This Week is Proof That Lawmakers Are Listening

California may have written the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) rule, but 11 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island, have adopted it as their own. These mandates aren’t just a California problem—they’ve spread across the country, and seven of the adopting states are within ABMA’s territory, directly impacting our members and their ability to operate effectively.

This week’s House action follows a formal request from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who initiated the process under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to rescind the federal waiver that allows California to set its own emissions standards. Without that waiver, the mandates fall in all 11 states—including those in ABMA territory.

ABMA has led the push to protect building materials businesses from these costly and impractical mandates. While we support sensible environmental progress, we oppose regulations that force small and mid-sized businesses to purchase vehicles that are twice the cost, carry smaller loads, and don’t meet the practical demands of our industry.

Earlier this year, ABMA sent a formal letter to Administrator Zeldin urging the EPA to revoke California’s waiver. Since then, our members across the region have raised their voices:

• TJ Shaheen, President of the New Jersey Building Materials Dealers Association (NJBMDA) and Vice President of Builder’s General, reports that NJBMDA members are already facing challenges due to ACT regulations.
• Rob Bicknell, President of the Northern New York Lumber Dealers Association and Vice President of Bicknell Corporation, confirms that LBM businesses in New York are struggling with truck availability.
• Tony Shepley, President of Shepley Wood Products in Massachusetts, has raised concerns publicly—sending a letter directly to Governor Maura Healey outlining the negative impact of ACT regulations.
• Jeremy Baker, Legislative Chair of the Vermont Retail Lumber Dealers Association and Fleet & Safety Director for rk Miles, reports the same truck availability issues affecting LBM businesses in Vermont.

The economics are staggering. A diesel-powered medium-duty truck typically costs $70,000 to $90,000. The electric equivalent? $150,000 to $250,000—a difference of up to $160,000 per vehicle. Charging infrastructure can run $50,000 to $200,000 per unit, depending on site needs and power upgrades.

Operationally, electric trucks don’t offer a one-for-one replacement. Battery weight reduces payload capacity by 2,000 to 5,000 pounds. Long charging times restrict daily use. And in many cases, companies would need more trucks just to maintain their existing service levels.

ABMA will continue to work with lawmakers and regulators to ensure that environmental goals are met in ways that make sense for business. We’ll stay engaged as these resolutions move to the Senate and continue advocating for practical, affordable, and industry-specific solutions that support growth—without breaking the bank.

House Targets California Emissions Standards

House leaders are moving forward with a vote on House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res.) 87, a formal measure used by Congress to express disapproval or propose legal changes. In this case, the resolution would overturn California’s stricter emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks. These standards, approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are part of California’s broader climate agenda to reduce vehicle emissions. Seventeen other states have adopted similar rules as part of efforts to phase out gas-powered vehicles.

The resolution is being introduced through the Congressional Review Act (CRA)—a legislative tool that allows Congress to reverse new federal agency regulations. While the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Senate parliamentarian (who advises on procedural rules) signaled opposition to this CRA effort, House leadership decided to proceed with a vote anyway.

Three joint resolutions introduced this week aimed to challenge different parts of California’s clean vehicle regulations. Each was introduced by a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Here’s what lawmakers approved:

• H.J. Res. 87 (Rep. James): Overturns California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule and related zero-emission vehicle mandates. Passed 231–191
• H.J. Res. 88 (Rep. Joyce): Targets California’s Advanced Clean Cars II program, which sets stricter emissions standards for passenger vehicles. Passed 246–164
• H.J. Res. 89 (Rep. Obernolte): Blocks California’s Heavy-Duty Omnibus regulation, which limits nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from truck engines. Passed 225–196

These measures now head to the Senate where GOP leadership has committed to move the legislation forward.

Supreme Court Weighs California’s Authority

This vote is timely, considering that last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could limit California’s ability to set its own vehicle emissions rules. The case, Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, challenges the EPA’s decision to let California enforce stricter emissions standards than the federal government. The fuel producers bringing the case say these tougher rules hurt their business by speeding up the move away from gas-powered vehicles. The big legal question here is whether they even have the right to sue—since they’re not directly regulated, just impacted by the ripple effects.

If the Court sides with them, it could open the door for more legal challenges to environmental regulations, especially those led by states like California.

Senate Fails to Cancel April Tariffs

Also this week, a Democratic-led resolution (S.J.Res. 49) to limit the president’s authority to impose tariffs failed. The measure would have canceled tariffs announced on April 2. The close vote came shortly after data showed the U.S. economy contracted for the first time in three years, which may have swayed lawmakers’ decisions.

Despite support from three Republicans, the absence of two senators resulted in a deadlock. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote on a motion to delay further consideration, effectively killing the measure with a 50–49 final vote.