Fallon: EPA Proposed Emissions Rules Hijack Auto & Energy Industries, Remove Consumer Choice

WASHINGTON—Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Pat Fallon (R-Texas) opened today’s subcommittee hearing on “Clearing the Air: Examining the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Emissions Standards” by outlining how the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed emissions rules operate on the assumption that the federal government knows what is best for citizens and remove consumer choice. Chairman Fallon also emphasized that the EPA cannot circumvent congressional oversight and must answer questions about its proposed rules.

Below are Subcommittee Chairman Fallon’s remarks as prepared for delivery.

Today’s hearing will examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed emissions rules, including those that seek to place strict standards on tailpipe and power plant emissions. 

Our subcommittee held a hearing on these proposed emissions standards on May 17th. The Committee invited Mr. Goffman to testify.  EPA refused to provide him or Sarah Dunham.

Chairman Comer and I were disappointed by EPA’s unwillingness to cooperate and subsequently sent a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan.

We still moved forward with that hearing and invited other witnesses to testify.

Our witnesses expressed concern that industry would not be able to implement rules that, according to EPA estimates, would require that electric vehicles comprise 67 percent of all new car sales by 2032. 

According to the Biden Administration, these new standards are the “strongest-ever.”

As clearly stated in our letter to Administrator Regan, the EPA ought to be willing to come before Members of Congress to answer questions about its proposed rules. 

In fact, former OIRA Administrator Sally Katzen agrees. She testified last week and underscored Congress’s role in oversight of the federal agencies and the rulemaking process. 

So I am glad that Mr. Goffman is here today to allow Congress to do its job in conducting oversight of EPA’s proposed emissions standards rule.

During the May 17th hearing, we also discussed recent Supreme Court cases including West Virginia v. EPA and Sackett v. EPA that reign in EPA’s regulatory overreach.

However, as exemplified by these proposed rules, EPA does not seem to understand its legal purview.

Last month, EPA rolled out what equates to the Clean Power Plan 2.0, a proposed rule that would drastically lower emissions for coal- and gas-fired power plants. 

The Supreme Court already ruled against EPA and the first Clean Power Plan, stating EPA did not have the authority to place state-level caps on carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.

As 60 percent of our nation’s electricity is produced with coal and natural gas sources, Clean Power Plan 2.0 would have severe implications for the security of the U.S. electric grid. Yet, the Biden Administration continues to disregard Supreme Court holdings when it advances radical proposed rules at an unprecedented clip.

The Biden Administration and leftists just do not care.

In a 2015 speech under the Obama Administration, then-EPA Administrator and former Biden National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy said this of the Clean Power Plan:

“This is a rule that actually regulates toxic pollution emissions from primarily coal facilities, and we think we’re going to win because we did a great job on it.  But even if we don’t, it was three years ago. Most of them are already in compliance, investments have been made, and we’ll catch up.”

As stated by Gina McCarthy, EPA appears to not care if its rulemakings are legal as long as it can force compliance and investment outside the law.

Agency actions that remove consumer choice operate on the assumption that the federal government knows what’s best for its citizens, even more so than the citizens themselves. 

My wife has an electric vehicle because that was the right choice for her and for our family.  I have an internal combustion engine vehicle because that was also the right choice for me and for our family. 

The federal government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating vehicles off the road or shuttering 60 percent of our nation’s power sources while simultaneously stressing the grid with illogical proposals like banning gas stoves and electrifying school buses.

EPA cannot circumvent Congress or the law.

I look forward to hearing more about EPA’s process for rolling out these proposed rules at today’s hearing.