Smells Like Victory: Senate Kills California EV Mandate

Smells Like Victory: Senate Kills California EV Mandate [[“value”:”

ENB Pub Note: This story from David Blackmon’s Substack is a great way to start the holiday weekend. Having the Senate kill the waiver granted by the Biden EPA to California under the Clean Air Act would have effectively mandated EVs, and the rest of the US would have paid for it. Ronald Stien, author and guest on the Energy News Beat podcast, has called California a national security risk is spot on. You can subscribe to David’s Substack here:

I have also included Gov Newsom’s response, so this is not over, and the lawfare will begin. He needs to understand that this is a constitutional attack, and he has been forcing the rest of the United States to fund his corruption and failed programs.

More smog. More asthma. More pollution in our kids’ lungs.

The U.S. Senate’s vote to overturn California’s clean air rules is illegal and defies decades of precedent. We will go to court to fight this unconstitutional attack. pic.twitter.com/do0mFjjFDJ

— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) May 22, 2025

In a bold move which expands the purview of the Congressional Review Act, the GOP Senate Majority led by Majority Leader John Thune voted on Wednesday to kill a waiver granted by the Biden EPA to California under the Clean Air Act which would effectively mandate electric vehicles in the state by 2035.

The CRA has not previously been applied to such waivers. Interestingly, the vote became nominally bipartisan when Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin chose to vote with the 51-44 majority.

Democrats argued that setting the precedent of applying the CRA – which is not subject to Senate filibusters – to EPA waivers is a “dangerous” erosion of the filibuster rule. But Thune responded that, “We are not talking about doing anything to erode the institutional character of the Senate; in fact, we are talking about preserving the Senate’s prerogatives.” Thune’s position seems most reasonable given that the CRA, which has been seldom invoked since its enactment more than 30 years ago, does not contain any explicit prohibition from this kind of application.

The California EV mandate represents almost a national move since at least 19 states have laws requiring they take California’s lead on clean air standards. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), who led the Senate push and chairs the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, explained the widespread benefits of ending the rule, saying, “The impact of the California’s waiver would have been felt across the country, harming multiple sectors of our economy and costing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. I’m proud to have led this effort to protect American workers and consumers from this radical and drastic policy.”

In response to a question from Ashley Zavala, a reporter for Sacramento-based KCRA, California Governor Gavin Newsom claimed his state’s all-EVs by 2035 policy “isn’t a mandate.”

This, of course, is false: It definitely is a mandate, and it is absurd to claim otherwise.

Here’s an excerpt from a detailed analysis by Kyle Kohli posted at EnergyInDepth California:

The move drew praise from energy trade groups, consumer advocates, and auto manufacturers and dealers. American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Mike Sommers and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) President and CEO Chet Thompson welcomed the resolution, calling it a critical step in preventing regulatory overreach:

“Congress has made clear that California regulators have no authority to dictate what cars Americans can buy or to ban internal combustion engine vehicles. President Trump can now deliver on a major part of his campaign promise to end EV mandates in the United States. This is a massive win for consumers and working families all across the country.”

Consumer Freedom Wins, Especially in California

Despite claims to the contrary, rescinding California’s waiver doesn’t “ban” EVs. Drivers across the United States, including in California, can still buy the car of their choice, whether it runs on gasoline or batteries. What the CRA does is restore balance by blocking California from forcing consumers into EVs through regulation.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), who led the Senate push and chairs the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, explained the widespread benefits of ending the rule:

“The impact of the California’s waiver would have been felt across the country, harming multiple sectors of our economy and costing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. I’m proud to have led this effort to protect American workers and consumers from this radical and drastic policy.”

California consumers, already facing some of the highest energy costs in the country, stand to benefit the most. According to Joel Kotkin, presidential fellow at Chapman University and senior research fellow at the University of Texas-Austin, CA’s zero-carbon mandates, including forced EV adoption, are driving up power bills and straining the grid:

“California’s zero-carbon climate policies — pushing EVs as your next car purchase and heat pumps to cool and heat your house — rely largely on electricity that in turn depends on expensive, and intermittent, energy sources, such as wind and solar.”

With California consumers facing high electricity costs, further limiting freedom of choice and forcing expensive EVs on them sounds like the wrong solution. Congress agrees.

California Officials’ Contrasting Responses

As expected, California Attorney General Rob Bonta responded with threats of legal action – no surprise given his record of antagonism toward American energy. Bonta has previously launched a lawsuit targeting oil and gas producers for climate impacts and pursued a baseless, hypocritical plastic recycling case. His opposition to the CRA is just another entry in his activist resume.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, however, took a different track – opposing the vote not for environmental reasons, but on the grounds it allegedly weakens America’s competitiveness with China, specifically in regard to clean air policies. Newsom’s response is notable, as it is the latest in his recent steps away from policies that have long defined his far-left brand in California. Now, in the middle of a soft rebrand to position himself as a more centrist national figure, Newsom is attempting to publicly shift toward economic pragmatism.

But his messaging remains muddled. In a widely shared clip posted by KCRA reporter Ashley Zavala on Thursday, Newsom compared California’s 2035 gas car ban to the transition from the horse and buggy to the iPhone. When Zavala pointed out that the government didn’t mandate the iPhone, Newsom insisted the 2035 ban isn’t a mandate at all, stating: “We’re saying stop polluting.”

Mixed messaging aside – under Newson’s leadership gas prices soared, electricity costs spiked, and reliability declined, a trend Energy in Depth has consistently analyzed.

Bottom line: By rescinding California’s ability to set national policy through federal waivers, the Senate has set a clear message that Americans, not state regulators or political activists, should decide what kind of car they drive. With this CRA vote, the Trump Administration and Congress are following through on promises to end EV mandates and put American industry and workers first.