The U.S. House of Representatives has taken a significant step by voting to undo three critical federal waivers that have allowed California to implement stringent vehicle pollution standards. On Wednesday, the House voted against two waivers related to heavy trucking regulations, and on Thursday, it voted to reverse a state rule mandating that all new vehicles in California be zero-emission by the year 2035.
Despite the House's actions, two nonpartisan governmental entities have warned Congress that it may not have the authority to reverse these waivers using the current legislative mechanism. The next crucial step is for the Senate to determine whether to heed this legal advice or align with the House's decision.
California's vehicle pollution standards have garnered mixed reactions, with supporters praising their ambition and critics labeling them as unrealistic. Starting from the model year 2026, the state will require that 35% of new cars sold by any automaker must be zero-emission. As of now, approximately 25% of new vehicles sold in California are electric, compared to a national average of about 10%. These regulations are significant; California is not just a massive economy but also a major player in the auto market. While other states cannot set their own vehicle standards, they can choose to adopt California's regulations, with around a dozen states already aligning with its zero-emission rule. Consequently, over 30% of the U.S. auto market is influenced by California’s policies.
According to Stephanie Brinley, the associate director of AutoIntelligence at S&P Global Mobility, California's waiver has a profound impact on the automotive sector. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing auto manufacturers, has been vocal in its support for Congress to overrule California's regulations, arguing that consumer demand for electric vehicles (EVs) is insufficient to meet the state's ambitious targets. John Bozzella, the president of the trade group, has cautioned that fulfilling these requirements would necessitate a "miracle," asserting that thousands of American auto jobs and millions of units of U.S. auto production are at stake.
In contrast, environmental organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists argue that the built-in flexibilities within the rules make them more achievable than they appear. They emphasize the importance of stricter regulations in safeguarding public health and addressing climate change. Kathy Harris, Director of Clean Vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council, described the House's vote as an "unprecedented and reckless attack" on states' legal authority to combat vehicle pollution linked to serious health issues, including asthma and heart disease.
To understand the significance of this vote, it is essential to grasp what a California waiver entails. Picture Los Angeles during the 1940s and 50s—its stunning beaches and palm-lined streets hidden beneath a thick layer of smog caused by air pollution from vehicles and industry. In response to this severe pollution problem, California began regulating air quality long before the federal government took action. This proactive approach has granted California a unique privilege: it can impose emissions standards that exceed federal requirements. Each time California seeks to establish a stricter regulation, it must obtain a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Over the years, California has successfully secured such waivers more than 75 times.
The recent House vote aimed to rescind the waiver enabling California to enforce its zero-emission rule for passenger vehicles, as well as two other waivers governing heavy trucks. One of these rules would require a greater number of heavy-duty trucks to transition to electric power, while the other mandates that new diesel vehicles meet stricter emissions standards. These regulations are not solely about reducing smog; they also target the significant carbon dioxide emissions produced by vehicles, which contribute to global warming. California has positioned itself as a leader in the fight against climate change, and zero-emission vehicles play a pivotal role in its strategy.
The vehicle regulations from California have drawn ire from political figures such as former President Trump, who has frequently downplayed climate concerns in favor of supporting the domestic fossil fuel industry. The Trump administration's efforts to roll back numerous pro-EV policies, including freezing funding for EV chargers and reconsidering federal vehicle standards, reflect a broader deregulation agenda. Even if federal standards are relaxed, California's stringent rules continue to drive the auto industry towards a faster adoption of EVs, making the reversal of these waivers a critical component of the Trump administration's regulatory strategy.
This is not the first time such measures have been attempted. During Trump's first term, the federal government revoked a waiver that had previously allowed California to establish its own vehicle standards, a move that triggered years of legal battles and divided the auto industry. Some manufacturers, having invested heavily based on earlier regulations and seeking policy stability, chose to adhere to California's rules regardless of their legal obligation, while others backed the Trump administration's stance. This tumultuous period ultimately ended when Biden took office, reinstating the waiver and allowing California to tighten its regulations further.
The current administration is employing a different approach to eliminate these waivers. In the prior term, the EPA was responsible for both granting and revoking the passenger vehicle waiver. With the new Congress seeking to utilize the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to negate the EPA's decision, this tactic may lead to a more permanent reversal of the waivers. The CRA allows Congress to essentially "undo" regulatory actions within a specific timeframe, but it can only be invoked when the president's party controls Congress. Moreover, should Congress rescind the California waiver under the CRA, it cannot be reissued in a similar manner unless new legislation is passed to authorize it. Notably, decisions made under the CRA are also shielded from judicial review, meaning courts cannot challenge Congress' choices.
As the situation unfolds, the Senate faces a pivotal decision. The Government Accountability Office has indicated that the waiver might not qualify for reversal under the CRA, a view shared by the Senate parliamentarian, who acts as a referee on congressional rules. Three Democratic senators have stated that the parliamentarian reaffirmed in early April that the waiver is not subject to CRA action. While the parliamentarian's rulings carry significant weight, they are not binding, and overriding her conclusions would challenge established Senate norms. Reports suggest that some Republican senators are considering whether to break these norms to eliminate California’s regulations.
Intense lobbying efforts are underway, with traditional automakers and the oil industry pressuring Congress to revoke these rules, while public health organizations like the American Lung Association join environmental and EV advocacy groups in defending California's policies. The outcome of this legislative battle will have lasting implications for the auto industry, environmental standards, and public health across the nation.
