President Trump Poised to Save California from Itself by Blocking 2035 EV Mandate
Trump will also be saving other states that unwisely adopted the rules. Meanwhile, California plans to challenge this in court.
Some amazing news broke on Thursday, which was lost amid all the other news streaming across the country and around the globe.
I am delighted to report that the U.S. Senate voted 51-44 to revoke California’s authority to set its own strict vehicle emission standards, specifically targeting the state’s mandate to phase out new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035.
This action also affects two additional waivers related to heavy-duty truck emissions. The measure, already passed by the House, now heads to President Donald Trump for his signature.
The vote is a win for General Motors (GM.N) Toyota (7203.T), and other automakers that heavily lobbied against the rules and a blow to California and environmental groups that say the requirements are essential to ensuring cleaner vehicles and cutting pollution.
California first announced a plan in 2020 to require that by 2035 at least 80% of new cars sold be electric and up to 20% plug-in hybrid models.
“This Senate vote is illegal,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said, adding the Senate action would cost California taxpayers an estimated $45 billion in additional health care costs. “We’re going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.”
Since 1970, California has received more than 100 waivers under the Clean Air Act.
Senate Republicans rejected the advice of the parliamentarian in moving forward. In March, the Government Accountability Office said the waivers cannot be repealed under the Congressional Review Act, which only requires a majority of the U.S. Senate.
What a signing ceremony this will be! I certainly will be looking forward to it, as I have every intention of driving my beautiful gasoline-powered Honda for as long as it lasts…be it in California or elsewhere.
Newsom will likely be silently thanking Trump for this move, which guts one of the most destructive policies ever put forth by Sacramento. It means this is one failure of many that Newsom will not have to address during his probable presidential bid during the 2028 election season.
As a reminder of what California and the 11 states that adopted this insanity faced: California’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate, formally adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the Advanced Clean Cars II regulations, established a timeline for phasing out the sale of new gasoline-only vehicles in favor of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
- 2026 Model Year: At least 35% of new light-duty vehicles sold by each automaker in California must be zero-emission models
-
2027: The ZEV sales requirement rises to 43% of new vehicles
-
2030: The mandate increases to 68% ZEVs among new vehicle sales
-
2035: 100% of new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold must be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs or qualifying plug-in hybrids)
-
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles: By 2035, 40% to 75% of new medium- and heavy-duty trucks (depending on vehicle category) must be zero-emission
As I have previously reported that several states (Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, and Virginia) had indefinitely delayed the implementation of their California-style rules. They heeded the warnings that the charging infrastructure was not there, and local automobile dealers would be losing business to those in neighboring states.
I have detailed the myriad reasons the mandate was doomed to failure. Some “highlights”
Automakers and car dealers have regrets:
- Hertz Selling 20,000 Electric Vehicles for Gas-Powered Cars
- Toyota CEO: ‘Silent Majority’ Of Automakers Skeptical of Making Electric Vehicles a ‘Single Option’
- Nearly 4,000 Car Dealerships Beg Biden to Pull the Plug on ‘Unrealistic’ EV Mandates
There are specific challenges EVs face under extreme weather conditions:
- After Hurricane Ian’s Floods, Florida Battling Fires from Water-Damaged Electric Vehicles
- Deep Freeze in Illinois Strands Tesla, Electric Vehicle Owners in Parking Lots
- EVs Burst Into Flames After Contact With Saltwater During Hurricane Idalia
There are significant supply chain issues:
- Democrats Begin to Regret Relying on China for Trade in Green Energy Components
- China Tightens Exports on Graphite, a Key Component of EV Batteries
There are also reports that EV drivers are experiencing “range anxiety,” and short trips have doubled or more in time due to charging times. Americans seem less trusting of “The Science” and are now climate-crisis-questioning. This may, in part, explain why I reported there was a noticeable slowdown in EV sales.
Finally, the EV mandate for trucks is ludicrous. EV trucks currently offer approximately 170 miles per charge versus diesel trucks’ 1,000–1,200-mile range. Long-haul routes are particularly problematic, as frequent charging stops disrupt delivery schedules and increase downtime. Compounding this, battery weight reduces payload capacity (EV trucks must carry lighter loads to comply with federal weight limits, potentially requiring more trucks to move the same volume of goods).
Apparently, California is planning to challenge the use of the Congressional Review Act to end the state’s ridiculous waiver.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta says this use of the CRA is unlawful, and that California will challenge it in court. “The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California’s waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California’s efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution,” Bonta wrote in a statement.
Hopefully, the courts will put a stake in the heart of this climate cult insanity. Then, perhaps, the President and Congress can work to find ways to ensure that no state bureaucrats ever have the power to thrust bad science and climate cultism on the American people again.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
MA has this mandate. Such idiots.
WA also has this mandate. WA apes CA on every stupid thing they do.
Washington – and Oregon – are distinct from California in name only.
Yep, the progressives here are going to save the planet from… plant food.
“Newsom will likely be silently thanking Trump for this move, which guts one of the most destructive policies ever put forth by Sacramento.”
Not really. In 1969 State Senator Nicholas Petris (Democrat Alameda County CA) introduced SB-77 that would prohibit the sale of all diesel and gasoline engines by 1975. The bill passed the CA Senate, and went to the Assembly, but died in committee. Most likely Governor Reagan would have vetoed it. Note 1969 is way before the climate change hysteria, and electric cars. What did Petris and the CA Senate think would replace the internal combustion engine? I suppose the politicians thought the automobile industry would come up with something. This how the politicians behaved in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged,” where the government would mandate something on the assumption industry would magically comply.
The US Congress is just as stupid as the California legislature. In 1957 Rep. Paul F. Schenck (R-Ohio) introduced Congressional bill to prohibit the sale of vehicles discharging hydrocarbons in levels found dangerous by the Surgeon General. See the Republicans are stupid too. In 1970 Senator Gaylord Nelson (Democrat, Wisconsin) introduced a bill to ban the internal combustion engine by 1975.
The madness out of Sacramento is nothing new.
Nah bad move. Instead they should just reframe the waiver from Federal guidelines to allow a State to set the requirements they wish….. but ONLY on the vehicles produced in that State. Each consumer can purchase whatever a vehicle they wish including those produced elsewhere that don’t meet wokiesta requirements and that’s tough cookies. IMO the only way to keep the lefty wokiestas from continuing their luddite/Marxist insanity is to force them to live with the consequences if the have the commitment to their cause they claim while allowing the rest of us to go about our normal lives.
You think CA wouldn’t slap a yuge out-of-state vehicle tariff on every IC car brought in?
Trump is ignoring Napoleonic wisdom. He is fighting to salvage California.
California will oppose him mightily, lose (or throw) the suit, then label him a dictator out of liberal gratitude.
I would agree with you if California’s elections were legitimate.
That might have worked if it were a proper CRA, allowing a single house to override regulatory actions, simply on the grounds that that house does not consent to this use of its delegated authority. That’s how the CRA should work, and how it used to work until the Supreme Court struck it down in INS v Chadha, which I think was wrongly decided. And if that were still the case then CA might have succeeded in challenging this on the grounds that the procedure used didn’t comply with the CRA’s terms.
However, since it was struck down, the new version of the CRA makes Congress effectively pass a new law to veto a regulation. The only difference between the CRA and the normal legislative process is that CRA resolutions can’t be filibustered in the senate. Which means that CA’s only argument against this new law would be that it should be struck down because the Senate Democrats were improperly prevented from filibustering it.
But the filibuster is not a legal requirement. It’s certainly not a constitutional requirement. It’s a peculiarity of the senate’s internal rules, which arose by accident, and was originally illegitimate. The very name “filibuster” shows that; when it was first used it was literally regarded as an act of piracy. The only reason it’s now regarded as legitimate is because the senate has had many opportunities to fix the loophole and has consciously decided not to. But none of that is justiciable. The constitution says that the senate rules can’t be debated, decided, or enforced anywhere outside the senate itself. If the senate passes a measure, no court can inquire into how it did so. What has been passed is effectively a new statute, so there are no grounds for any court to strike it down.
I don’t understand something. What is the proper way to rescind a waiver? If an agency like the EPA issues a waiver or a President waves his pen through an EO then why can’t they do the same in reverse? Once a waiver is issued it’s permanent? Is California arguing that Congress can not pass a law because it will cost the state money? Since when does a State have power over Federal dollars being spent?
Agency actions cannot be arbitrary or capricious, and must go through the process prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act. So the EPA can’t simply cancel the waiver, any more than it could simply have granted it in the first place.
However Congress can pass a law removing the EPA’s power to grant the waiver. Or it can do essentially the same thing by passing a CRA resolution rescinding the waiver. The difference is only that the CRA route bypasses the senate filibuster.
I’m agog at this “dispute.” The Democrats argue that a waiver issued by an unelected partisan bureaucrat that permits California to affect every state in the union (hello, Commerce Clause) can’t be overturned by bi-partisan majorities of each house of Congress and the President. Do these people even think about what they’re saying? As the Dems like to say, “this is what democracy looks like.”
The waiver was issued pursuant to law. The CRA resolution was, according to the government’s own GAO, as well as the senate parliamentarian, invalid. And the majorities that passed it were not significantly bipartisan (10 Dems in the House, 1 in the senate).
Nevertheless, the challenge is unlikely to succeed for the reason I described in my long comment above.
There is, of course, an unstated underlying question here: Should California be saved? Or should it be allowed to collapse under the weight of it’s own incompetence and inefficiency, give the natural ecosystems a few decades to recover, then start over.
As a former 63 year resident and CA native, I have mixed feelings. The repeal of this waiver is good for the country, the sane Californians who are trying to live their lives in that once great state (but are outvoted by LA and Bay Area leftists), as well as the rest of us living in sane states. OTOH, I’d like California leftists to experience the actual consequences of what they vote for – good and hard.
And I, as one of those sane residents, appreciate that sentiment.
Sadly, the California leftists will just abandon the husk of California and, like the plague of locusts they are, simply move en mass to another western state and finish the destruction there by implementing all the policies they fled.
“Pretty places” like Washington, Oregon, Montana and Colorado can all attest to the corrosive power of Cali immigrants.
Not possible to save CA from itself. They are dismantling refineries and not allowing new refinery construction. Enjoy $10 gas CA, elections have consequences.
Seriously. If you want to see what the consequences of idiocy look like… if you have the app GasBuddy, check out gas prices in Ehrenberg and Blythe, both on I-10. They’re separated by the CA/AZ border, four miles of highway, and two dollars per gallon.
I wonder where the Blythe residents gas up? I have to drive twice that distance just to get to my nearest gas station.
I wonder how solvent the Blythe gas stations are?
Comments shadow banned? Whats up with that?