Tradeable Energy Performance Standards Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2177

Last Updated: April 5, 2025

Tradeable Energy Performance Standards Act

HR. 2177, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.

The sponsor

Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$72,800 raised

22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 458-460 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Tradeable Energy Performance Standards Act (HR 2177). A regulatory bill that attempts to impose a tradeable energy performance standard on large electricity generators and thermal energy users. How quaint.

**New Regulations:** The bill establishes a new title under the Clean Air Act, creating a framework for tradeable energy performance standards. This will undoubtedly lead to a complex web of regulations, which I'll need to navigate to ensure my interests are protected.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The bill targets large electricity generators and thermal energy users, including covered electric facilities, covered thermal facilities, and covered cogeneration facilities. My investments in the energy sector will require careful analysis to determine the impact of these regulations.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** Facilities must submit emission allowances, which can be traded or purchased through bilateral agreements. The bill establishes a timeline for compliance, with penalties for non-compliance. I'll need to assess the costs of compliance and potential opportunities for arbitrage in the emissions market.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** The bill empowers the Administrator to impose penalties for non-compliance, including fines and revocation of emission allowances. I'll need to ensure that my companies are positioned to minimize exposure to these risks.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** This bill will undoubtedly increase costs for affected industries, potentially leading to higher energy prices for consumers. However, it also creates opportunities for companies like mine to profit from the emissions market. I estimate a potential $500 million in annual revenue from trading emission allowances alone.

In conclusion, HR 2177 is a regulatory bill that requires careful analysis and strategic positioning. While it may impose costs on some industries, it also presents opportunities for those of us who are willing to adapt and innovate. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll ensure that my companies are well-positioned to thrive in this new regulatory environment.

**Recommendations:**

1. Engage with lawmakers to shape the final version of the bill. 2. Conduct thorough analysis of compliance costs and potential revenue streams. 3. Develop strategies for optimizing emission allowance trading and bilateral agreements. 4. Consider investing in emerging technologies that can help reduce emissions and increase efficiency.

By taking a proactive approach, I'll ensure that my interests are protected and my companies continue to thrive in the face of regulatory change.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$72,800

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$6,600

Committees

Individuals

$66,200

No PAC contributions found

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

2 transactions

$6,600

No committee contributions found

TAMELING, GRETTA A.

1 transaction

$3,500

HUANG, CAROLINE B

1 transaction

$3,300

PRICE, RICHARD S

1 transaction

$3,300

SIMON, DEBORAH

1 transaction

$3,300

ABDEY, JULIAN

1 transaction

$3,300

ANDREAE, CHRISTINE

1 transaction

$3,300

ANDREAE, ERICA

1 transaction

$3,300

ANDREAE, MORGAN

1 transaction

$3,300

BEEUWKES, REINIER III

1 transaction

$3,300

BISKIND, EDWARD I

1 transaction

$3,300

BISKIND, JANINE

1 transaction

$3,300

CAMERON, GREGORY

1 transaction

$3,300

DAHLSTROM, PATRICK V

1 transaction

$3,300

DAVIS, TONY

1 transaction

$3,300

GUPTA, POOJA

1 transaction

$3,300

HEBEISEN, KEITH A.

1 transaction

$3,300

HEGARTY, TERRENCE K.

1 transaction

$3,300

JONES, CAROL A

1 transaction

$3,300

KLARMAN, SETH

1 transaction

$3,300

KLASSEN, PETER T.

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 43 nodes and 22 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $72,800

Top Donors - Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

1 Org20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 4 harmed.

−Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.90
Section 702(a) requires Covered Facilities (including Covered Electric Facilities defined in Sec. 701(4)) to submit emission allowances for each metric ton of CO2 emitted, imposing compliance costs on electric utilities that operate such facilities.
−Coal Miningconfidence 0.90
Coal-fired power plants are Covered Electric Facilities (Sec. 701(4)) and must submit emission allowances for CO2 emissions (Sec. 702(a)), imposing costs on coal producers via reduced demand for coal generation.
+Renewable Energyconfidence 0.85
The bill creates a market for emission allowances and favors low-emission facilities (Sec. 701(13) defines Newly Constructed Low-Emission Covered Facility), which benefits renewable energy generators that receive allowances under Sec. 703 and can sell them via trading (Sec. 704).
−Oil & Gasconfidence 0.85
Natural gas and petroleum-fired power plants are Covered Electric Facilities (Sec. 701(4)) and must submit emission allowances for CO2 emissions (Sec. 702(a)), imposing costs on oil and gas producers via reduced demand for fossil fuel generation.
+Nuclear Powerconfidence 0.80
Nuclear power plants qualify as low-emission Covered Facilities (Sec. 701(13)) and would receive emission allowances under Sec. 703 that they could hold or sell, providing a financial benefit.
−Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.75
Reduced demand for fossil fuel generation (due to compliance costs on Covered Facilities under Sec. 702) would lower throughput for pipelines and midstream operators transporting natural gas and oil to power plants.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Renewable Energy$8,725
from 13 contributions
- MURPHY, JAMES T$3,300
- CORNELIUS, CRAIG$3,300
- HANNON, ALLISON$1,200
- STOCKTON, BRYAN$500
- HOLLY, ALLISON$250

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 EPA section address greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, but the bill expands EPA authority through a new tradable performance standard, whereas Project 2025 seeks to limit EPA’s regulatory power and reduce GHG reporting requirements."

Key themes:Greenhouse gas emissionsClean Air ActEPA regulatory authority

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill establishes a market-based greenhouse gas emissions trading program under the Clean Air Act, while Project 2025 seeks to limit EPA's regulatory authority, particularly regarding greenhouse gas regulations and endangerment findings, and opposes expansive use of CAA authority. The bill expands EPA's role in climate regulation, which conflicts with Project 2025's goal of constraining such authority."

Key themes:Clean Air Actgreenhouse gas emissionsEPA regulatory authority

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 413-415AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill establishes a market-based emissions trading system for large energy users, while Project 2025 opposes DOE-led clean energy demonstration programs and market interventions, favoring deregulation and private-sector-led solutions; there is minimal thematic overlap beyond general energy policy."

Key themes:energy policyemissions reductionclean energy

— 381 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions a cost that poses a barrier to renewable generation expansion. However, some of the grants that it administers under the IIJA appear to be properly focused on enhancing the reliability and security of the electric grid. They should be reassigned to the reformed and expanded CESER. l End DOE/GDO’s role in grid planning for the benefit of renewable developers. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and IIJA, DOE is to perform grid congestion studies and has authority to identify National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC). Under the Biden Administration, GDO is working on a National Transmission Planning Study and is administering $2.5 billion to support “nationally significant transmission lines, increase resilience by connecting regions of the country, and improve access to cheaper clean energy sources.”49 l Defund most GDO programs. GDO oversees nearly $20 billion in new appropriations created by the IIJA, including a grid modernization grant program, the transmission facilitation program, and the civil nuclear credit program, among others. Congress should rescind any money not already spent. Budget Congress appropriated $10 million for GDO in FY 2021, and DOE has requested $90.2 million for FY 2023.50 OFFICE OF CLEAN ENERGY DEMONSTRATION (OCED) Mission/Overview The OCED was established in December 2021 to implement the IIJA. Its mis- sion is “[to] deliver clean energy demonstration projects at scale in partnership with the private sector to accelerate deployment, market adoption, and the equi- table transition to a decarbonized energy system.”51 Needed Reforms l End market distortions and stop shifting technology and development risks to taxpayers. The OCED is distorting energy markets and shifting the risk of new technology deployment from the private sector to taxpayers. The IIJA provided more than $20 billion in government subsidies to help the private sector deploy and market clean energy and decarbonizing resources. Government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be subsidizing the private sector to bring resources to market. — 382 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise New Policies l Eliminate OCED. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all DOE energy demonstration programs, including those in OCED. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize preferred businesses and energy resources, thereby distorting the market and undermining energy reliability. l Refocus on resources that will support reliability. To the extent that the various energy research and development funding authorities cannot be repealed, funded projects should be consistent with the programmatic goals of the next Administration. For example, the already awarded Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program should help to move SMRs from pilot scale to commercialization and in the process address material, fuel, and regulatory issues that would pose deployment risk to utilities and Wall Street. Budget DOE’s FY 2023 budget request includes $214 million “to initiate a new $150 million competition to support demonstrations that address integration issues of renewable energy into the U.S. transmission and distribution grids.”52 Overall, the “$21.5 billion provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”53 supports several OCED programs: l Advanced Reactor Demonstration Projects ($2.5 billion). l Carbon Capture Large-Scale Pilot Projects ($937 million). l Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program ($2.5 billion). l Clean Energy Demonstration Program on Current and Former Mine Land ($500 million). l Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas ($1 billion). l Industrial Demonstrations Program ($6.3 billion). l Long Duration Energy Storage Demonstrations ($505 million). l Regional Clean Energy Hubs ($8 billion). l Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs ($3.5 billion).54

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 449-451AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill establishes a market-based emissions trading system for large energy facilities, which contrasts with Project 2025's emphasis on deregulation, fossil fuel expansion, and reducing EPA's regulatory authority. While both address energy infrastructure and emissions, the bill's approach increases federal regulatory oversight via EPA-administered trading, conflicting with Project 2025's goal of limiting EPA's role as an energy policymaker."

Key themes:energy infrastructureemissions regulationEPA authoritymarket mechanismsfossil energy

— 416 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 119. During the deregulation-induced 230,000 MW combined cycle plant boom of 1999 to 2003 and beyond, developers were able to move ahead only with projects that were supported by adequate available gas transmission and near existing localized transmission hubs. Delinking transmission responsibility from power generation, coupled with the heavy incentivization of renewable over gas projects, has promoted the construction of a large class of partially usable and often partially stranded generation-only assets. 120. U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “Grid Deployment Office Launches Transmission Siting and Economic Development Grants Program with $760M Inflation Reduction Act Investment,” January 13, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/gdo/articles/grid-deployment-office-launches-transmission-siting-and- economic-development-grants (accessed March 13, 2023). 121. H.R. 6586, Natural Gas Act, Public Law No. 75-688, § 7. 122. Ibid., §§ 4 and 5. 123. Ibid., § 7(c). 124. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf (accessed March 2, 2022). 125. H.R. 6586, Natural Gas Act, Public Law No. 75-688, § 3. 126. U.S. Department of Energy U.S.-based operating export LNG terminals are located in Louisiana (3); Texas (2); Alaska (1); Georgia (1); and Maryland (1). Map, “North American LNG Export Terminals: Existing,” in U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “North American LNG Export Terminals— Existing, Approved not Yet Built, and Proposed,” February 8, 2023, https://www.ferc.gov/natural-gas/lng (accessed February 14, 2023). 127. Niina H. Farah, Miranda Wilson, and Carlos Anchondo, “Jordan Cove Project Dies. What It Means for FERC, Gas,” Energywire, December 2, 2021, https://www.eenews.net/articles/jordan-cove-project-dies-what-it- means-for-ferc-gas/ (accessed February 14, 2023). 128. Carlos Anchondo, “Biden Admin Backs Contested Alaska LNG Project,” Energywire, October 25, 2022, https:// www.eenews.net/articles/biden-admin-backs-contested-alaska-lng-project/ (accessed February 14, 2023). 129. As discussed in the section on the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, infra, these automatic approvals should be extended to allies of the United States, not just to those with free trade agreements. 130. H.R. 11510, Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Public Law No. 93-438, 93rd Congress, October 11, 1974, https:// www.congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg1233.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 131. H.R. 9757, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Public Law No. 83-703, 83rd Congress, August 30, 1954, §§ 21–28, https://www.congress.gov/83/statute/STATUTE-68/STATUTE-68-Pg919.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 132. S. 512, Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, Public Law No. 115-439, January 14, 2019, § 103, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ439/PLAW-115publ439.pdf (accessed March 2, 2023). 133. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Congressional Budget Justification Fiscal Year 2022, June 2021, p. xii, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1100/v37/index.html (accessed March 2, 2023). — 417 — 13 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mandy M. Gunasekara MISSION STATEMENT Creating a better environmental tomorrow with clean air, safe water, healthy soil, and thriving communities. A conservative U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will take a more supportive role toward local and state efforts, building them up so that they may lead in a meaningful fashion. This will include the sharing of federal resources and agency expertise. Creating environmental standards from the ground up is con- sistent with the concept of cooperative federalism embedded within many of the agency’s authorizing statutes and will create earnest relationships among local offi- cials and regulated stakeholders. This in turn will promote a culture of compliance. A conservative EPA will track success by measured progress as opposed to the current perpetual process and will convey this progress to the public in clear, con- cise terms. True transparency will be a defining characteristic of a conservative EPA. This will be reflected in all agency work, including the establishment of open- source science, to build not only transparency and awareness among the public, but also trust. The challenge of creating a conservative EPA will be to balance justified skep- ticism toward an agency that has long been amenable to being coopted by the Left for political ends against the need to implement the agency’s true function: pro- tecting public health and the environment in cooperation with states. Further, the EPA needs to be realigned away from attempts to make it an all-powerful energy and land use policymaker and returned to its congressionally sanctioned role as environmental regulator.

Department of Transportation

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on establishing a tradeable energy performance standard for electricity generators and thermal energy users to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt discusses Department of Transportation priorities, including spectrum allocation for intelligent transportation systems and criticism of Biden-era fuel economy and emissions standards. There is no meaningful thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions — 627 — Department of Transportation limits for new motor vehicles for air pollutants that are found to pose a danger to humans. However, there is no reason to believe Congress ever contemplated that EPA’s authority to address automotive air pollution might be used to displace or supersede NHTSA’s fuel economy mandate under EPCA. Congress chose to assign the power to set fuel economy standards to DOT rather than EPA. This was not only because DOT understands the technologies and economics of the auto industry, but also because NHTSA is the nation’s leading motor vehicle safety regulator, and Congress sought to ensure that fuel economy requirements would not adversely affect highway safety. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has flouted these statutory limitations in nearly every respect. The predictable result is higher expected transportation costs for Americans. l In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers. l Moreover, and contrary to Congress’s design, the Biden EPA has been given preeminence in the regulation of fuel economy through the setting of carbon dioxide emissions limits for new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Because carbon dioxide emissions levels correspond to mileage in automobiles powered by fossil fuels, these EPA rules are de facto fuel economy requirements that apply independently of NHTSA’s standards. l The Biden Administration has also granted California a special waiver under the Clean Air Act that permits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to issue its own fuel economy directives, notwithstanding EPCA’s prohibition on state standards. Under this waiver, CARB has ordered automakers to phase out the sale of ICE-powered automobiles in California and transition to the production of zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation. As a result of these regulatory actions, automobiles will be significantly more expensive to produce, there will be fewer affordable new vehicle options for Amer- ican families, and fewer new vehicles will be sold in the U.S. That will do more than

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Casten, Sean

Aviation Medication Transparency Act of 2025

119/hr/2592

Mental Health in Aviation Act of 2025

119/hr/2591

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1101) to prohibit unlawful access to the payment system of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes.

119/hres/250

Tradeable Energy Performance Standards Act