Senate republicans, joined by Joe Manchin, have voted to roll back the first update to heavy truck pollution standards in 22 years. The new soot standards are estimated to save thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars.
President Joe Biden has indicated that he will veto this action, so it’s unlikely to go into effect. But it’s just another sign from Senate republicans that they want to kill Americans and cost them money.
Heavy duty trucks are a primary contributor to harmful air pollution. This is particularly true for the types of pollution that harm human health, like ozone, particulate matter and NOx. While light duty vehicles do make up the majority of global warming emissions (CO2), heavy duty vehicles make far more than their fair share of these other harmful pollutants.
And so, in December, the EPA finalized a rule updating heavy truck emissions standards, the first update to these standards since 2001. The rule goes into place starting in model year 2027 and would reduce NOx emissions by 48%. But they are still significantly lighter regulations than those in some states, like California, which is due to update its truck regulations further in a vote happening imminently (Electrek will be covering that vote tomorrow).
The EPA’s 2027 rule would save 2,900 lives, prevent 18,000 cases of childhood asthma and prevent 6,700 hospital admissions. It would also lead to 78,000 fewer lost days of work, 1.1 million fewer lost school days and save $29 billion per year by 2045, and when accounted for in net present value, the benefits are greater than the costs today. These benefits would go disproportionately to disadvantaged communities who live closer to truck routes and depots.
So, these rules are an unequivocal benefit. Like most environmental regulations, they would both reduce costs and improve quality of life. It’s a no-brainer, a win-win for everyone.
And so, yesterday, Senate republicans voted to reverse them. The republicans were joined by Joe Manchin (D-WV), but otherwise the 50-49 vote was entirely along party lines. All 49 republicans and Manchin voted to poison America and waste money, and 48 Democrats and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) voted to clean the air and save money.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is currently on an extended absence and missed the vote, which is what allowed the republicans to push this measure through.
The vote was a resolution under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to block federal regulatory actions. The Act was passed in 1996 but rarely used until 2017, when Congress used it several times, mostly notably to reverse consumer protections implemented under President Obama.
After going through the Senate, the resolution will have to reach the House, where the slim republican majority is likely to approve of poisoning Americans and costing them money. Then, if that happens, it would move on to President Biden, who has signaled that he does not approve of poisoning Americans and costing them money, and will veto it if the effort to do so reaches his desk.
So this effort is unlikely to become law, and everyone knows it. But, seizing on the extended absence of the oldest member of the Senate, republicans still pushed through this rule.
Republicans argued that the reason they want to poison everyone and cost them money is because the cost of complying with these new rules – which, once again, would save, not cost, $29 billion annually – was too high.
Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), who led the effort, said that since past regulations have worked very well to get emissions down, then new regulations to get emissions down are not necessary – an argument that explicitly acknowledges that regulations work to reduce pollution. She also said that the cost of complying – which could be as little as $2,568 per truck, a small fraction of the price of heavy duty vehicles (which crest six figures easily) – would be too high. Despite, again, calculations showing that this rule would result in not only health benefits, but net financial benefit for the US.
Electrek’s Take
Whenever we write articles like this, we end up getting a few comments saying “stop getting political! it’s not fair that you target one party!”
We do understand the point that compliance to new regulations can cost money. And sometimes, those compliance costs are high for little benefit. But here, those compliance costs and net benefits have been calculated, and they’re positive. As is the case with so much environmental regulation these days, especially with the advent of electrification and renewable generation, we can improve both the economy and health at the same time. That is the case here as well.
All we do here at Electrek is advocate for electric vehicles. We do this openly – you know that this is the position we’re coming from, and you know why we’re doing it. We’re doing it because we like clean air, we like energy efficiency, we like technology, we like better cars. We don’t make a secret about this. We want to live in a better world, and we’re pretty sure you do, too.
In our coverage of these efforts to live in a better world, there is one party which seems to be unequivocally against doing so. When we cover efforts to make things better, these efforts are not being led by republicans. And when we cover efforts to make things worse, those efforts are being led by republicans.
So when we point out, time and time again, that republicans are voting to poison you, this is not an example of us being partisan. This is an example of republicans picking the side of poison, and us reporting on it factually.
And in this case they aren’t even going to get it into law. They know this, and yet they still voted for it, as if to say: “hey, if given the chance, we want everyone to know that our goal is to kill you and make things worse.” It wasn’t even necessary for them to do so, they could try to keep it a secret or something, but it’s all out in the open.
And so, we have to call these efforts what they are: efforts to poison you and cost you money. We would be happy to see republicans stop these efforts, and they can choose to do so anytime, and we will gladly and fairly report on it if they do.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
