On Thursday, the Senate voted to block California’s groundbreaking initiative aimed at eliminating the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles, setting the stage for a legal confrontation with significant implications for the U.S. electric car market.
The measure passed 51-44, marking a win for the oil and gas sectors and Senate Republicans, who advanced the resolution using a rarely employed legislative strategy that Democrats criticized as a drastic move with potential long-term impacts on Senate procedures beyond environmental issues.
California’s plan to expedite the shift to electric vehicles faces a major setback, with ripple effects expected nationwide. Eleven other states had planned to adopt California’s standard to halt sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035, collectively representing about 40 percent of the American auto market.
The resolution, which previously cleared the House, now awaits the President’s signature. The President, known for opposing clean energy initiatives and specifically critical of California’s fossil fuel reduction efforts, is anticipated to enact the repeal into law.
California officials have vowed to contest the Senate’s decision and work to reinstate the ban.
California’s Governor condemned the vote as unlawful, accusing Republicans of bypassing Senate rules and undermining decades of precedent. He emphasized the state’s commitment to fighting pollution and criticized the move as a surrender of economic leadership to foreign competitors.
The state’s authority to enforce stricter clean air standards comes under waivers granted by the Environmental Protection Agency, as authorized by the 1970 Clean Air Act, recognizing California’s historically severe air pollution. This law also permits other states to adopt California’s standards under certain conditions.
Over the years, California has obtained numerous such waivers, but this marks the first occasion Congress has sought to revoke one.
Republican leaders leveraged the Congressional Review Act, a seldom-used legislative tool, to overturn the waiver despite rulings from the Senate parliamentarian and independent watchdogs stating Congress lacks the authority to repeal such state-specific waivers.
The Congressional Review Act permits Congress to nullify recent federal regulations by a simple majority rather than the usual 60-vote threshold. However, the Government Accountability Office has determined that California’s waivers, which apply solely to one state, do not constitute national regulations.
Republicans argued that California’s standards effectively shape national policy since multiple states plan to follow suit, compelling automakers to comply with California’s stricter rules.
A leading Republican senator expressed concerns that California has used its waiver authority to impose extreme climate policies on the rest of the country, contradicting the original intent of the Clean Air Act.
Democrats initially delayed the repeal, but Republicans narrowly secured a procedural vote late Wednesday, enabling them to fast-track the measure.
Democratic lawmakers accused Republicans of misusing the statute and warned of political retaliation.
The Democratic Senate leader cautioned that this action expands majority powers in ways that could fundamentally alter Senate operations.
A California senator has already blocked several Environmental Protection Agency nominees as a response and warned that the broadening of repeal powers could jeopardize a wide range of future agency regulations.
He highlighted potential risks to permits and approvals related to mining, fossil fuels, tax policies, foreign affairs, and other regulatory actions, emphasizing that any agency rule disliked by the opposing party could become vulnerable.
Another California senator warned that the repeal could return the state to an era plagued by severe smog and questioned whether Congress should be allowed to overturn state efforts to protect public health by a simple majority.
While some automakers like Ford and Honda had agreed to comply with California’s emission standards, none have committed to the full 2035 phase-out deadline. The automotive industry’s main trade group has opposed the waiver for months.
The trade group’s president stated that the electric vehicle sales mandates were unrealistic and warned the policy could trigger job losses, manufacturing declines, higher vehicle costs, and reduced consumer choices.
This repeal arrives amid a challenging period for electric vehicles and broader climate initiatives.
Federal agencies under the current administration are moving to loosen emissions limits and facilitate fossil fuel extraction, while budget proposals seek to slash funding for climate programs. Recently, House Republicans eliminated much federal support for renewable energy and clean transportation technologies.
A law professor involved in drafting recent vehicle emission policies described the situation as dire, warning that incentives for transitioning to zero-emission vehicles are rapidly disappearing.
California’s policy mandated that 35 percent of new passenger vehicles sold by 2026 be zero-emission or hybrids, increasing to 68 percent by 2030, and culminating in a complete ban on new gas-powered car sales by 2035. These rules do not affect used vehicles.
As the world’s fourth-largest economy, California accounts for roughly 11 percent of U.S. auto sales and heavily influences national market trends. States like New York and New Jersey had planned to adopt California’s standards.
A Republican senator described California’s policy as burdensome to consumers and claimed voters rejected such liberal agendas in recent elections.
He pointed out that a notable number of Democrats joined Republicans in the House vote to repeal the mandate, citing bipartisan agreement on the policy’s impracticality and costs.
Despite the repeal, California’s governor remains determined to meet the state’s climate objectives, though the path forward is uncertain.
The chair of California’s Air Resources Board affirmed the state’s legal duty under the Clean Air Act to reduce pollution and pledged to explore all available strategies to fulfill that obligation.
Former state air board chair and environmental law professor noted the state might impose tougher emissions limits on industrial sources to compensate for the shortfall from vehicle emissions reductions, though this could impose economic challenges.
She acknowledged California’s high cost of doing business and the potential economic impact of stricter regulations.
Alternatives being considered include promoting public transit, incentivizing electric vehicle purchases through perks like preferential parking, or implementing penalties such as increased registration fees or new taxes on gas-powered cars.
Legal experts point out that the Congressional Review Act prohibits states from enacting rules that are substantially similar to those overturned by Congress, which could severely restrict California’s options for pollution control.
A board member expressed skepticism about circumventing this restriction and suggested that courts will need to clarify the law’s scope.
He also expects the state to enhance incentives like rebates or fee waivers to encourage clean vehicle adoption.
He emphasized the need for creative solutions beyond simply mandating electric car sales by 2035, acknowledging the significant challenge the repeal poses for California.
0 Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!