News Summary

The House of Representatives passed a resolution to block California’s plan to prohibit the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, igniting debate over state versus federal regulatory authority. The measure received bipartisan support but poses questions on Congress’s ability to legislate environmental policies. While California’s plan aims to combat climate change, critics argue it limits consumer choices. As California’s stricter vehicle emissions standards continue to inspire other states, the path forward remains uncertain amid legal and political challenges.

California – The House of Representatives voted 246-164 on Thursday to block California’s ambitious rule that seeks to ban the sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. This proposed legislation is seen as a significant effort to combat climate change and further the adoption of electric vehicles across the nation. Despite the majority support from Republicans, the resolution also garnered backing from 35 Democrats.

While the House passed the resolution, the Senate’s next steps regarding the measure remain unclear, with no scheduled vote confirmed. The Senate parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office have both stated that Congress lacks the authority to override California’s climate policy, raising questions about the validity of the House’s action.

California’s regulatory framework, which was initially approved in 2022, allows the state to enforce more stringent vehicle emissions standards than those mandated at the federal level. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted a waiver that empowers California to implement these ambitious objectives. The rule has also inspired eleven other states to commit to similar measures, collectively representing about 40% of the U.S. auto market. These states have aligned with California’s goals of phasing out gas-powered car sales by 2035, aiming to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.

Supporters of California’s initiative, including environmental advocates, argue that the regulations are decisive for protecting public health and the environment. They contend that this policy will substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Conversely, critics, which include a range of Republican lawmakers and business groups, claim that these regulations unnecessarily restrict consumer choices and could potentially increase the prices of vehicles, making them less accessible to the public.

The resolution to revoke California’s waiver was introduced by Congressman John Joyce, who insists that Congress should maintain the authority to regulate the interstate automotive market. However, the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that the waiver falls outside the scope of the Congressional Review Act, which challenges the legal basis for the House’s decision. Congressman Paul Tonko has cautioned that passing the resolution could set a troubling precedent for other critical regulatory actions regarding areas such as Medicaid and energy permits.

Senator Shelley Moore Capito, who is sponsoring the equivalent resolution in the Senate, mentioned that her team is exploring potential options to go forward despite the Parliamentarian’s ruling. In concert with the proposed legislation, various industry representatives, including automakers and oil refiners, have lobbied for the revocation of the waiver, claiming California’s rules are “unachievable” and pose a threat to jobs within the auto industry.

On the other hand, advocates for climate action and public health have expressed concerns that rescinding the waiver would jeopardize air quality and public health not only in California but also in states that intend to follow California’s lead. California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office has indicated that the state may pursue legal challenges should its regulatory authority be undermined.

It is notable that California has received three waivers from the EPA under the Biden administration to enforce its own vehicle emissions regulations. The recent actions taken by the House could potentially lead to broader implications for state-level regulatory authority regarding environmental policies. If upheld, they may challenge the extent to which states can set their own standards that diverge from federal guidelines, thereby reshaping the landscape of environmental governance in the United States.