Welcome to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In case you missed it, the New York Post recently published an article highlighting Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, issuing a subpoena to California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chair Lauren Sanchez after the agency failed to comply with the Committee’s requests for documents related to California’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate and its continued implementation of regulations nullified by Congress.

In Case You Missed It:

“A powerful House panel took the extraordinary step of subpoenaing a California official, claiming her agency had refused to hand over relevant records during a seven-month investigation into the state’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate, according to a letter obtained by The Post.

“The House Energy and Commerce Committee issued the subpoena to California Air Resources Board Chair Lauren Sanchez on Monday, demanding communications and documents regarding regulations that Golden State officials said would transition away from gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

“‘Forcing Americans to buy unreliable, and costly, EVs would eliminate consumer choice, strain our electric grid, raise costs, and increase our reliance on entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party,’ House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) told The Post.

“‘We will continue to follow the facts and demand accountability from California. I urge California to comply with this subpoena speedily and in good faith.’

“A CARB spokesperson responded that the agency in the past ‘has provided information and documents,’ including on ‘California’s longstanding authority under the Clean Air Act and the actions CARB has taken to protect public health and welfare in the state.’

“‘CARB’s goal is to support the Committee’s legislative inquiry through a transparent, cooperative exchange of information,’ the rep added.

“The Biden administration had signed off on waivers for California to impose the regulations — but President Trump nullified the waivers last June in response to three resolutions that passed on a bipartisan basis in the House and Senate.

“At a White House bill-signing event, Trump boasted that the three Congressional Review Act resolutions would ‘kill the California mandates forever.’

“But Guthrie wrote in a letter accompanying the subpoena that California has still been ‘denying auto manufacturers approval to bring vehicles to market unless the manufacturers agreed to comply with the regulations that had already been nullified through these CRA resolutions.’

“‘After months of negotiations, CARB’s lack of cooperation with this investigation requires the issuance of compulsory process,’ Guthrie told Sanchez in the missive.

“The CRA resolutions targeted waivers that had allowed the state to impose higher vehicle pollution standards than are in effect at the federal level under provisions of the Clean Air Act.

“Those standards — such as the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) and Heavy-Duty Omnibus Law-NOx regulations — were championed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and later became a template for more than a dozen other states.

“Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act prohibits states from implementing emissions standards on new cars or engines that differ from those imposed by the federal government, unless they obtain a waiver.

“Newsom, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Air Resources Board shortly after joined with a group of 10 other state AGs to sue the Trump administration for disapproving of the waivers for EV regulations in June.

“That’s led to a lengthy federal court battle, which is currently being heard by the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Newsom also signed an executive order in June 2025 following the revocation of California’s waivers asking CARB to submit another proposal that would help the state transition from fossil fuels.

“In March, the Department of Justice fired back with a suit against California over a fuel economy regulation that the Trump administration has also seen as effectively an EV mandate.

“The House committee, which began its probe in August, noted in its letter that it was specifically seeking ‘communications between CARB and the California Governor’s Office and the California Attorney General’s office.’

“‘Reviewing these documents and communications is vital to understanding what actions, including actions related to enforcement and implementation of the aforementioned laws and regulations, the state of California has taken thus far with respect to its new vehicle and new motor emission reduction plans following the CRA resolutions signed into law last year,’ Guthrie said.”
###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, issued a subpoena to California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chair Lauren Sanchez for documents and communications related to CARB’s implementation of vehicle emissions regulations that were nullified by Congress. This marks Chairman Guthrie’s first subpoena as Chairman of the Committee.

Despite three bipartisan Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions being signed into law last year preventing California from implementing vehicle standards that would ban the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks through its Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II, and Omnibus Low NOx (Omnibus) regulations, Committee staff received reports that California has been denying auto manufacturers approval to bring vehicles to market unless manufacturers agree to comply with the nullified regulations.

After CARB failed to cooperate with multiple requests from the Committee, despite repeated accommodations, Chairman Guthrie issued the subpoena to compel the production of documents regarding CARB’s implementation of the ACT, ACC II, and Omnibus regulations, including communications between CARB and Governor Gavin Newsom’s office, as well as CARB and the California Attorney General’s Office.

Chairman Guthrie issued the following statement following the subpoena:

“The Committee began its investigation after reports that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) had been denying approvals to bring new vehicles to market unless auto manufacturers agreed to comply with California’s burdensome EV mandate, despite the fact it had been nullified by CRA resolutions signed into law last June. California’s refusal to cooperate with our investigation has left the Committee no choice but to issue a subpoena in order to receive the documents it requested from CARB,” said Chairman Guthrie. “Forcing Americans to buy unreliable, and costly, EVs would eliminate consumer choice, strain our electric grid, raise costs, and increase our reliance on entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party. We will continue to follow the facts and demand accountability from California. I urge California to comply with this subpoena speedily and in good faith.”

BACKGROUND:

• Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits states from adopting or attempting to enforce emissions standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. Under Section 209(b), California may request a waiver of federal preemption from the EPA.

• The EPA had approved waivers under prior administrations that allowed California to implement vehicle regulations, including bans on gas, diesel, and hybrid vehicles and mandates for 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035.

• On June 12, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed three resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act—H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89—which collectively disapproved California’s waivers of preemption that allowed the state to impose vehicle emissions standards that effectively banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles. The CRA resolutions passed Congress with bipartisan support.

• California and several other states have challenged the CRA resolutions in court; the case is currently pending, and no injunction has been issued.

• EV adoption rates remain below the targets outlined in those waivers. For example, ACC II would have required New York to reach 35% EV sales in model year 2026, while current EV market share is substantially lower. California, which leads the nation in EV adoption, had a market share of almost 26% as of December 2024.

• The production of EV batteries relies on critical minerals sourced largely from supply chains controlled by foreign entities. Mining and processing of these minerals, particularly in China, is highly emissions-intensive compared with U.S. production.

CLICK HERE to read the New York Post’s exclusive coverage of the ongoing investigation.

CLICK HERE to read the cover letter of the subpoena.
###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled The Telecommunications Act of 1996: 30 Years Later . Subcommittee Chairman Hudson’s opening statement as prepared for delivery:   “Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing examining the Telecommunications Act of 1996.    “It’s hard to believe that 1996 was 30 years ago. That February, I was a student at UNC Charlotte. I won’t ask my colleagues where they were at that time – or staff if they were even born yet. Here in Washington, right across the street at the Library of Congress, members of Congress celebrated the passage of the Telecommunications Act. I have to admit, this event was not on my radar as a senior in college.    “However, the Telecom Act was a huge milestone when it was enacted. It was the first major rewrite of communications policy since the Communications Act of 1934. The law was designed to deregulate the market, unleash competition, and open opportunities for new technologies and services. In many ways, it succeeded. By eliminating certain monopoly-era laws and preempting state and local barriers, the Telecom Act opened the communications ecosystem to new players, leading to competition and innovation that ultimately benefited consumers.    “Competitors could enter local phone markets, telephone companies could now provide video, cable companies could provide voice service, and they could do this while entering markets they previously could not serve. It also enshrined the principles of universal service that are so important to rural America. Finally, it included what we now know as Section 230—26 words that created the internet economy we know today.    “But the world has changed significantly since 1996. Back then, the Internet was a new technology. We were just beginning to hear the familiar, but now extinct, dial-up tone and use web browsers like Netscape. None of us could have predicted the technological revolution that was coming.   “The Telecom Act unfortunately did not foresee how essential broadband would be to our lives. Nor did it see the rise of new ways to communicate. Back then, everyone relied on their home landline to make calls. Cell phones were considered a luxury. But today, we all have a computer in our pocket that among other things is a very quality cell phone. I’m not sure if any of us even still have a home phone...if we do, I wonder how many can even remember their number.    “And if we wanted to talk with someone on the other side of the world in 1996, we had to rely on a long-distance carrier to place an expensive, charge-by-the-minute call, whereas today, we can connect with anyone, anywhere via a cell phone call, a video call, a text message, or through social media.    “The world of 1996 looks nothing like the world of today, and it’s time we update our laws to reflect that. That’s why we are holding this hearing. Today’s hearing is an opportunity to look back at the Telecom Act—as well as the law it amended, the Communications Act of 1934—and find out what continues to work and what does not.    “For example, does it still make sense to regulate communications technologies in different silos? Do we still need an entire section on payphone service?  Is it time to revisit Section 230? And how should we address media ownership as broadcasters must now compete for engagement and revenue against platforms that did not exist in 1996?  Congress needs to consider how we should modernize our communications policy framework to reflect the technologies of today in way that will also work for the technologies of tomorrow.    “We have an esteemed panel of witnesses here today—some of whom were intimately involved with drafting the Telecom Act. I look forward to hearing from them, and I look forward to this discussion.”   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In case you missed it, the New York Post recently published an article highlighting Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, issuing a subpoena to California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chair Lauren Sanchez after the agency failed to comply with the Committee’s requests for documents related to California’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate and its continued implementation of regulations nullified by Congress.

In Case You Missed It:

“A powerful House panel took the extraordinary step of subpoenaing a California official, claiming her agency had refused to hand over relevant records during a seven-month investigation into the state’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate, according to a letter obtained by The Post.

“The House Energy and Commerce Committee issued the subpoena to California Air Resources Board Chair Lauren Sanchez on Monday, demanding communications and documents regarding regulations that Golden State officials said would transition away from gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

“‘Forcing Americans to buy unreliable, and costly, EVs would eliminate consumer choice, strain our electric grid, raise costs, and increase our reliance on entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party,’ House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) told The Post.

“‘We will continue to follow the facts and demand accountability from California. I urge California to comply with this subpoena speedily and in good faith.’

“A CARB spokesperson responded that the agency in the past ‘has provided information and documents,’ including on ‘California’s longstanding authority under the Clean Air Act and the actions CARB has taken to protect public health and welfare in the state.’

“‘CARB’s goal is to support the Committee’s legislative inquiry through a transparent, cooperative exchange of information,’ the rep added.

“The Biden administration had signed off on waivers for California to impose the regulations — but President Trump nullified the waivers last June in response to three resolutions that passed on a bipartisan basis in the House and Senate.

“At a White House bill-signing event, Trump boasted that the three Congressional Review Act resolutions would ‘kill the California mandates forever.’

“But Guthrie wrote in a letter accompanying the subpoena that California has still been ‘denying auto manufacturers approval to bring vehicles to market unless the manufacturers agreed to comply with the regulations that had already been nullified through these CRA resolutions.’

“‘After months of negotiations, CARB’s lack of cooperation with this investigation requires the issuance of compulsory process,’ Guthrie told Sanchez in the missive.

“The CRA resolutions targeted waivers that had allowed the state to impose higher vehicle pollution standards than are in effect at the federal level under provisions of the Clean Air Act.

“Those standards — such as the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) and Heavy-Duty Omnibus Law-NOx regulations — were championed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and later became a template for more than a dozen other states.

“Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act prohibits states from implementing emissions standards on new cars or engines that differ from those imposed by the federal government, unless they obtain a waiver.

“Newsom, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Air Resources Board shortly after joined with a group of 10 other state AGs to sue the Trump administration for disapproving of the waivers for EV regulations in June.

“That’s led to a lengthy federal court battle, which is currently being heard by the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Newsom also signed an executive order in June 2025 following the revocation of California’s waivers asking CARB to submit another proposal that would help the state transition from fossil fuels.

“In March, the Department of Justice fired back with a suit against California over a fuel economy regulation that the Trump administration has also seen as effectively an EV mandate.

“The House committee, which began its probe in August, noted in its letter that it was specifically seeking ‘communications between CARB and the California Governor’s Office and the California Attorney General’s office.’

“‘Reviewing these documents and communications is vital to understanding what actions, including actions related to enforcement and implementation of the aforementioned laws and regulations, the state of California has taken thus far with respect to its new vehicle and new motor emission reduction plans following the CRA resolutions signed into law last year,’ Guthrie said.”
###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, issued a subpoena to California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chair Lauren Sanchez for documents and communications related to CARB’s implementation of vehicle emissions regulations that were nullified by Congress. This marks Chairman Guthrie’s first subpoena as Chairman of the Committee.

Despite three bipartisan Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions being signed into law last year preventing California from implementing vehicle standards that would ban the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks through its Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II, and Omnibus Low NOx (Omnibus) regulations, Committee staff received reports that California has been denying auto manufacturers approval to bring vehicles to market unless manufacturers agree to comply with the nullified regulations.

After CARB failed to cooperate with multiple requests from the Committee, despite repeated accommodations, Chairman Guthrie issued the subpoena to compel the production of documents regarding CARB’s implementation of the ACT, ACC II, and Omnibus regulations, including communications between CARB and Governor Gavin Newsom’s office, as well as CARB and the California Attorney General’s Office.

Chairman Guthrie issued the following statement following the subpoena:

“The Committee began its investigation after reports that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) had been denying approvals to bring new vehicles to market unless auto manufacturers agreed to comply with California’s burdensome EV mandate, despite the fact it had been nullified by CRA resolutions signed into law last June. California’s refusal to cooperate with our investigation has left the Committee no choice but to issue a subpoena in order to receive the documents it requested from CARB,” said Chairman Guthrie. “Forcing Americans to buy unreliable, and costly, EVs would eliminate consumer choice, strain our electric grid, raise costs, and increase our reliance on entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party. We will continue to follow the facts and demand accountability from California. I urge California to comply with this subpoena speedily and in good faith.”

BACKGROUND:

• Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits states from adopting or attempting to enforce emissions standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. Under Section 209(b), California may request a waiver of federal preemption from the EPA.

• The EPA had approved waivers under prior administrations that allowed California to implement vehicle regulations, including bans on gas, diesel, and hybrid vehicles and mandates for 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035.

• On June 12, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed three resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act—H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89—which collectively disapproved California’s waivers of preemption that allowed the state to impose vehicle emissions standards that effectively banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles. The CRA resolutions passed Congress with bipartisan support.

• California and several other states have challenged the CRA resolutions in court; the case is currently pending, and no injunction has been issued.

• EV adoption rates remain below the targets outlined in those waivers. For example, ACC II would have required New York to reach 35% EV sales in model year 2026, while current EV market share is substantially lower. California, which leads the nation in EV adoption, had a market share of almost 26% as of December 2024.

• The production of EV batteries relies on critical minerals sourced largely from supply chains controlled by foreign entities. Mining and processing of these minerals, particularly in China, is highly emissions-intensive compared with U.S. production.

CLICK HERE to read the New York Post’s exclusive coverage of the ongoing investigation.

CLICK HERE to read the cover letter of the subpoena.
###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled The Telecommunications Act of 1996: 30 Years Later . Subcommittee Chairman Hudson’s opening statement as prepared for delivery:   “Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing examining the Telecommunications Act of 1996.    “It’s hard to believe that 1996 was 30 years ago. That February, I was a student at UNC Charlotte. I won’t ask my colleagues where they were at that time – or staff if they were even born yet. Here in Washington, right across the street at the Library of Congress, members of Congress celebrated the passage of the Telecommunications Act. I have to admit, this event was not on my radar as a senior in college.    “However, the Telecom Act was a huge milestone when it was enacted. It was the first major rewrite of communications policy since the Communications Act of 1934. The law was designed to deregulate the market, unleash competition, and open opportunities for new technologies and services. In many ways, it succeeded. By eliminating certain monopoly-era laws and preempting state and local barriers, the Telecom Act opened the communications ecosystem to new players, leading to competition and innovation that ultimately benefited consumers.    “Competitors could enter local phone markets, telephone companies could now provide video, cable companies could provide voice service, and they could do this while entering markets they previously could not serve. It also enshrined the principles of universal service that are so important to rural America. Finally, it included what we now know as Section 230—26 words that created the internet economy we know today.    “But the world has changed significantly since 1996. Back then, the Internet was a new technology. We were just beginning to hear the familiar, but now extinct, dial-up tone and use web browsers like Netscape. None of us could have predicted the technological revolution that was coming.   “The Telecom Act unfortunately did not foresee how essential broadband would be to our lives. Nor did it see the rise of new ways to communicate. Back then, everyone relied on their home landline to make calls. Cell phones were considered a luxury. But today, we all have a computer in our pocket that among other things is a very quality cell phone. I’m not sure if any of us even still have a home phone...if we do, I wonder how many can even remember their number.    “And if we wanted to talk with someone on the other side of the world in 1996, we had to rely on a long-distance carrier to place an expensive, charge-by-the-minute call, whereas today, we can connect with anyone, anywhere via a cell phone call, a video call, a text message, or through social media.    “The world of 1996 looks nothing like the world of today, and it’s time we update our laws to reflect that. That’s why we are holding this hearing. Today’s hearing is an opportunity to look back at the Telecom Act—as well as the law it amended, the Communications Act of 1934—and find out what continues to work and what does not.    “For example, does it still make sense to regulate communications technologies in different silos? Do we still need an entire section on payphone service?  Is it time to revisit Section 230? And how should we address media ownership as broadcasters must now compete for engagement and revenue against platforms that did not exist in 1996?  Congress needs to consider how we should modernize our communications policy framework to reflect the technologies of today in way that will also work for the technologies of tomorrow.    “We have an esteemed panel of witnesses here today—some of whom were intimately involved with drafting the Telecom Act. I look forward to hearing from them, and I look forward to this discussion.”   ###