Rules of the Road: Examining Legislation to Modernize the Clean Air Act's Mobile Source Requirements

The subcommittee on environment will now come to order. The chair recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing entitled "Rules of the Road: Examining Legislation to Modernize the Clean Air Act's mobile source requirements. This hearing continues the committee's efforts to modernize the Clean Air Act, to reflect the modern landscape of air emissions and trends. At the core of the Clean Air Act is the idea that we can protect our environment without sacrificing economic growth. But it's been decades since Congress updated the act, causing many of its outdated provisions to become burdensome and counter-productive to its original goals. That's why this committee is considering nuanced and tailored updates to improve the Clean Air Act. Today we will consider ten pieces of legislation that aim to provide common sense updates to title two of the Clean Air Act, which governs mobile sources. I welcome feedback from our witnesses and others as the committee considers these bills. Also, would like to thank Representative Ferdorchuk and Representative Langworthy for their work on these bills. and their leadership in modernizing the mobile source provisions of the Clean Air Act. The witnesses we will hear from today have extensive experience with the challenges presented by out of date provisions and are well suited to explain their impact. I look forward to their testimony on the discussion drafts and legislation. I'm particularly interested in testimony that relates to the continued use of the California waiver in the Clean Air Act. One of the bills we will consider today epitomizes the concerns of the committee. The Locomotives Act, introduced by Representative LaMoffa and championed by Representative Olbernolte illustrates the problematic outcomes associated with the waiver. In twenty twenty three, the California Air Resources Board proposed a rule that would ban the operation of any locomotive twenty three years or older from operating in California unless it is running on a zero emissions configuration. The proposed rule, issued in the twilight of the Biden-Harris presidency, was withdrawn before the current administration took office, but it would have effectively prohibited sixty-seven percent of the national locomotive fleet from entering California and accessing two of of the nation's largest ports. Under this proposal, trains would be required to stop at the California border or any state that might adopt these standards and wait for a compliant train to collect their cargo increasing transit time and cost. These disruptions to our national rail system would also impact national security, causing delays in operational breakdowns. Two of the largest rail carriers in in the United States estimate that they would each have to pay the State of California eight hundred million dollars annually in compliance costs. Basically, rail would be economically infeasible in California, and these costs would be passed along to American consumers. This is especially worrisome because under the Clean Air Act, the California rule would become national in scope. Two-thirds of the locomotive fleet would be prohibited from operating in California by twenty-thirty. And even more states could have adopted this approach under the Clean Air Act. I have real concerns with allowing the state of California to set national emission standards for trains, cars, and all o- other mobile sources, especially given its track record of Green New Deal policies and EV mandates. Our vast nation depends on a complex and healthy California should not dictate national policy. Congress needs to do its job and modernize the existing statute. We must revise existing law to meet modern life. If we do not, our nation's families will pay the price. I thank the members of the of this committee who are leading these efforts, and I hope my colleagues will take this opportunity to engage in positive discussions about the legislation before the committee today. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York.

Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. And the uh transportation sector is a major source of air pollution. It is often cited as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in our country. And even despite progress over the past fifty years to reduce traditional pollutants, our vehicles continue to spew particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and other toxics um uh toxic emissions. More than one hundred and fifty million Americans live in areas that fail to achieve federal air quality standards. That pollution imposes tremendous costs on them, including a one hundred and fifty dollar uh one hundred and fifty billion dollar uh worth of annual health care costs and lost productivity. The Clean Air Act exists to protect Americans from this life-threatening and economy burdening pollution. And when the law has been allowed to work to provide long-term regulatory certainty and drive technology innovation, Americans have benefited tremendously. Investments in research have enabled the development of pollution control technologies including selective catalytic reduction that have improved fuel economy and allowed liquid fuels to become less polluting zero emission vehicles have also seen major improvements in performance and cost reductions in recent years which has also reduced pollution and lowered Americans' dependence on fossil fuels. to President Trump's unnecessary war with Iran, American drivers are feeling pain at the pump. Gasoline is over four uh dollars and twenty-five cents per gallon, and diesel is well over five dollars. Americans have already spent fifty-one billion dollars more on gasoline and diesel since the beginning of Trump's war, and many of those costs are being passed on to people, regardless of whether or not they drive, through higher grocery prices and other increases to their cost of living. Reducing Americans' dependence on volatile fuel markets is exactly why a steady, long-term transition away from polluting vehicles is so economically beneficial. EPA's own analysis of its repeal of clean vehicle standards confirms this. By keeping Americans dependent on fuel the fossil fuels, it will cost us some one trillion dollars more in gasoline by twenty fifty-five. Unfortunately, over the past eighteen months, We have seen a very concerning trend at EPA and among Republicans in Congress to upend the Clean Air Act's proven track record of delivering cost-effective public health improvements and economic benefits. In February, EPA rescinded the endangerment finding and repealed all greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles. EPA has also announced the reconsideration of twenty-twenty-four standards for traditional pollutants. These and other recent vehicle standards have reduced fuel consumption and enhanced efforts to grow a competitive domestic industry to build advanced vehicles batteries and emission control technologies this regulatory upheaval is on top of republicans enactment of last year's big ugly bill which repealed incentives for zero emission vehicles making it harder for americans to afford new and used clean cars and insulate themselves from oil price spikes electric vehicles have sixty percent lower fuel costs and significantly lower maintenance costs. And yet, the majority seems committed to making it more difficult for people to buy affordable American-made EVs. Undermining Clean Air Act protections is not the answer, especially at this time of Trump's gas hike. Americans' wallets are under pressure, and efforts to double down on proposals that undermine fuel economy and pollution standards like many of the bills before us today will all but ensure, Americans continue to purchase unnecessary amounts of fuel at over four uh dollars per gallon, while also needing to access more health care for the additional air pollution they will breathe. While I have concerns with most of the bills being considered today, I would like to express my support for H R twenty one forty, Congresswoman Matsui's bill to authorize EPA's DIRA program. DIRA has a long track record of success using incentives to take the most polluting vehicles off the roads in lower costs for Americans. This is an example of the type of bipartisan bill that we should be advancing to reduce air pollution and deploy new innovative technologies. With that, Mister Chair, I thank you again, I look forward to today's discussion, and I with that, I yield back.

Chairman yields back. The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Weber. I want to thank the Chairman Palmer, the full commi of the committee for holding this hearing and thank to our witnesses for being here. Since last year the Environment Subcommittee has been examining ways to modernize the Clean Air Act by reducing burdens and costs associated with building new energy generation advanced manufacturing and needed infrastructure while continuing to protect the environment health and human health. Today we're taking another step in our efforts to modernize the Clean Air Act by examining ten pieces of legislation that would update how vehicles engines and other mobile sources of air pollution are regulated. Nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks have decreased by more than ninety-two percent over the past twenty-five years, but important safety and cost-benefit concerns have come to light following EPA emission control requirements that have been imposed on diesel engines. These requirements can cause trucks, buses and other heavy-duty vehicles to slow down or stop working entirely. EPA Administrator Zeldin recently issued guidance on ways farmers and truckers can improve safety and reduce costs as an interim step. But we we will be considering today several potential legislative fixes that will provide a more durable solution for farmers, truckers and others who rely on heavy-duty diesel engines to keep our economy running. Today we're also examining legislation written in California's attempts to impose an electric vehicle mandate on the railroad industry which would have devastating consequences for interstate commerce I look forward to hearing from our witness on how these bills on today's agenda would eliminate overly burdensome requirements that drive up transportation costs and limit choices for drivers and consumers and thank you, Mister Chair, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman yields back, the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I I wish I could say we were coming back from the Memorial Day recess to address the high gas prices American families are facing this summer, but instead Republicans are choosing to put forth a slate of bills that I think are only gonna make matters worse. Gas prices hit a four year high around Memorial Day weekend, And my republican colleagues remain content to just sit back and do nothing, while Trump continues to wage his reckless war of choice in Iran. As the trade of remotes remains close, gas prices are projected to continue to soar. And diesel prices are also skyrocketing, having increased nearly fifty percent since the start of the war. The impacts are being felt by our farmers, home builders and manufacturers, as well as the truck, rail and freight industries, increased fuel costs, passed on to American consumers for higher prices for groceries and other goods, and this is on top of price hikes from Trump's disastrous tariffs. So it's no wonder that in April inflation rose to a three-year high, and yet Trump says he does not think about American's financial situation. Adding insult to injury, since the start of the war, Republicans' big oil buddies earned a forty billion dollar boost in profits, while hard-working Americans have spent more than fifty-one billion dollars more on gasoline, and diesel fuel. And to make matters worse, the Trump administration has repealed the landmark endangered finding, the legal foundation of federal climate protections. And with this repeal, the administration is also repealing all clean vehicle standards, forcing Americans to rely on higher polluting vehicles that could cost them over a trillion dollars more at the pump. Now the transportation sector is the largest source of climate pollution in the United States, threatening public health and welfare through increased exposure to extreme heat, ground level ozone, extreme weather events, wildfire, smoke and more. Passenger vehicles, heavy-duty trucks and locomotives also emit particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds into the air, leading to respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease and even premature death. And these are serious health consequences that would be avoided with long-standing would have been avoided with long-standing clean air act standards, but today we're considering bills that undercut these clean air protections and force Americans to use even more fuel while increasing pollution. For example, H R six two hundred attempts to eliminate cost-saving, efficient and innovative technology that helps save American families' money at the pump. There's also a discussion draft that would block restrictions on idling school buses wasting fuel and exposing children to dangerous air pollution. Then there's H R three one nine four that attacks state's abilities to meet air, quality, public health and climate goals. by blocking them from setting more protective standards for older, dirtier locomotives in use today. And Republicans are also judging of a bill that would further drag us backwards in cleaning up and modernizing our transportation sector. In stark contrast, we ha- we also are considering H R two one four zero, the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, led by Representative Matsui, which reauthorizes a long-standing bipartisan program to cut pollution from legacy diesel engines. And through the DERA program, EPA administers grants and loans to projects that help replace and retrofit dirty diesel engines around the country. EPA estimates that DERA projects help generate eight billion in health benefits between two thousand eight and two thousand eighteen. I am pleased that that is that this builds up for consideration. And the success of DERA demonstrates the importance of investing in clean technologies. Cleaning up the transportation sector helps Americans save on fueling costs, while cleaning up the air that we breathe and come and combating the climate crisis. So in fact, the average electric vehicle driver pays roughly the equivalent of one to two dollars per gallon, while everyone else is spending over four dollars at the gas station right now. So at a time when Americans are hurting financially, we should be looking to cut costs for hardworking families. And I am disappointed that the Republican bills seek to block these cost-effective policies in favor of doubling down on Americans' reliance on volatile and expensive fossil fuels. With that, Mister Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman yields back. We will now conclude with member opening statements. The Chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and taking the time to testify before this subcommittee. Uh, the witnesses will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions from members. Our witnesses for today are Fred Ferguson, President and CEO of the American Bus Association. Catherine Garcia, Clean Transportation for All Campaign Director, Sierra Club. Jacqueline, is it Gelb? Is that how you say that? Okay. Uh, President and CEO of Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association and James Condie. That one I can do, James. A partner of Void and Grey PLLC. Uh, we appreciate you all being here today. I now recognize Mister Ferguson for five minutes to give his opening statement. Mister Ferguson.

Thank you, Mister Weber, Mister Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Fred Ferguson, and I serve as the President and CEO of the American Bus Association. We present the private motor coach, charter bus, and group travel industries across North America. I'm here to offer support for the bipartisan Buses Act, sponsored by subcommittee member representative langworthy there is currently no uniform federal idling standard for commercial passenger vehicles. as a result states and municipalities have adopted a patchwork of varying local restrictions that interstate operators must navigate daily. the buses act would set a uniform idling floor using epa guidance to promote safety and eliminate this patchwork. This debate is not about whether unnecessary idling should be reduced. Our industry supports cleaner air, newer equipment, lower emissions, and limited idling. The question is whether local government should be allowed to punish federally regulated passenger carriers for the limited engine operations and the need to keep people safe while complying with federal regulations. A motor coach is not a passenger car. It is a federally regulated commercial passenger vehicle carrying our seniors, students, workers, military personnel, tourists, and people with disabilities. These vehicles rely on engine operation to build air pressure for braking systems, s- suspension systems, passenger doors, wheelchair lifts, and HVAC to keep passengers and workers comfortable. Federal law requires drivers to conduct pre-trip inspections and confirm the vehicle is safe before it moves. That requires the engine to run, and a sufficient pre-trip inspection can take anywhere from fifteen minutes and sometimes more, depending on the uh features of the bus. The Buses Act also supports passengers' and employee health. Many modern motor coaches are sealed passenger environments. In extreme heat, cold, or humidity, airflow and cabin temperature are directly connected to passenger and workforce health. This point is not coming just from us or from our passengers. This week, SMART, a union representing professional motor coach operators and transportation workers serving New York City and the greater region, sent a letter raising serious concerns about the operational, workforce, and safety impacts of New York City's idling enforcement framework. In parts of the city, motor coaches face a zero-minute idling rule. And in other parts of the city, they have between one and three minutes of idling time. Neither reflects the reality of safely placing a federal, federally regulated passenger vehicle into service or promoting safe conditions inside the cabin. Similarly, transit buses, taxi cabs, ride shares, trains, planes, all other movers of people are not subjected to the same idling regime as the private motor coach industry. which calls into question some of the benefits the underlying program may create. New York City's system has also become a bounty program. According to public reporting, the city has paid many individuals over five hundred thousand dollars per year through its Citizen Idling Complaint program. This program targets the private motor coach industry for doing their job and complying with federally regulated rules. Buses are part of the environmental solution. A full motor coach can remove as many as thirty-five cars from the road. It reduces congestion. It moves people efficiently, and provides one of the cleanest forms of passenger transportation in the country. According to research, there's less carbon emitted per passenger mile by a motor coach than all other forms of mass transportation, including trains, planes, van pools, ferries, and even transit buses. Lastly, buses bring business. Motor coach travel generates approximately a hundred and fifty-eight billion dollars in total economic output. We support fifty billion dollars in wages and contribute over twenty-seven billion dollars in taxes to federal, state, and local coffers, a significant contrast with some of the other operators of buses that don't pay any taxes at all. The Buses Act, it's a safety solution. It does not eliminate anti-idling laws. It does not authorize unlimited engine operation. And it does not weaken clean air goals. It establishes a reasonable federal floor while preventing bi- bounty style enforcement mechanisms tied to bus operations. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Miss Garcia, you are now recognized for your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee for environment. My name is Catherine Garcia, and I am the Director of Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All campaign. I live in with my family in Washington DC, and I am the mother of a six year old son. I am honored to speak on behalf of our millions of members and supporters today, particularly those who experience severe air quality issues living near highways, ports, and rail yards. These freight hubs are often located where black, Latino, and low-income people breathe in toxic pollution from diesel trucks and buses every day. At the Sierra Club, we're focused on accelerating the nation's vehicle fleet to clean our cars, trucks, and buses, and trains. And our bedrock environmental law, the Clean Air Act, is crucial to this work. I urge Congress to protect and uphold the Clean Air Act protections. Today, I'm here to discuss the importance of urgently addressing three crises that are impacting our members, affordability, air quality, and climate. One of the best tools we have for addressing these issues is meaningful implementation of vehicle emission standards. The vehicle standards are most successful when paired with manufacturing investments that create jobs here in the US, and purchasing incentives that drive demand. When federal agencies were working to implement the Inflation Reduction Act, we saw overwhelming support by industry and experienced a manufacturing renaissance. That meant good jobs in your states. Folks in Michigan, Texas, Nevada, California, Kentucky Georgia and Ohio were benefiting from record job growth in clean energy, clean vehicle, and battery manufacturing and charging infrastructure assembly until last year when President Trump and his administration made it clear that he wanted to prioritize his big oil buddies over the economic welfare and health of Americans. Last year, President Trump and the EPA repealed crucial standards that would steadily increase the availability of cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles. With Republican support, he also made it more expensive for the general public, fleet owners, school districts, and transit agencies to transition to cleaner vehicles that are cheaper to own and operate. Since February, the war in Iran has caused a massive increase in the price of gasoline, which, according to a Pew research survey, found as the biggest concern among americans about the war gas and diesel prices have increased and it's caused a ripple effect in our economy by shifting their focus and producing affordable cleaner cars and trucks for the us market manufacturers can help shield drivers from disruptive fuel price increases here in the us drivers are eager to purchase electric trucks by daimler and volvo and cars from ford gm and toyota if they were more affordable. Congress, you can help by upholding the Clean Air Act, reinstating incentives, pushing back on the administration's rollbacks, and holding manufacturers accountable to deliver for businesses and families. The American Lung Association reports that nearly half of American children live in counties that received a failing grade for air pollution. Congress should fund programs that protect children. The bipartisan D- diesel emissions reduction act, also known as DIRA, has broad support across stakeholders and should be reauthorized since it has a long history of delivering cost-effective health benefits across the country. Last year, Congress overturned vehicle standards that states implement to protect their residents from harmful pollution. And this year, the EPA proposed a two years' delay for criteria pollutant standards for cars and trucks. And I actually testified this morning at that EPA hearing, which continues tomorrow. Combined with some of the proposed legislation discussed here today, sustained attacks on clean transportation will continue to make kids sick. Decades of relentless lobbying by the oil industry has slowed clean vehicle innovation, which has resulted in the transportation sector becoming the largest source of carbon pollution. President Trump's egregious rollback of the greenhouse gas vehicle standards earlier this year means more polluting vehicle more more polluting vehicles for decades to come and will continue climate driven extreme weather. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Miss Gelb, you are now recognized for your testimony.

Thank you. Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. I am Jacqueline Gelb, President and CEO of EMA, which represents the leading manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel engines and commercial vehicles operating in the United States. Our members build the trucks, engines and equipment that move freight, harvest crops, construct in- infrastructure, support emergency response, and power essential sectors of the American economy. We have worked closely with Congress, EPA, and our customers for decades to develop technologies that achieve dramatic environmental improvements, while maintaining the performance, durability, and affordability that our customers depend upon. Today, I would like to discuss the critical role that diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF, and selective catalytic reduction, known as SCR, play in achieving the near-zero emissions performance of modern diesel engines. and why Congress should support efforts to improve the customer experience while preserving these environmental gains. Twenty-five years ago, EPA adopted a groundbreaking rule requiring more than a ninety percent reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines. Meeting those standards required unprecedented technological innovation and nearly a decade of dep- development and implementation by manufacturers the technology that makes those reductions is SCR. SCR uses death, a simple mixture of high purity urea and deionized water to convert smog-forming nitrogen oxides into harmless nitrogen and water vapor before they leave the tailpipe. The results have been extraordinary. Modern SCR systems routinely achieve greater than ninety percent nox conversion efficiency. According to the US EPA, advanced diesel engines equipped with SCR technology have contributed a seventy-six per duck percent reduction in NOx emissions from on-highway vehicles, and a forty-two percent reduction from off-road equipment since these standards were implemented. Together, those reductions account for nearly seventy-nine percent of the nation's total reduction in smog-forming NOx emissions during that period. Importantly, SCR has delivered more than cleaner air. It has also improved fuel efficiency. By allowing engine manufacturers' to optimize combustion while cleaning emissions downstream, SCR technology has reduced fuel consumption and lowered operating costs for truck fleets farmers contractors and equipment owners across the country. This is one of the rare environmental technologies that simultaneously delivers cleaner air better performance and lower fuel use however you SCR can only work when death is available a typical heavy-duty diesel engine uses just two to four gallons of death for every hundred gallons of diesel fuel consumed. Without death, emissions can increase significantly, effectively reversing decades of environmental progress. That is why EPA requires manufacturers to provide warnings when death levels become low and ultimately to limit engine performance if those warnings are ignored. While the goal of these requirements is understandable, experience has shown that some inducement strategies can create unintended operational burdens. Truck drivers, farmers and contractors have reported situations where equipment can become stranded far from service stations creating delays, costs and potential safety concerns. Over the past year, EMA has worked constructively with EPA to develop practical improvements to these requirements. EPA's guidance, issued in August twenty twenty five and in January and March of this year, provides manufacturers with greater flexibility to reduce operational disruptions while still ensuring DEF is on board and emission systems continue to function as intended. Manufacturers are already implementing updates consistent with that guidance. For that reason, we welcome the committee's efforts to codify EPA's commonsense approach to the Diesel Emission Fluid Flexibility Act. We believe it strikes the right balance between environmental benefits and operational efficiencies. We also strongly support reauthorization of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or DIRA. DERA has a proven record of placing safer and cleaner vehicles on the road. It remains one of the most effective and bipartisan clean air programs in the federal government. In closing, the story of SCR and DEF is a story of American innovation. Together, manufacturers, regulators, and customers have achieved dramatic reductions in diesel emissions while improving fuel efficiency, and maintaining the productivity our economy requires. As Congress considers changes to death related requirements, we encourage a balanced approach that preserves those environmental gains while improving the real world experience to the men and women who rely on this equipment every day. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to your questions.

Chair recognizes Mister Conday for five minutes for his testimony.

Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tongo, members of the subcommittee. My name is James Conday and I'm a partner of the Law Firm Boarding Group PLLC. a boutique law firm founded by former White House counsel and Clean Air Act lawyer extraordinaire, Seyfried Engre. I have been working on title two issues for over a decade now. Title two is nearing retirement age. It goes back back sixty years to the nineteen sixty five Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Act. That year, Martin Luther King marched to Selma and the United States sent the first ground troops to Vietnam. In nineteen sixty five, four in five American families already owned at least one car. These cars were affordable and some were powerful. Just a year before, Ford had released the iconic nineteen sixty-four and a half Mustang. These cars were cool but not clean. They spewed black clouds of hydrocarbons, soot, and nitrogen oxides. They had no catalytic converter, no computerized engine controls, no oxygen sensor, and no fuel injection. And they used lead or gasoline, a po- a potent neurotoxin. Diesel heavy-duty trucks were even dirtier. The result was smog. Photochemical smog was a particularly serious problem in the Los Angeles Basin. Because the area's sunlight, bowl-like geography, and wind patterns, LA is prone to photochemical smog. As Judge Janice Rogers Brown remember when we put it, in the nineteen sixties, the air in Los Angeles in the Los Angeles Basin was so thick with smog that a mountain, or even a nearby mountain range, could simply disappear. Those days are well behind us. Since nineteen seventy, manufacturers have reduced smog-forming emissions from new cars and trucks by over ninety-nine percent. Leaded gasoline has disappeared from the pump. Severe smog advisories, which used to plague LA, have dropped to near zero. And some, Title Two has accomplished its goal. We have clean cars and trucks. But the bureaucracies empowered by Title Two keep moving the goal posts to justify ever more expensive regulation. During the last administration, EPA in California attempted to use Title Two to shift the entire transportation sector to electric vehicles, including everything from sedans to freight trucks that need to carry tens of thousands of pounds and travel hundreds of miles per day. These standards were out of touch with reality. Even by EPA's accounting, they would have cost over a trillion dollars and delivered negligible improvements in actual air quality for Americans. Fortunately, Congress stepped in and passed bipartisan legislation to block California's electrification mandates. This failed regulatory push has resulted in one of the greatest misallocations of capital in US history, with over one hundred billion dollars in write-downs in electric vehicle investments so far. This regulatory overreach is a good inflection point to reform title two. Here are three suggestions for Congress. First, title two needs to be cleaned up. Title two is over a hundred pages long and contains many outdated provisions and programs pertaining to vehicles and fuels in the nineteen seventies or nineteen nineties. Congress should repeal provisions that have outlived their purpose. Second, California's waiver needs to be reformed. The extreme smog that justified the highly unusual waiver in the nineteen sixties is a thing of the past. In my view, Congress should simply repeal California's waiver authorities going forward for future model years, placing California on an equal footing with every other state, consistent with the principle of equality among the states. Third, Title Two should clearly prohibit EPA from considering electric vehicles when

I thank all of you for your testimony. We will now move to the question and answer portion of the hearing. You're now recognized gentleman from Ohio, the uh Chairman of the s- Energy Subcommittee, Mister Latta, for five minutes for his questions.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And uh thanks to our witnesses for coming before the subcommittee today. Mister Conda, last Congress we passed the Cars Act, which seeks to prevent the EPA from implementing any future vehicle emissions regulations that would mandate certain technologies or engine types. We have heard testimony today claiming the current administration is slowly response for the decrease in electric vehicle purchases. Would you expand on your point about the auto manufacturer's write-downs on what this is about Americans'

uh sure so i i can speak to the point that for that manufacturers are not selling electric vehicles because of a change in policy i don't think that's frankly true i think they're started underwriting their investments and uh the sales started flatlining even while the mandate was still in place so even by twenty twenty four when the mandate was finalized all these investments were already collapsing and frankly because there's no consumer demand so uh there's a niche market for electric vehicles you know luxury cars in certain areas of the country but it's just not something that's gonna take off in in this country at least in the foreseeable future

well i think you made a a point when you said about the consumer demand and one of the things i've always said is i think that the american people should drive whatever they want if they wanna drive an internal combustion engine or if they wanna drive an ev that's up to them but the the mandates coming from washington usually don't turn out very well for the consumer i'm gonna continue mister konda you also stated in your testimony that the environmental protection agency under the last administration weaponized clean air act under section two O two a to force powertrain changes do you believe it's uh appropriate to use this section to eliminate new motor vehicles from with this type of authority

no absolutely not and we're in litigation on that precise question in several cases. This is a major question of the kind that the Supreme Court has been clear as committed to this body to Congress and EPA cannot without clear authority mandate an entire shift to a new uh you know to to electrification of the whole motor vehicle fleet. We had the same issue exactly in West Virginia versus EPA where the Supreme Court you can ma said you can't mandate a shift from coal to uh solar and wind the same issue applies here so it's illegal and we're glad that president trump is stopping it

thank you uh repealing mandatory state level inspection and maintenance programs for motor vehicles uh could allow states to determine whether vehicle vehicle inspections are appropriate for their air quality needs and save consumers time and money through inspection fees re repair requirements and administrative burdens In Northeast Ohio, there are seven counties required to participate in Echeck program, which is a vehicle emissions inspection program. It requires certain vehicles to undergo emissions testing every two years before registration renewal. And I'm picking on you uh, but again, Mister Condor, regarding Ohio's Echeck program that exists primarily because of the Federal Clean Air Act requirements, how much flexibility and cost savings would Ohio consumers gain if the Federal Inspection and Maintenance mandate was eliminated?

i don't have precise numbers for you on that um but i'm sure it would be very helpful uh i know that states all have an incentive to meet the clean air act requirements because otherwise there are certain regulatory burdens that are applied to them so i think states can uh can do what they think is is best in this area to improve their own air quality without federal mandates

well well thank you very much and this chairman i'm gonna yield back to carly for my time thank you very much

gentleman yields chair now recognizes the ranking member The gentleman from New York, Mister Taco, five minutes for his questions.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Uh, Miss Gelb, is it correct that selective catalytic reduction systems were not the norm twenty-five years ago?

Um, that's true, you know, when we started as part of my testimony twenty years ago to working on the regulation, really focused on not new NOx standards and moving into greenhouse gas one and greenhouse gas two for trucks that's where we started to see SCR um coming to the marketplace and it was to be able to balance the fuel efficiency requirements, what our customers needed to be able to be successful as well as meet our federal emission standards.

Well, as you indicate, those past two decades EPA has set those ambitious standards to reduce NOx and other pollutants from heavy-duty vehicles. And during this time, vehicle, engine, and emission control manufacturers have made major investments in R and D, developing new and improved technologies

Yes, that's correct. Yes, that's correct. Thank you for the question. Thank you for the question, You know, this is, thi- this is a technology that's been in place for our industry. Our industry, as to your point, has invested billions of dollars to bring it to the marketplace. It's also a technology that continues to be improved. Um, I want you to think of, of our manufacturers as constantly thinking through continuous improvement, right? Mm-hmm. They wanna bring technology to the marketplace that, um, you know, first gives them time to bring it from a durability standpoint, being able to test and validate that. but also making sure that it works for our customer. Our customer is is a business. I want you to think of it's a truck fleet, right? It's a it's a farmer. It's someone who's out on a construction site. Our equipment needs to be able to work for them. It needs to give them a benefit. It needs to work for their operations. They need the operational savings. And so the ability to save save fuel have be more fuel efficient, save fuel, um, is something that is going to give them that operational benefit to where they wanna go and purchase the newest and cleanest truck on the road.

Well, that uh cost reduction is about forty cents per gallon of per diesel per gallon of diesel. And um so progress was made, but if a vehicle is not properly supplied with diesel exhaust fluid, can that actually result in higher NAX emissions?

Uh, yes, it could, um, Congressman. You know, that that is also, you know, when these um this technology has been engineered by our manufacturers, it's been engineered over a period of time for it's now fully integrated into the system of that piece of equipment. So just as we think of powertrains as the transmission and the engine are linked to each other, the SCR system is the exact same way. Um, you know, this is not a bolt-on technology, it's not something we can take on, something we can take off. So having death, making sure that that system works properly, um, gives some fuel savings, but it's also making sure that it's.

So, this there is a challenge then of relying upon vehicle operators to make certain the equipment is being used correctly and the public health and environmental benefits of these systems are being fully realized, which is why inducements are necessary. I know there will be members that will say, well, look how much progress we have made in reducing vehicle emissions. Our cars are clean enough already. But it's clear that if we fail to enforce clean air act rules, that progress can quickly be eroded and evaporated. So, Ms. Garcia, there are still many people, especially those living near ports and highways and distribution centers that are dealing with high levels of pollution. Why is it critical for these communities that we maintain strong Clean Air Act public health protections that do indeed promote innovation?

Thank you for the question. Yes, um, so one of the things i would wanna point out here is that for decades every time industry has engaged in rule making they have exaggerated the cost that it would cost for transitioning to a cleaner type of vehicle um just for example in the nineteen seventies um my fellow panelist here mister mentioned that in the seventies before catalytic converters there was a terrible smog problem in the in the LA Basin. That is true. But those manufacturers in the nineteen seventies argued with EPA and demanded that the veh- vehicle regulation be weakened and dragged their feet until they continued until EPA was successful with passing regulation. And now we have catalytic converters in combustion vehicles. Um, this is the same story we have seen decade after decade after decade. Manufacturers continue to push back against regulations. So, given that we have distribution centers all over the country, we have highways dividing communities, we have homes in the shadows of overpasses, the Clean Air Act has not gone far enough, we need stronger regulations, and as you mentioned, we do need certainty. As we speak, members of the community are telling um telling EPA that we need to continue to uphold the Clean Air Act, and we need to uphold and implement the standards that are in place.

I thank you for that, and with that, uh, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Ma- Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, the chair now recognizes uh the gentleman from Texas for his five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would certainly say we got an upgrade. Mister Conde, in nineteen sixty seven, a member

Yeah, so in in nineteen sixty seven, Congress enacted a particular waiver authority that's pretty unique. uh that allows California to set emission standards within its state but then in nineteen seventy seven congress further amended the act to allow other states in the country to adopt California's standards and this in practice means that California has a veto over manufacture production decisions in about one third of the market which effectively means the whole national market so

well

that gives California enormous regulatory authority

who well absolutely it does and is there something to be said that all of these regulations

yeah

serve more so to drive the cost of vehicles as well as freight and delivery in fuel higher then it has such a small impact on uh curbing emissions in a small way is that safe to say

that is very safe to say

mr. ferguson would you agree with that

yes i would

ok thank you for that um i'm gonna come back to you mr. condi i think is where i'm going next i um have a district along the Gulf Coast of Texas, uh, that is home to several key waterways. We have seven ports, a lot of manufacturing, a lot of refinery on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Uh, we serve as a lifeline to not only our energy, our country's energy export trade, um, and also import in a lot of things and import a lot of trade in there in the Gulf Coast of Texas. Uh, as such, our inland waterways remain an absolutely crucial linchpin to our nation's transportation sector. Can you explain some of the effect that California emission waivers could have, even on ocean-faring vessels?

Yeah, so, California has a rule requiring ocean-going vessels to essentially electrify when they stop at the port of Los Angeles for example and and the ports in California account for about forty percent of the freight moved in the country. So, pretty much every ocean-going vessel moves through California and and essentially that requires vessels even foreign flag vessels to adopt equipment to electrify that they currently don't have and spend millions of dollars just to dock at the port of Los Angeles.

And can you imagine the amount of paperwork and the expense from a legal document, whether there's attorneys involved, I think your turn any other attorneys on the panel? Okay, so you're safe right now. So, uh, imagine the amount of paperwork that's involved in trying to make sure that all of these other vessels these companies, whether they're from the United States or they're from, as you pointed out, an ocean flagged uh vessel rather uh from across the seas, if you will, what about the amount of expense? What does that do to the price of the goods?

It it probably it has a substantial uh uh increase in the cost there, because it's not just California, but there's also similar European regulations that are out now that are making it extremely difficult

Yeah.

to be a global company.

Well, I I appreciate that. Mr. Ericsson, I'm coming back to you. Thank you for being here today. You highlighted the significant investment technological advances in cleaner equipment that motor ca- coaches now utilize. For instance, you mentioned that quote " since two thousand, nitrogen oxide emissions from motor coaches have declined by approximately ninety-eight percent", which is a significant industry achievement compared to previous decades. However, certain state regulations, talking about California, now we're gonna move over to New York City, for example, continue to alter those very standards that y'all are aiming for. What does the future hold for y'all's industry, that's a Texas word, y'all, what does the s- future hold for y'all's industry if there's no uniformity in found with respect to motor coach emissions?

Well, a a modern motor coach, you know, you all may not know, it's it's a six hundred and fifty thousand dollar piece of equipment. highly technological, highly innovative, and and and not cheap. And to to to procure vehicles, to manage your fleet, you need significant capital at your disposal. And to deploy your capital, you need long-term certainty. And what what's happened, you know, with CARB in California is different engine model year requirements have gotten out of whack where we have an EPA standard that requires one set of capital expenditure plannings. that california through some of their regulations have completely changed and california similar with shipping is a huge market for motor coaches

ok i appreciate that uh madam chair i yield back

the gentleman yields the chair now recognizes mister polon for his five minutes of questions

thank you uh my questions are of miss garcia a number of the bills considered today, I believe, would actually drive up expensive fuel use while undermining critical Clean Air Act public health protections, as I said in my opening statement. So, first question, Miss Garcia, what do higher fuel prices mean for Americans and how are these costs rippling through our economy, if you will?

Thank you for the question. Um, as I mentioned in my testimony, since February President Trump's war has caused a massive increase in the price of gasoline. Drivers are dreading the trip to the gas station and calling it pain at the pump. Today on average, gas is over four point two six per gallon and diesel is about five point forty one cents per gallon. The persistent fuel price increase has had a ripple effect across the economy impacting the wide spread market for manufactured goods. such as cars, medical supplies, clothing, and household items. Even more troubling, Big Oil is using geopolitical chaos as cover to drive prices up and deliver massive windfall profits to their shareholders. From groceries to housing to rising fuel costs and utility payments, families are paying more for everything. And transportation is the second highest household expense after housing. in much of the country the cost of transportation is determined by the necessity of owning and paying for fuel insurance and maintenance and these expenses are adding up every year paying um significant burden on working families and i'll know earlier in the year epa initiated a rule making to roll back the cafe standards the fuel economy standards this is actually making it so drivers are paying more per gallon per um per mile that they drive. And so at a time when fuel costs are skyrocketing and many people would choose to pay um pay less for gas, they would choose to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, they would choose to have an electric vehicle, it's actually harder for them because manufacturers are not delivering on that demand.

But Republicans have, you know, I say they've waged a war against homegrown clean energy policies and technologies at lower costs for Americans. So, I mean, you know, look no further than the repeal of all clean vehicle standards, which you've already talked about. So let me ask you, how do these how do strong clean vehicle standards and incentives help cut costs for Americans?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. Um, essentially, um, when the previous administration initiated the stronger regulations, um, the regulations that were in place starting in twenty twenty one. That actually encouraged manufacturers to steadily increase the amount of fuel efficient vehicles and even electric vehicles. At that point, um, the people that are buying electric vehicles and are driving plug-in hybrids, they're spending less, forgetting around town, they have less maintenance costs and um generally have more money saved um at the end of each week instead of this pain at the pump that we're seeing today

so i mean my point that i keep making it uh is that uh you know consumers save money if they're using clean vehicles meanwhile prices keep going up because of the iran war of the trump administration and um I think it's important to reduce Americans' dependence on fossil fuels in general because the geo-pil geopolitical risks, uh, cleaning up our air, um, and, you know, we should be working to restore and expand common sense measures like, you know, what what you mentioned with clean vehicles just for the not only for cost purpose but for the sake of health and the and, uh, of our community. So unfortunately,

The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mister Joyce from Pennsylvania for his five minutes of questions.

Thank you for holding this important hearing today, and to our panel for testifying. During the Biden administration we saw unprecedented attacks on consumer choice in vehicles putting into place emission requirements so stringent that they created de facto electric vehicle mandates. In addition, California attempted to use their unique Clean Air Act waiver to require a phase-out of internal combustion engine vehicles. Americans across our country in states that followed California's standard were faced with California bureaucrats attempting to ban them from purchasing affordable reliable vehicles based on radical principles rather than the reality of what the consumer wanted and what the consumer could afford. Thankfully, Congress successfully blocked these efforts with C with three CRAs, including my legislation disapproving of California's advanced Clean Cars Two standard. However, there is ongoing concern that future administrations and regulations could once again impose unrealistic standards that harm consumer choice. Mister Ferguson, in your testimony you speak about how motor coaches provide transportation service in rural areas, rural areas like I represent in central Pennsylvania, where rail or air op air options are often not the first choice. Do you agree that electric vehicle mandates applied to motor coaches would rather further limit transportation options specifically in rural areas.

I I do agree. You know, the the running cost for an electric motor coach is about double the cost of a regular motor coach.

And who's gonna incur that increased cost?

So we're to Well, local business owners and ultimately their customers. And, you know, the the primary customer

Is that going to potentially limit their ability to take a motor coach ride, maybe to get on a coach and come to Washington DC?

Well, you you you have the kind of the theoretical and the cost, but the reality is operating interstate motor coaches you know you're not on a closed loop, you're not in an airport circuit, you're not on even a transit route where charging can be more predictable. You know when you have fifty five passengers in the back and you're stopping for food, you know where are you gonna charge up? And how long is that charging gonna take? And how long can your passengers wait as they're trying to get to field trips and school, events and sports games, what are they gonna do while you're, you know, filling up? So, I don't think our industry is anti-electric vehicle. In fact, there's a lot of alternative propulsion technologies that we're interested in, it's all about that lead time of adoption and allowing them work.

And it's about the cost as well.

Absolutely, and I think cost over time can become more predictable and manageable, but the market needs to dictate those decisions, not, you know,

Not government.

governments.

Mister Ferguson, do you agree when jurisdictions like New York and like California impose these mandates that it has an impact across state lines impeding the ability for what you were just talking about for motor coach operators to provide that necessary transportation. Those sporting those sporting event trips, those field trips. Does this impede that?

We we've got current research that shows thirty-five percent of East Coast motor coach operators, including many in Pennsylvania, are reducing trips into New York City because of the cost of complying with their regulatory regime. Uh, on average it's about fifty thousand dollars in new costs that our small businesses are having to either swallow themselves or pass on to their customers.

Mister Conde, you discussed the successful bipartisan efforts to block California's EV mandate. In your opinion, did the successful passage of these CRAs do enough to prevent future attacks on consumer choice?

It's a very helpful start, and we p- we appreciate Congress's action there, but it is not sufficient. Uh, I know that, you know, if there is a second uh uh Biden two point O administration they're gonna try the same moves again we're gonna see the same capital misallocations and the same regulatory history happen once again unless the Supreme Court clears up this issue which we will ask it to do but you know if the if the Supreme Court does not definitively decide this issue we could use legislation to clear up and make sure that you know the next administration can try the same move again

This committee has already taken positive steps to protect consumer choice and to push back on the burdensome regulations and the bills under consideration, today, represent a much needed modernization of the Clean Air Act. Thank you. With the remaining time, I yield back.

The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mister Ruiz from California for his five minutes of questions.

Thank you. I represent California's twenty-fifth congressional district, uh, the Coachella Valley, Imperial Valley, San Jacinto Valley, Pass area, Uh these are communities where public health is a daily emergency, quite honestly with the uh contamination of the air, because according to the American Lung Association's state of the air report, Imperial County ranks thirteenth in the nation for ozone pollution and eighteenth for annual particular particulate matter. Um the Coachella Valley, Riverside County often gets a grade of F during their report cards as well. The Imperial Valley is one of the most polluted areas in the country, Colexical Central Heber Corridor is already failing federal air quality standards, and in some stretches particulate level runs ten times higher than what the federal government considers safe to breathe. Uh diesel trucks on the I-ten and the State Route one eleven, cargo traffic through the Colexical port of entry, and dust blowing off farm fields have pushed pollution to levels that are not marginal violations. They are a public health emergency. As of twenty nineteen, asthma-related pediatric emergency room visits and hospitalizations in Imperial County were double the California state average and the county's overall asthma hospitalization rate has remained nearly twice the statewide rate ever since. Imperial County also records amongst the highest rates of childhood asthma hospitalizations and emergency department visits, anywhere in California. So I have to do uh so I have to be honest. about what i see in the bills before us today. Several of these proposals, including the choice in automobile re retail sales act and the state emissions authority act would undermine california's long-standing congressionally granted authority to set vehicle emission standards stronger than the federal floor california has held this waiver authority since the original clean air act was signed into law more than fifty years ago it exists because california's air quality challenges are unique. geography the population the traffic and the suffering of communities these bills would be a step backward for public health at exactly the moment we need to be moving forward i'm also concerned about the proposals that provide blanket exemptions under the clean air act for requirements of inducement related diesel engine dur durates and to create carve outs for engine idling restrictions diesel exhaust is a known carcinogen the health costs of diesel pollution fall disproportionately on low-income communities, rural communities, and communities of color, communities that I represent. Rolling back the tools manufacturers, states, and localities use to reduce diesel pollution is not modernization like my Republican counterparts push for, it is regression. Ms. Garcia, the communities I represent bear some of the worst pollution burdens in California, and as I just outlined, many of these bills would lead to increased diesel pollution. What would that mean for the health of front-line communities like those in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys?

Thank you for that question, Congressman. Um, I'm glad you mentioned, um um, I kn- I know that you, um, were a doctor and, um, health is very, very important to you and to all parents. Um, when my son was one, we were living here in DC and he had a severe fever and difficulty breathing. We took him to the emergency room and he had RSV. It was so scary because he was born a preemie and I was, as I was holding him, I was terrified and the doctor gave him a breathing treatment at that time. And I, I do this for a living. I, I advocate for the Clean Air Act and for strong standards and for moving forward on um holding manufacturers accountable. And I truly feel that no parent should feel helpless as their child is struggling to breathe.

Yeah. Yeah.

Um, so that is a reason why California was given the authority to set stricter standards than the federal government.

Yeah. So, if if I may, um Communities that live near high pollution in high pollution areas next to i tens live on average ten years less This is not a joke. This is not theoretical. This is not about political partisan messaging around these fake so-called mandates that that don't exist. This is about people living ten years less on average. Th- that's the public health impact that the impact on people's lives. And I can tell you many folks on both sides of the aisles would rather live ten years more with their grandchildren and their family than deal with these cuts in protections to their health. Thank you and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mister Carter of Georgia for his five minutes of questions.

Thank you Madam Chair, and thank all of you for being here. This is extremely hearing and uh talking about modernizing modernizing the clean air act in respect to the mobile source pollution sort of sources uh let's face it, the clean air act is a significant piece of legislation, it's historic landmark piece of legislation, and it was certainly needed in the nineteen sixties, but it hasn't been updated since then and it needs to be updated. We know that we've learned that um there needs to be some real changes made to it um Because it is showing its age. We don't we don't have leaded gasoline anymore. We don't have vehicles without catalytic converters or oxygen sensors. And all of that has changed and and and and changed the situation that uh that we live in now. So we need to update this. Um, since nineteen seventy, smog-forming emissions have re been reduced by ninety-nine percent, and that's significant, and we need to update the Clean Air Act to to to to to meet those standards that are that are there today. Mister Condie, let me ask you, in your testimony you discussed the need to clean up title two to outdated provisions and programs that were designed for vehicles and fuels from decades ago. What are the consequences if we don't do that? What if what are the consequences if we leave title two as they are?

There's a lot of confusion, so a lot of attorneys are gonna be making a lot of money pouring over pages that are no longer relevant to the actual public. So it has a lot of cost to businesses who are just trying to figure out what the law is and what it means.

Good. Mister Ferguson, you brought up um some pretty interesting points in your testimony, particularly regarding the challenges of bus operators that they've that they face in places like New York City. Routine operational activities that are needed for passenger safety and even ADA compliance are now being weaponized and

Well, the the bipartisan Buses Act, which has been spearheaded by Mister Langworthy and Mister Gottheimer, is a is a great place to start. It gives operators the framework to complete their pre-trip safety inspections to to allow time to get the systems, the sensors, the lifts, everything up and running as it should, which promotes and encourages safety in the operation of a motor coach, which on average takes about thirty-five individual cars off the road.

Is this the bus idling act that you're referring to?

Yes, sir.

Good. It it seems to me like some of these oppressive policies stem from our outdated clean air act, and may actually lead to less bus travel and put more cars on the road. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely. And and we've seen thirty five percent of our operators in the east coast are reducing trips into New York City because of this idling enforcement program which as I stated in my testimony does not apply to transit or other movers of people such as taxi cabs or ride shares only the private motor coach industry is targeted under this program.

Are there any other type of um real world impacts that out of touch local uh anti-idling standards that are having on motor coach operators?

Well, I think um the the long-term predictability of regulation allows in the case of the motor coach industry to see ninety, ninety-eight percent reductions in in knocks in other particulate matter. You know, it's happened over a long period of time through public-private partnerships, and so I think the the message is predictability, you know, partnerships being able to understand the rules of the road, allow us to innovate and to to use the the power of the the free market, to solve some of these problems. And that's what we've seen thus far. There's a new engine year coming out in twenty twenty seven where you're gonna see continued improvements in the sustainability and efficiencies of these engines.

Well, you know, I I would agree and and I and I would submit that, you know, I I'm I'm somewhat offended that that you would think that we don't want clean air. We all want clean air and we all want but we wanna be smart about this, and and we want to have policies in fa- in place that apply to today and are inapplicable to today as opposed to nineteen sixty when they were written. So I thank all of you for being here and I thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to address a a very important issue and that is, you know, we we wanna come up with new policies, but at the same time we need to be looking at these existing policies and how we can make them better and smarter. Thank you and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, since the passage of the Clean Air Act, uh, the emissions of common air pollutants have dropped seventy-seven percent, while GDP and job growth have grown by two hundred percent. Um, and the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the central benefits of the law exceed its costs by a factor of more than thirty to one. It's a key example of our ability to balance economic growth and still have environmental protection. And I just want us to be conscious that throughout the history of this bill, these conversations were had, um, by folks who said, you know, we we really can't make these restrictions or we will suffer great economic harm. Um, and I think these trades have been uh proven that they've not only, um, supported economic prosperity, they supported innovation and supported better health. So I wanna keep that in mind. And and Miss Garcia, you referred to uh, the Clean Air Act as a bedrock environmental law. I just wanna say that I often hear every law referred to as a bedrock environmental law. There are two. They are the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. These are the these are the bills that actually substantively prohibit the emission of pollution into the environment that can risk public health and safety. And I think we should really keep that in mind. These are really important. Um, and yet, like all the environmental laws, they didn't come to us from Moses on tablets. We have to look at them and we have to revise them as and modernize them. And so a couple of you have made points I think are good. I think, Mister Ferguson, your point about a minimum idling time is something we should look at. I the only thing is I want it to be a uh I want it to be enforceable. It seems to me that these drafts take some of that away, but I think we could probably close that gap. I thought your point, Miss Gelb, about death was something we should take seriously. And um maybe we could work a a a an answer around that. Um But I just wanna keep keep in mind that um everybody's been complaining for decades that we can't possibly comply and it and often works out that we can. Um so let's work together on real fixes that I think we can we can tailor, and that can be um can meet our moment. I do wanna say that there are other issues that we we oughta be able to to address too. Um it eh over the pa- over a year over the past year, um while they were waiting for a grid connection, Uh, Elon Musk's XAI data center in Memphis, Tennessee was powered by over thirty gas turbines, none of which wou- had a single clean air per- permit. That's enough energy to power over a quarter million homes. At their second data center in South Haven, Mississippi, they now have forty, and they seem to continually truck in new turbines that have not been permitted. These turbines emit up to two thousand tons of harmful air pollutants into the atmosphere annually, operating with no transparency, no restrictions. and flouting the uh Clean Air Act entirely because XAI was somehow able to categorize these turbines as mobile sources because they were on trailers, but they're fixed, they're connected to a fixed supply of natural gas, meaning that they're absolutely not mobile. Um, and the EPA guidance came out this year that reiterated that these types of turbines are not mobile s uh sources. Ms. Garcia, how much clearer does the law need to be on this issue? Are are we seeing this in other parts of the country?

So as you mentioned, um, the generators are absolutely not mobile sourcer not mobile sources and they're not temporary sources either. Conveying them as either mobile or temporary does a real disservice to the Clean Air Act, and as we saw causes real harm to the communities around those data centers and that are looking to flaunt the law. The law is very clear in this aspect, but we need actual enforcement, something that many states and this EPA is just refusing to do. No one should get a free pass to violate the law and pollute the air.

Thank you.

Endangering the lives of the people right next door is unacceptable.

Yeah, I do also wanna just talk for a minute about innovation. Um, it is interesting consumers, we've talked about this in the context of methane, are tired of the regulatory ping pong between Republican and Democratic administrations. It's impossible to invest without clear laws, create newer, cleaner and smarter products. And I would just call out the CARS Act for one for one example, would block EPA from finalizing vehicle emission standards that would mandate the use of spec- specific technology or quote, result in the limited availability of new motor vehicles. That is so broad and vague, uh, that it could hamper EPA's ability to promulgate any future rules in in the future. Now, none of these bills are gonna get sixty votes in the Senate. So the administration will be forced to do them unilaterally and then a Democratic president will unwind them. Um, I do think we should work in this this room on real fixes. Um, and meanwhile with respect to cars, China is building twenty electric vehicle dealerships in Canada, and looking to open car manufacturing plants in Mexico. All this talk about uh dissing electric vehicles is ignoring that that is where the world is going, and we should be leading, not giving it away. And I yield back.

The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa for her five minutes of questions.

Uh, thank you Madam Chair, uh, for holding this important hearing and i also wanna thank our witnesses for being here today. It's interesting to hear my colleagues speak so i agree with representative buddy carter that uh we have regulations that were put in place uh almost half a century ago and need to be modernized and i also agree with uh representative peters uh that sometimes we hear that a regulation will uh uh be so onerous that it will uh eliminate an industry and so i think that what we're hearing is that there's actually bipartisanship here on Capitol Hill. Um, so America's farmers rely on dependable vehicles, equipment, and transport transportation networks to plant, harvest, and deliver food, fuel, and fiber to consumers across the country. Yet many of the clear acts mobile source regulations were developed decades ago, as was iterated, and have become increasingly complex, costly, and disconnected from the realities of modern agriculture. Requirements related to emissions controls, engine technologies, and vehicle standards can increase equipment costs, reduce reliability in challenging uh um operation operating conditions, and create unnecessary downtime during critical planting and harvest seasons. And when your profit margin is next to nil, all of these small changes are important and critical to be needed to protect the environment while ensuring regulations are tailored to minimize cost on consumers and producers.

So I think codifying uh the recent guidance on on DEF by the EPA administrator would be a very good place to start uh I know we represent a lot of farmers, and that's a big issue for them.

Well, speaking of DES, Miss Gelb, the cost of farm equipment is something that impacts farmers across my state and the nation. How might current proposals on Dish uh diesel emissions fluids or DEF impact the cost of farm equipment? And what would happen

Thank you for the question. So, as I've said, manufacturers have been investing in this technology, validating this technology, and to the point that you made earlier of that it's in the forefront of the manufacturer's mind making sure that equipment works for their customers. We we we do not like our equipment to fail. We know how important our equipment is to our customers with making sure um that it's working for their business for them. we've been working on this technology for so long, it now is fully integrated into that system. So the pure elimination of death can impact the operation of that system, as well as the emissions side of it. So we wanna make sure that when we're looking at where where can we make sure that we c- have the robustness for that technology to work that we're balancing making sure the system is gonna be protected, cuz we don't want a s- situation where we have catastrophic failure. it all for our equipment, our customers make an investment in this equipment for them, um, and so we wanna make sure it's gonna work for them, that it holds its value, but wanna make sure that they have a positive experience from the operator's side, and that really is trying to understand what's h- ma- making sure their equipment works.

And the EPA uh January twenty twenty twenty twenty six guidance clarified that temporary repair procedures may be used when necessary to diagnose a repair equipment Provided the equipment is returned to proper functioning before being returned to service. Has that clarification improved the ability of farmers and technicians to diagnose and repair equipment?

It has, and I'd also look at the other two guidances that EPA has put out as well. Um, the August guidance from last year, which is now starting to be implemented and available to our customers from our manufacturers is really trying to make sure of what you spoke about, the severe de-rates, making it so that they don't get stuck in the field in the middle of planting season or harvying season, um, as well as for trucks, too, we don't want them stranded on the side of the road. It's making sure that they can have an - they're notified that there's a potential inducement here, but they're able to get back, finish the job, and get back to a safe place with that equipment so it can be serviced and put back into operation.

Informers for ask have asked for greater ability to diagnose and repair equipment in the field, to your point. EPA's approach gives them more practical repair flexibility while preserving the same equipment architecture financing assumptions and resale value expectations that support today's equipment market is that balance equipment owners have been seeking is that the balance they've been seeking? or does more need to be done

um you know from our standpoint it's uh we we wanna make sure that they're able to make sure that equipment works for them they're able to address it quickly Um, and from our standpoint we see the EPA guidance being able to provide the flexibility from the manufacturer's side to address it but also making sure that it's improving that operator experience.

Thank you so much. I yield back. The general lady lea yields. The chair now recognizes Miss Bergen for her five minutes of questions.

Uh, thank you Madam Chairwoman. Um, I represent the Port of Los Angeles and I'm proud of the, uh, standards that we put in to help protect our community and help clean uh up the air there um one of my my colleagues on the other side um wanna go after the port um i would welcome them to come to the port and see what we're doing they wanna talk about higher costs we should look at the policies that they're uh supporting that are resulting in higher cost across the country um it is it is true that in the port of LA um we have had an effective regulation to reduce ship pollution at the ports and that's the plugin system. And so I'm proud of that. And um, no, you know, there's there's other ways that ships can come into our port, uh, even if they haven't, uh, put in the, you know, the technology he mentioned. Uh, they can also install devices to capture their emissions and in the long term, these ships are actually saving money, uh, from all of the the sh- the fuel they would be burning just idling there. So, um, it's something that, uh, we, that I support. Miss Garcia, Um, in communities across my district, which includes the port, parents can see and smell freight pollution from nearby rail operations. California's been working to clean up rail emissions because no child should have to breathe that dirty air, um, just because they live near a rail yard. How would the Locomotives Act undermine those efforts and affect public health in communities like mine?

Thank you for the question. Um, this proposal would give industry a pass at modernizing their technology and the efforts to reduce emissions from decades old outdated rail technology. Um and in fact Sierra Club has been pushing for cleaner trains for many many years. Um we have shined a light on the inexcusable delay for updating rail technology. And one of the things that is it's clear to me um doing a landscape of where rail technology is around the world um this is not an issue of technology this is an issue of prioritization and this is a prioritization challenge if we were to invest in updating rail technology and electrifying rail that would have huge benefits for populations that are living around rail yards um and particularly the rail yards and the corridors between the ports and and throughout the um Los Angeles region, um we can deploy electric rail um and I we strongly strongly um endorse uh moving and advancing and modernizing rail, and in fact the International Energy Agency endorses electric rail to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Yeah, and in my district We have a Pacific Harbor line. They've been a national leader in deploying zero emissions, locomotive technology at the ports of of Los Angeles and in Long Beach. So, I mean, what does this tell you about potential for cleaner rail operations when companies have the right incentives and support?

Yeah, absolutely. And, um, there was incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act. There's been incentives and grants that are part of DIRA that have updated and modernized um, locomotive equipment, so the technology is there, we just need to prioritize and and and push um the the industry to to advance.

Great, thank you. Miss Garcia, the discussion draft bill on bus idling would stop state and local governments from enforcing bus idling limits for up to fifteen minutes. The other side is for state's rights when it's inconvenient for them, um but not not on this one. Um, I can understand Mister Ferguson's point about certain situations where commercial buses need to idle for a limited amount of time, but I believe that it's up to state and local governments to strike the right balance, based on specific situations they deal with. Um, I know that in California we we have actually exemptions in our idling. Um, there are no exemptions at all in the bill we're looking at, uh even Utah has um a a a idling law, and they have exemptions as well. uh this federal one we're looking at has nothing. Does that make any sense to you?

It does not make any sense, and I think there can be an approach to take a a smarter approach to to to fixing the issue. Um we certainly agree that um as Mister Ferguson said, um buses are the most sustainable mass transit option, and we certainly wanna encourage um more people to take buses, um but this is the wrong approach, and in fact Um, what, when I look at idling, I think about the folks that are waiting at the bus terminals, the bus depots. Um, Mister Ferguson mentioned that in the bus there's protections for the people that are waiting on the idling bus but certainly not outside of the bus.

Great, thank you. I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Uh, the chair now recognizes Miss Leah Florida for her five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We can all agree that clean air and clean water are non-negotiable, but uh regulations are intended to be a means to an end, not an end in themselves, and every regulation should be grounded in reality and tied to a clear environmental objective. Uh, we should also review them regularly to ensure that they remain current and relevant to the contemporary landscape, and so I thank all of you for being here today to help us in that endeavor. Mister Conde, I'd like to start with you. I'd like to go back to the discussion of uh California's waiver authority and the kind of impact that that is having on the national market, would manufacturers essentially have to uh build or manufacture to California specs uh in the effect that that has on regulatory costs in other states so I am from Florida and we are the third largest country with twenty three million residents, uh millions of vehicles purchased every year. Can you help us understand what repealing that waiver authority would mean economically for states like Florida?

Yeah, so there's no question that since California began its regulatory push to electrify everything in about twenty twelve car prices have exploded. They've increased by fifty percent, the median car prices have increased by fifty percent since twenty twelve, while incomes have only increased by half as much. so cars are becoming increasingly less affordable as automakers have to invest in sort of failed electrification policies. I think if California was out of the picture, consumers would be able to buy the cars they want and it would become more affordable. We've already seen that. In in fact, prices have started to fall because of President Trump's deregulation. So, uh, I think cars would become more affordable to average middle class Floridians. Yeah.

Thank you. And, Mister Ferguson, I'd like to follow up on your testimony. about uh motor coaches and in particular there too this is an important industry in my state uh according to the american bus association foundation data florida's motor coach industry generates seven point five billion in economic output and supports forty three thousand jobs now of course we don't have a regulatory system like new york and it's doubtful that uh we ever would you know particularly in a state like mine where not maintaining a climate controlled environment can can much of the year be uh very dangerous. Uh, but I'm interested in you describing for us what this kind of limitation on idling, what this kind of regulatory uh burden has uh not just on the motor coach operators, but also on the affordability of motor coach service for passengers.

Yeah, it's it's important to highlight that f- motor coaches are regulated by the federal government. So the the crux of the problem is the federal regulations require operators to do certain things. Doesn't matter if they're in New York or Florida. There's certain baseline things they have to do to promote safety, such as a pre-trip inspection, that takes more than zero minutes, takes more than one minute, takes more than three minutes, takes about fifteen minutes. And in certain localities, we are unable to complete those pre-trip inspections without violating a local ordinance. And so for operators who, many of whom are based in New York and maybe come to Florida or come from Florida and go up to New York, they're crossing state lines, they're going into different jurisdictions, the ability to comply with federal requirements and local requirements is a conflict. And so how do we resolve that? And that's what the bipartisan buses act would do. And and ultimately we are focused on passengers, the drivers, and and in the grand scheme of things, taking cars off the road. Because when people are traveling by bus, there's up to thirty-five less cars, and the innovation in these engines are extremely advanced. And so that is why buses, as was just noted by the Sierra Club, are the most sustainable way of traveling in mass transportation.

That's an important point for us to highlight about your testimony, is that while certainly it it shares uh it illuminates the challenge of an overly burdensome regulatory landscape both for for industry uh and for passengers you also have highlighted that we are undermining an industry that supports good clean transportation methods at the same time isn't that right

and and the reality is operators who are having to comply with the the new york example um you know they're based in new york but they're also based in florida and you know when when dollars are going to uh to fines and and to pay the citizen bounty program that's fewer investments in their own workforce. Academy Bus is a great example where in one day in New York they had a hundred and twenty thousand dollars in fines and they're a great operator from New York, all the way down to Florida.

Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. We welcome them in Florida. Madam Chairman, may I yield back?

The gentlelady Lodo from Florida for his five minutes of questions.

Thank you so much. You know, modernizing the Clean Air Act to me means achieving meaningful progress in protecting clean air. According to EPA, uh the transportation now twenty-eight percent of most uh uh the most of any sector for greenhouse emissions but I also think it has the greatest potential uh to continue to bend the curve. We see in Florida we've had extreme hurricanes and and heat as a result of rising uh amount of greenhouse gases. Uh gas is nearly four dollars right now in central Florida which is uh a dollar more than it was a year ago and diesel rose to five eighty so um mister ferguson sorry for what you're dealing with there with the with the diesel prices there among others you know and gas powered vehicles are gonna be available for the foreseeable future uh and uh so will diesel uh nonetheless there are many reasons for us to encourage uh more hybrid and electric vehicles hydrogen powered trucks and more uh so that we can continue to clean our air uh and give Americans more opportunities to be able to buy electric or hybrid vehicles, and manufacture these vehicles in the nation. You know, in the Sunshine State, twenty percent of the new vehicles purchased were hybrids or EVs uh last year, uh something that shocks a lot of people. Uh, but we can do better on that over time. Miss Garcia, we saw the the EV uh incentives lapse. Uh, how important is it is it to get those EV tax credits back? and what do you think about adding hybrids as part of it

um so i think it's extremely important to get those incentives back and um and there are incentives for um evs and plug-in hybrids um and and this actually brings up a a previous point that i wanted to make um in terms of the regulations um in in california as well as the previous federal regulations those were not a mandate they actually did include plug-in hybrids and they were common sense approaches to transitioning from all fossil fuel vehicles over to cleaner vehicles um so

thank you miss garcia my my time is limited i appreciate it and and i think that's the the the idea that we wanna incentivize these things while giving american's options a few years ago i went to korea and drove a hydrogen powered vehicle and one of my colleagues uh drove a tractor trailer that was hydrogen powered. We see Hyundai has a two hundred fifty mile uh range vehicle twenty minute recharge. Toyota announced with High Road uh last year to deploy hydrogen fuel cell trucks. Volvo's in road testing and Daimler is working with Cummings and Freightliner in Indian and Oregon on uh new hydrogen powered trucks. Uh, Miskel, how far away you think we are we as we get to the next ten, twenty years and and seeing more hydrogen powered um truck both engines and on the road

thank you for the question um the big issue of just in any technology transition for our industry no matter what it is whether it's a new clean diesel engine battery electric hydrogen fuel cell hydrogen ice um you know from the stand point it's making sure that that uh technology is gonna meet the operational needs for our customers but also when we start talking about alternative um technology battery electric hydrogen making sure the is in place.

Sure, and hydrogen's really probably has much more promise for the tractor trailers it looks like at this point.

It offers a opportunity to be able to go a longer a longer distance. Um, we have manufacturers members that were are looking at it, that have are doing the research to see if it's something that they could bring to the market that the market and our customers would like.

Sure, this is progress over time. I appreciate it and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Uh, the chair now recognizes herself. for five minutes of questions. Um, uh thank you all for being here today and thank you Chair Guthrie for uh, including one of my bills in the hearing, the bill which advances uh, efforts to ease pressures on farmers, manufacturers and truckers across the country. I agree with others who have stated that the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, those are non-negotiable, those are bipartisan issues. And I'm very proud to say that my state of North Dakota, is one of only a handful of states that have never violated the national ambient air quality standards, never. And that's despite being a, the third largest oil and gas producer in this country, uh a leading producer of uh electric power and exporter, and a f- uh ag producer that leads in thirteen different ag products in this country. So we are very much a deliverer of products, and we still meet the ambient air quality standards. Uh, our s- my constituents insist on it. But in my state, where agriculture drives our economy and long-haul trucking connects our communities, regulatory burdens on diesel engines have real consequences and costs for my constituents. Uh, today's hearing includes bills to protect North Dakota families by providing more flexibility for emissions regulations. Uh, and I - I think that this is long overdue and very appropriate that we're looking at these things. This is not, these are not fictitious mandates. These have very real consequences. I just recently met with a whole group of North Dakota farmers who sat in a round table discussion with me, and each one of them could talk about examples of being stuck in the field with a tractor that was turned off. Derated to that point. They really couldn't move because of the death emissions issues. and the sensor issues. So, Mister Gelb, can we talk a little, Miss Gelb, can we talk just a little bit about what some of these regulations are doing, what are some of the issues encountered from the use of DEF, and how has the Administrator Zeldin and the EPA taken a pragmatic approach to fixing these?

Sure. Thank you very much for the question. You know, I would say before the EPA guidance had been published last year, you know, our customers, you know, your farmers in your district, would run into issue to where that equipment if they had received an inducement and notification of that there was an issue with the sensor low def quality um not enough def um in the sense of you know they could they could run into a place exactly what you said the equipment would stop running for them it would shutdown and it would happen pretty quickly it would be a severe de-rate of what we what we call for the industry post august guidance

so Go ahead, continue.

I was gonna say, with with EPA's August guidance, they've been able to take the approach, and we were very supportive of this as the manufacturer, so where it gives a slower ramp down into that um ability for the equipment to shut down. It gives more notices. They have longer periods of time now to where it doesn't happen in a short period of time uh time. They aren't going from, let's say, from uh a place of where they were in the middle of planting planting their crop and then suddenly it stops. they're able to finish that job and they're able to get that equipment back in back home to be able to be serviced.

Thank you. Uh, what are the practical risks of leaving these guidance documents uncodified? And what would statutory clarity mean for diesel engine users and uh and manufacturers uh moving forward?

Absolutely. So, um, Mister Ferguson has mentioned this a couple of times, but it's the most important thing for our customers and for our manufacturers is regulatory certainty. Um, so being able to design to something that we know that standard is going to be in place, but that also gives certainty to our customers, to your your constituents of making sure that they know what's gonna be the requirement for tomorrow is the same requ- same same requirement for today.

Thank you, Miss Gelb. I yield the remain of my time, and I n- the chair now calls on my friend, Mister Carter from Georgia, for his five minutes of questions.

Louisiana this time.

Louisiana. Sorry, Mister Carter.

That's all right. Thank you, ma'am. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. I represent Louisiana, where some of our communities are breathing some of the nation's most polluted air. Parts of our state already bear disproportionate burden of industrial emissions and vehicle pollution adds to that toxic load every day. Diesel trucks, aging cars, and inefficient engines pump nitrogen oxides and find particulate matters into the air that our children breathe. This isn't just a Louisiana problem. Right now, nearly half of all children in America live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution. These kids face higher rates of asthma, reduced lung development, and long-term cardiovascular harm, conditions that follow them for their entire lives. Strong vehicle pollution standards are one of the most tools we have to change that. They cut the tailpipe emissions, driving those health crises. Vehicle emission standards have saved families money at a time when the president's reckless war in Iran has sent gas prices skyrocketing. Since the Clean Air Act, vehicles' efficiently requir- efficiency efficiency requirements took effect Americans have saved hundreds of billions of dollars in fuel cost. as cars and trucks have become dramatically more fuel efficient, meaning every trip to the gas station costs less than every tank of gas goes further than would have before the standards took effect. Cleaner vehicles mean healthier kids and lower fuel costs. Weakening those standards doesn't hurt the envir- just doesn't hurt the environment, it hits our families in their lungs and in their wallets. Ms. Garcia, one of our witnesses On today's panel claimed that the Biden area clean vehicle standards would have delivered negligible improvements in air quality. What does that even mean? Negligible, does that mean just a little bit better? Isn't a little bit better better than a little bit worse? So should we have a race to the bottom? Or should we try to always improve air quality even if it's incremental? Uh, what would you like to say about that about that statement?

Thank you, Mister Congressman, um, so I think one of the things that we're seeing with the EPA and these rollbacks, these severe rollbacks, is that when they actually do the do the math, and they're looking to see how this would affect the economy, how this would affect business, they aren't actually taking into account what this would mean for health. And in fact, President Trump does not even care about Americans in the fact that the EPA has removed health benefits from even being a part of the equation. So when EPA does its analysis, it doesn't look at what how many lives would be saved, how many fewer hospital visits would be would would occur after this rollback um is implemented. So as you mentioned um children are the most most vulnerable of our population they're exposed to toxic vehicle pollution everyday for example when they go to school many of the buses are diesel um and when they're walking and playing and exercising outside they're exposed to these poisonous fumes so i

right

um wholeheartedly agree and um i think the epa should be taking into account health benefits when they're analyzing these rollbacks um for the sake of our children

Uh, my district is home to some of the largest ports in America, and I'm very proud of that. While we're thankful for these jobs, the facilities provide, the trains, trucks and industrial equipment needed to move the cargo every day, also have air quality impacts. Diesel engines can also operate for thirty hours or more, leaving millions of older, dirtier engines in use. Can you talk about how programs like the Diesel Emission Reduction Act provides both health and economic benefits for communities like mine? Because we shouldn't have this as a either-or proposition. We can have both. We can have economic viability while still promoting healthy communities.

Absolutely. Um, and in in part of the preparation for this hearing, um, I did evaluate many years, there's a legacy of DIRA grants that have helped communities switch from diesel transport refrigeration units to all-electric units. to um switching from switch locomotives to tier four locomotives um and replacing dirty diesel school buses to electric buses um and so across the country we are seeing the benefits and what that means for communities it's it's less uh fuel costs and it's more modernized um transportation options so all in all um DIRA is um a great solution for moving this forward.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair Yield.

The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mister Evans of Colorado for five minutes of questions.

Thank you to the chair, ranking member. Thank you of course uh to our witnesses for coming today to talk about this. And let's talk about unintended consequences. Um, I'm gonna read from a CBS News story here. Uh, again, CBS uh, not Fox News, CBS uh from two months ago talking about gas prices in California. um the story says uh it's talking about um why are gas prices higher the headline is california gas prices are the nation's highest but there's no proof of price gouging here's why and then when you read the story it says um state officials say they have found no evidence of illegal price gouging instead two refineries shut down taking nearly twenty percent of the state's refining capacity california is now outsourcing to asian refineries to make more California's special blend gas. And I wanna come back to that point. Environmental standards aren't as strict in Asia, and then the refiners have to ship that gas back to California halfway around the world, uh, which the story says here, in addition to increased pollution, transporting the gas across the Pacific can take weeks, which results in higher costs and greater volatility. And so I wanna I I wanted to read that to kind of level set about what we're talking here uh which one of the specific uh legislation the locomotives act talks about yet another one of these loopholes by which states like california or in my case colorado try to dictate national standards around the environment and do those uh california standards the special gas blend here that we talked about designed to reduce emissions do they actually reduce emissions or do they have the unintended consequence of actually increasing emissions while also increasing costs. And so my first question uh to Miss Gelb is gonna be tr- uh to you. Um, Colorado, my home state. Sixth most heavily regulated state in the nation, coming in closely behind California. I've seen the results that this heavy regulatory burden has uh on the economy of Colorado and people's ability to make a living. Uh, we've seen, we just read what the what these California regulations, the impact it has on California. And so the Locomotives Act that we're talking about closes yet another loophole by which blue states like california and colorado can try to force rail carriers uh to comply with uh california standards and so the question to you is does that actually would these california standards projected across the nation would that actually protect the environment or does that have the uh potential to result in what we just talked about more unintended consequences that actually increase um pollution by driving transportation manufacturing in the economy out of the united states to as it says here places like asia where the environmental standards are lower you get more emissions more pollution and we still lose the economy so i know that's a long question but would just closing this loophole help us actually protect the environment by preventing these negative unintended consequences

thank you for the question i can tell you in the space of our industry we we actually are very small industry in regards of how many engines and equipment that we sell, trucks being one of them, agriculture being um another another one there. But from our standpoint, if when we always work on our regulations, we want a national standard. Um, trucks are a prime example of that. Those trucks cross state lines multiple times a day. Your state has one of the toughest um in- inclines for a truck, a c- on highway truck, to be able to move move our nation's freight. So the ability to have a standard to where it's one national standard is something that we always strive uh to make sure for our industry we have the certainty, but also it's something that works best for our customers.

Thank you for that. So, sounds like having that one national standard and not allowing states like California and Colorado to make a patchwork uh is going to be able to save consumers' money, be able to make sure that the economy isn't strangled under regulatory uh burden, and again as we read in the story potentially has the ability of actually decreasing emissions by keeping that stuff in the united states where we have better environmental standards

we always like harmonization for our regulations whether in california or epa so we have one standard for our industry

thanks for that i got thirty seven seconds here mister condi uh this last one will go to you um does things like restricting engine idling for school bus does that actually move the needle on air quality or should we look at other things like maybe uh preventing wildfires and reforming the exceptional events under the clean air act to actually follow the science and find ways to actually reduce um air pollution ten seconds

i think preventing wildfires is is huge uh just to give you a data point there light duty vehicles only account for one percent of p m emissions while wildfires account for much bigger portion of p m emissions so i think it's very important

thank you for that i'm out of time and you're back

The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mister Landsman from Ohio for five minutes of questions.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be be quick, uh, cuz we gotta go vote. But, um, uh, my wife and I have two kids. They're fourteen, sixteen. They use the public trans- transit system now. Um, but obviously when they were uh younger, I guess not obviously, but they they used the the a private, you know, they company that worked with the school district. So they've been on both. And The idling question is, you know, one that I think about in the context of my kids and everyone else's kids, right? You know, and we wanna make sure that we're being smart about these policies, and so I I appreciate the bipartisan hearing. Hopefully we get to a a bipartisan place. The these buses are for the most part diesel engines. And you got kids sitting on the buses, including mine. And the time in which the bus is idling, they are breathing in the air. And so the idling rules, mister Ferguson, you represent these bus companies, you'd agree that the idling rules are good.

Yeah, and o-

Like, generally speaking.

O- operators do not want their drivers idling endlessly, cuz that's also money thrown out the door as well.

Right.

Correct. Right, it's more fuel Also bad, you know, in terms of the asthma, I mean, it just costs riders more and it costs families more. Uh, a kid with asthma, it's very expensive. It's also heartbreaking. Uh, and then, you know, the, the school districts, they pay more. The, the question is, is like, are these idling laws extreme or are they putting folks out of business? And I, I'm, this isn't a leading question, I swear.

Mm-hmm.

Do you have companies in some of these states that you're frustrated with where buses are or bus companies are going out of business, where it's becoming too expensive?

I- it's becoming an an operational challenge for the driver, because the question becomes, do I pay attention to the federal regulation that requires this, or do I follow the state ordinance which requires that?

But isn't it's not that kind of like a,

That

cuz they just do the state, right? I mean they, whatever is the, whatever the whatever requires them to idle less, that's what they're gonna do, no?

But i- in the case of the federal regulation, you know, their operating status, their ability to operate is granted by the feds. And if they're doing things that harm their federal compliance, that could jeopardize their, you know, long-term future as an operator.

Yeah.

So it's clarity is what we're looking for. And and unlimited idling, as I said in my testimony, is not what we're here to have.

Very bad. We don't wanna do that. And it does seem to me that the choice would be I I'm gonna idle less because one, it's better for my own health, it's better for my company, uh it's better for the kids, and uh you know

The the the

I I s- I suspect that's where most more, but you you don't there's no companies going out of business because of this.

What what what's happening is fewer trips in the case of New York, fewer companies going into New York, and the cost of compliance is going up. And so I think taken against the basket of higher diesel costs higher insurance costs you know all of those collection of hits that could absolutely put companies out of business

they haven't yet no one's gone out of business yet i i i hear what you're saying but that this isn't uh this isn't a question of uh you know whether or not it's really undermining these businesses i think there's a question of you know how uh how do we wanna manage this so that we're protecting these kids, uh, and and the drivers. Uh, Miss Garcia, just was, as it relates to the idling rules and kids. I mean, the the asthma piece is a big deal. I mean, how expensive i- if we were to pull back and just say, you know, we're gonna have this one standard and we're not gonna just have states be able to decide because each state is a little different, the asthma rates go up or down?

Asthma rates would go up.

And that, you know, much more expensive.

Yeah, well, are you talking about the the health cost of asthma?

Yeah.

Yes, absolutely, the hea- the health costs would go up.

I think the challenge for me is, and I think Mister Peter said this, like I I think there is an opportunity to figure out a path forward. It's gonna require Democrats and Republicans sitting in a room and having these conversations, which does not happen that often. And it's folks on this committee uh that have to sit in a room and say ok what is gonna make the most sense, I hope that's the direction which we go. That said, I'm gonna always think about like as as anyone would, we're gonna think about our kids first, that's gonna be the biggest priority. Thanks all you all back.

Thank you. Um all time is expired on the floor for votes, so we are gonna have to draw this hearing to conclusion. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. Uh members may have additional written questions for you. I'll remind members they have ten business days to submit additional questions for the record and I ask that the witnesses do their best to submit responses within ten days upon receiving the questions I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list. Without objection that will be the order. Without objection the subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you all. Alright.