004.pdf.]
[all]