Carson Jorgensen Says Federal Regulatory Reform Is Needed Now

Federal regulatory reform is not some abstract talking point. In Carson Jorgensen’s telling, it is tied directly to the price of food, the cost of shipping, the lifespan of engines, the ability to build infrastructure, and whether states like Utah can keep up with growth.

His argument is straightforward. Washington has piled on rules that were supposed to solve environmental problems, but in too many cases those rules have created new costs, new inefficiencies, and a whole lot of legal paralysis. If the country wants lower costs, stronger supply chains, and faster project delivery, then the time for reform is right now.

That case breaks into two big fights. First is the push to roll back diesel engine emissions requirements that he says have damaged efficiency and punished mechanics. Second is the push for NEPA reform so environmental review can go back to being a safeguard instead of a tool for endless delay.

PoliticIt Radio – Carson’s Call

The diesel emissions fight is about more than engines

Jorgensen’s main policy focus has been federal environmental rules connected to diesel engines, especially the aftertreatment systems required beginning in the late 2000s under EPA mandates.

These systems were designed to reduce pollutants coming out of the tailpipe. On paper, that sounds simple enough. But his argument is that the government focused too narrowly on one slice of the problem. Instead of asking whether the whole system was cleaner and more efficient from production to use, regulators focused almost entirely on what exits the exhaust pipe.

He says that approach has backfired.

According to his analysis, modern diesel engines equipped with these systems have become less durable and less efficient. Where older long haul truck and heavy equipment engines might once run for roughly three quarters of a million miles, he says many newer ones are rated for less than half that. He also argues the added systems have reduced efficiency by about a quarter.

That matters well beyond the trucking sector. Diesel powers freight, construction, agriculture, and a large share of the industrial backbone of the economy. When those engines become more expensive to operate, more expensive to repair, and shorter lived, those costs do not stay with fleet owners. They move through the entire economy.

Why Jorgensen says removing the systems could cut costs

The heart of his case is a full lifecycle view of energy use. Instead of measuring only direct exhaust, he argues policymakers should look from the oil well all the way to the wheel.

On that basis, he says removing diesel aftertreatment systems would actually make the system cleaner overall because engines would burn less fuel and use fewer materials. In his estimate, the country could see about a 17 percent improvement on that full chain basis.

His reasoning works like this:

• More efficient engines burn less diesel for the same job.
• Burning less diesel means less fuel has to be refined.
• Less refined fuel means less transport of fuel across the supply chain.
• Longer lasting engines reduce replacement cycles and manufacturing demand.
• Fewer emissions components reduce demand for resource intensive parts.

In other words, a rule aimed at reducing one kind of visible emission may be increasing total resource use and total economic cost everywhere else.

He uses food as the clearest example. A gallon of milk is not just touched by diesel once. Diesel is involved in growing feed, moving feed, running farm equipment, hauling milk to processors, and transporting finished products to stores. If diesel costs go up and equipment becomes less efficient at each stage, the effect compounds again and again before a product reaches the shelf.

That is why he sees this as a pocketbook issue as much as an industrial policy issue. He argues that removing emissions systems from trucks and tractors in agriculture alone could save American families around $2,000 per year on food costs.

The hidden materials and China problem

Jorgensen also pushes back on the idea that the emissions systems are an obvious environmental win because they depend on parts and materials that come with their own environmental cost.

He argues that these systems require significant quantities of rare earth and specialty materials. Mining, processing, manufacturing, and shipping those parts has an impact of its own. And he says much of that supply chain sits outside the United States, especially in China.

His point is not simply economic nationalism. It is that the United States may congratulate itself for reducing emissions in one visible place while effectively shifting pollution, energy use, and industrial burden somewhere else.

If the bulk of the emissions hardware is being made in countries with weaker environmental standards, then the supposed environmental gain may be more cosmetic than real. In his framing, the country is outsourcing the dirtier parts of the process and then counting only the cleaner tailpipe result at home.

The legal and human cost of EPA enforcement

For Jorgensen, this issue is also about the people caught in the middle. He points to diesel mechanics and shop owners who have faced severe federal penalties for removing or modifying emissions equipment.

He highlights several cases that, in his view, show how far enforcement has gone. One involved a Wyoming man who served federal prison time after removing equipment from diesel engines. Another involved a Louisiana mechanic who spent years fighting charges and absorbing massive legal and financial consequences.

His underlying argument is that the punishment has become wildly disproportionate to the conduct. He sees these cases not as targeted action against serious pollution crimes, but as federal agencies stretching rulemaking authority into criminal enforcement in ways Congress never clearly authorized.

That is why he has been involved in efforts to secure pardons and why he welcomed moves to stop criminal prosecution of diesel mechanics in these cases, even while civil penalties remain in place.

For him, this is not only a policy correction. It is a moral one.

Can the EPA reverse these rules without Congress?

One of the central policy questions is whether these diesel rules need an act of Congress to be undone.

Jorgensen says no. His argument is that Congress granted the EPA authority to regulate certain pollutants, but the specific diesel aftertreatment requirements were created through agency rulemaking. If the agency had authority to create the rules, then it also has authority to repeal them. And if it lacked authority in the first place, then the rule is on shaky ground anyway.

That is why he has been pressing for executive branch action first. In his view, a determined administration can move quickly to rescind the rules and unlock major economic gains without waiting on a slow and unpredictable Congress.

He points to several signs that this broader deregulatory effort is already underway, including attention to right to repair, diesel exhaust fluid requirements, and other environmental rule changes.

Follow PoliticIt for more Utah policy coverage Get more interviews and analysis on federal regulation, Utah politics, and the policy fights shaping costs, energy, and infrastructure. Subscribe on YouTube

Why executive action is not enough

Even if an administration can repeal rules, Jorgensen says that only solves part of the problem.

Businesses make long term investment decisions based on whether policy is stable. If one administration removes a costly rule and the next brings it back, companies hesitate to invest in manufacturing, engine development, and domestic capacity. He points to Caterpillar’s exit from the heavy duty over the road diesel market as an example of how regulatory pressure can push major industrial decisions.

In that kind of environment, temporary relief is not enough. Companies need confidence that the rules will not flip back and forth every four years.

That is why he wants Congress to codify reforms after the administration acts. He specifically points to measures such as the REINS Act and similar efforts that would put firmer limits on agency rulemaking and strengthen legislative oversight of major regulations.

His urgency is tied to the political calendar. He sees a narrow window before the midterms to lock in reforms while the current administration is still aggressively pursuing deregulation.

NEPA reform is the second front

The second major issue Jorgensen raises is NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act.

In principle, he says, NEPA serves a valid purpose. Big projects should be studied. Their impacts on land, water, wildlife, and communities should be understood before decisions are made. He is not arguing against environmental review itself.

His complaint is that the process no longer stops at review. It keeps looping. A project gets studied, approved, challenged, restudied, litigated, and then thrown back into the same cycle again.

That is where he draws his distinction between a shield and a sword. A shield protects the environment by forcing serious evaluation. A sword is used to block projects indefinitely, even after those projects have already cleared the review process.

In states with large amounts of federal land, especially Utah, he says that distinction matters a great deal.

How repeated environmental reviews can stall critical projects

Jorgensen points to several Utah examples where he believes NEPA and related litigation have become a roadblock to essential infrastructure:

• The Northern Corridor in Washington County, which he says is needed to support growth and mobility in southern Utah.
• The Uinta Basin Railway, a long delayed transportation project tied to moving energy resources more efficiently.
• Water storage projects such as Gooseberry Narrows, which he says have faced repeated environmental impact studies and lawsuits despite clear regional need.

His argument is that Utah does not have a pure water shortage in every sense. It often has a water storage problem. Snow and runoff arrive, but without enough storage infrastructure, much of that water cannot be captured for later use. So when reservoir and water projects are delayed for years or decades, it is not a minor bureaucratic inconvenience. It affects the ability of communities to grow and plan for the future.

That frustration is magnified by the fact that many of these delays are not caused by new facts or newly discovered impacts. They stem from repeated legal challenges and repeated demands for additional review.

The case for the SPEED Act

To fix that, Jorgensen backs what he describes as a bipartisan reform measure called the SPEED Act.

The basic idea is simple. A project should not be subject to endless rounds of relitigation and repetitive environmental study. There should be limits on how many times a challenge can be brought and how many times the same underlying analysis has to be repeated.

That would not eliminate environmental review. It would make review finite.

He keeps returning to the same point. Study it once. Study it seriously. Then make a decision and move on. If the process never ends, then environmental law stops functioning as oversight and starts functioning as a veto by delay.

What this means for growth in Utah

Utah sits at the center of this conversation because it is growing quickly and because federal land policy plays such an outsized role in what can be built.

Growth means more roads, more water infrastructure, more energy, more freight movement, and more digital capacity. Jorgensen argues that the state cannot afford a federal review structure that prevents it from building what population growth clearly demands.

That same argument extends to newer forms of infrastructure too. He mentions the controversy around a major data center project and frames it as another example of the same tension.

On one hand, large projects should be reviewed for impacts on water, heat, and supporting infrastructure. On the other hand, once those standards are met, he believes local governments should not be paralyzed by political backlash or endless procedural obstruction.

He also ties this to Utah’s appetite for AI and technology growth. If people want the benefits of advanced computing, cloud services, and AI driven development, then they also have to confront the physical infrastructure needed to support it. Data centers do not run on slogans. They need power, connectivity, land, and regulatory certainty.

His broader point is that the state cannot say yes to growth in theory while saying no to every project that growth requires in practice.

Property rights, local decisions, and common sense

Another theme in Jorgensen’s remarks is the importance of private property rights and predictable local decision making.

Using the data center debate as an example, he argues that county commissioners are often put in a difficult spot. Their job is not to referee every public dislike of a project. Their job is to determine whether a proposal meets the law, zoning, and applicable standards.

If the standards are met, he says, denying a project anyway only invites lawsuits that local governments are likely to lose. That means taxpayers end up paying for political gestures that do not hold up legally.

At the same time, he is not arguing for blind approval. His position is that projects with substantial environmental or infrastructure impact should absolutely be reviewed. What he rejects is using that review process over and over again as a stalling tactic.

For him, the missing ingredient is common sense. Review should be real, but it should also reach an endpoint.

Why Mike Lee matters in this push

Jorgensen repeatedly points to Senator Mike Lee as a key figure in the federal reform effort.

That is partly because Lee has been active on the broader question of reining in the administrative state and limiting unchecked rulemaking. It is also because Jorgensen believes this moment requires congressional leaders who understand both the urgency and the mechanics of codifying reforms before another administration can reverse them.

In his view, there is a rare alignment right now. A deregulation minded administration is willing to act. There are reform ideas already in circulation. There are practical examples from diesel rules to NEPA delays that make the costs of inaction easier to see. What is needed now is speed and follow through.

The bigger argument behind all of this

It is easy to hear these debates as separate disputes about trucks, environmental law, courts, or Utah infrastructure. Jorgensen clearly does not see them that way.

He sees them as versions of the same basic problem. Federal agencies and regulatory systems have accumulated so much power, cost, and delay that they now choke off economic capacity while often failing to produce better real world outcomes.

That is why he talks about deregulation not as a niche ideological project but as a practical tool for lowering prices and restoring momentum. If truck engines last longer, transport costs fall. If repeated environmental review is limited, projects get built faster. If agencies cannot criminalize ordinary repair work through expansive interpretations of rules, small businesses can breathe again.

From that perspective, regulatory reform is not anti environment and not anti safety. The claim is that smarter rules, narrower rules, and more accountable rules can produce better results than sprawling systems that measure the wrong things and never end.

The urgency behind the moment

Jorgensen’s message is not subtle. He believes the country has a brief opportunity to reverse expensive mistakes and lock in long term reform. If that window closes, the risk is not just policy drift. It is a return to the same cycle of administrative expansion, legal uncertainty, and economic whiplash.

So his call is for immediate action on two fronts:

• Executive action to roll back diesel rules and continue aggressive deregulation where agencies have the power to act.
• Congressional action to codify those changes and reform processes like NEPA so they cannot be endlessly weaponized.

Whether one agrees with every estimate or every policy prescription, the core argument is clear enough. Regulatory systems shape everyday life in ways most people never see directly. They shape grocery bills, business costs, infrastructure timelines, equipment markets, and legal risk. And when those systems stop serving their stated purpose, reform stops being optional.

That is the case Carson Jorgensen is making. Not someday. Now.

#politicit #utahelections #utpol