Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Government Politics

House Votes To Block California's Ban On New Gas-Powered Vehicles In 2035 (cbsnews.com) 161

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: The House of Representatives on Thursday voted to block California from implementing plans to block new sales of gas-powered vehicles in a decade. In a 246-164 vote, members approved House Joint Resolution 88, which seeks to withdraw a waiver granted by the Environmental Protection Agency to California during the Biden administration to implement the ban. Thirty-five Democrats joined 211 Republicans in backing the measure. [...] The House also approved two other measures which withdraw waivers on the state's plans to increase sales of zero-emissions trucks in a 231-191 vote, along with the state's latest nitrogen oxide emission standards for engines in a 225-196 vote.

Following Thursday's vote, Newsom's office issued a statement saying the House illegally used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal the state's Clean Air Act waivers. The governor's office also said the move contradicts the Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian who have ruled the CRA does not apply to the state's waivers. "Trump Republicans are hellbent on making California smoggy again. Clean air didn't used to be political. In fact, we can thank Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon for our decades-old authority to clean our air," Newsom said. "The only thing that's changed is that big polluters and the right-wing propaganda machine have succeeded in buying off the Republican Party -- and now the House is using a tactic that the Senate's own parliamentarian has said is lawless. Our vehicles program helps clean the air for all Californians, and we'll continue defending it."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) said in a statement: "House Republicans' misguided and cynical attempts to gut the Clean Air Act and undercut California's climate leadership ignores the reality of California's strength as the fourth largest economy in the world...

... If Senate Republicans take up these measures under the Congressional Review Act, they will be going nuclear by overruling the Parliamentarian, all to baselessly attack California."

House Votes To Block California's Ban On New Gas-Powered Vehicles In 2035

Comments Filter:
  • by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Thursday May 01, 2025 @04:05PM (#65345257) Journal

    So what happened to states' rights? Good enough to be able to ban abortions, but not good enough to ban polluting cars, apparently.

    More rank hypocrisy from the Republican Party.

    • Whenever a politician decries the loss of "states rights", it's a bullshit argument. How do we know this? Because unless you go back to the Constitutional Convention era and the infancy of this country, damn few people have gone to sleep genuinely worried about "states rights" on their own.

      Instead, there's always some other dark, hidden motivation lurking behind it.

    • Good enough to be able to ban abortions, but not good enough to ban polluting cars, apparently.

      Abortion rights only has a slightly slim majority of support, and even then, the 2024 election proved it was not important enough as a single issue to change the outcome.

      Banning new ICE vehicle sales though? That's an idea that's probably only popular in California. This poll [pewresearch.org] claims 64% of Democrats support an ICE phase-out, but some of that is probably just idealism and how 2035 seems like a long ways off.

      • So if, as you say, it's popular in California, why can't California make that a part of California's policy?

        And if it's not popular in California, why can't California's voters let Sacramento know that through electoral feedback processes?

        And why did it have to change now, rather than 5 years from now when we could be looking at a completely different mix of personal transportation?

        This is political hackery and hypocrisy, no matter how you try to dress it up. Quit putting lipstick on the pig.

        • The rush for this is to try and stop the EV tipping point from happening, which is probably in the next 2-5 years, batteries get cheap and available enough to allow unsubsidized EV models in the sub-30k range.

          Might be too late though [techcrunch.com]

          • I know they COULD make sub 30k EVs, but they won't. I have serious doubts about Bezos "Slate" (despite the fact I love it) because once you "upgrade it" you are going to be paying a lot more, rather quickly.

            I highly doubt we'll ever truly see affordable cars in America. Even used cars aren't affordable anymore.

            • I don't think they can now the battery production capacity just is not there yet, it has to fulfill all the other vehicle segments first, thus the factories and 3-5 years. It's the only thing that matters.

              If we have enough GW of battery capacity production and no 30k EV then I would consider that a market failure and we need to look at what we expect from capitalism.

    • Leaving satisfied.
    • What on Earth makes you think the Abortion blocking thing was ever "states rights"? This is what Project 2025 says on the subject [project2025.org], my bolding:

      Finally, conservatives should gratefully celebrate the greatest pro-family win
      in a generation: overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that for five decades made a
      mockery of our Constitution and facilitated the deaths of tens of millions of unborn
      children. But the Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives in the states
      and in Washington, including in the next con

      • We need competent, moral, government. The next Democratic administration - if there is one - should, on day one, implement an NHS-style government provided healthcare system. Not just because it gets healthcare to everyone, but because voters might actually start caring about the competence of our elected officials if voting for the wrong one means you die of cancer.

        Seeing as how things typically go in America, we will end up with the healthcare system that lets us die of cancer because people were upset over the price of eggs.

        We could have single-payer healthcare in the USA if our two political choices weren't between a party that would sabotage the system every time it was given the opportunity, and a party that has proven themselves to be so utterly incompetent they've lost to the likes of Donald Trump, twice.

        • They were never upset about the price of eggs. Trump is deliberately making them more expensive and admitting as much, they still support him. It's the excuse they give so they don't look bad if they were to admit their real motives.
      • Democrats don't even want single payer and they couldn't muster the voters for single payer even when they had the votes. That's why we got Obamacare, which is expanded, government subsidized insurance.

        But sure, keep thinking the Democrats are not just Republican-lite. We have a very conservative party and a moderate party. Neither actually, truly wants single payer healthcare or else we would of had it sometime in the past 25 years.

    • Republicans support states' rights only when they disagree with the federal law.

      Democrats are the same way, by the way.

  • by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Thursday May 01, 2025 @04:06PM (#65345263)

    The House of Representatives on Thursday voted to block California from implementing plans to block new sales of gas-powered vehicles in a decade.

    While this may seem like a victory for Oil and ICE it is really quite inconsequential. ICE tech is going away just like horse drawn carriages did, it may take a bit longer now but there is no stopping it despite heroic last stands like this one.

    • ICE tech is going away just like horse drawn carriages did

      Cars were a considerable improvement over horse drawn carriages. BEVs are not such an improvement over ICEVs. They are a tradeoff with some better and some worse properties. I expect them both to co-exist for a long, long time.

      That said, I agree with you insofar as if most people find them better, then BEVs will replace ICEVs organically without any need for legislation or time limits, so I'm not seeing any big deal here either.

    • by around 2050, the climate might still be livable and our current relatively stable organization of society, food production systems etc may survive.

      So I don't care what policy changes you make, as long as your policy is clearly aimed at zero emissions economy by 2050.
      Oh, and your policy should probably have metrics that clearly measure the rate of change of emissions say every 5 years til we get there.

      That's how I'll evaluate your policy, because anything else is knowingly evil bullshit, as far as your mo
    • While this may seem like a victory for Oil and ICE it is really quite inconsequential. ICE tech is going away just like horse drawn carriages did, it may take a bit longer now but there is no stopping it despite heroic last stands like this one.

      The CA ban was never going to happen. It was always just a PR stunt. As 2035 approached an too many people were still buying ICE, they would extend the deadline, or they would morph the ban into a supplemental tax on ICE.

      Politicians like to create plans that give them good PR today but whose bill will come due on some future politician's term. Corporate CEOs do this too. These future politicians and CEOs feel no need to complicate their lives, take bad press, for some predecessors' PR stunt. And the plan

  • There's always a way (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday May 01, 2025 @04:20PM (#65345305) Homepage

    Perhaps instead of an outright ban, California could just raise the registration fee on model 2035 and newer ICE vehicles to something so absurdly high that it may as well be a ban. Call it an environmental impact fee.

    I should probably mention I'm only pointing this out in the interest of California getting exactly what it voted for. Personally, I'm of the belief that the government should encourage EV adoption by improving charging infrastructure and offering incentives to convince motorists to make the switch, but an ICE ban ignores the reality that EVs are not ideal in every situation. Basically: carrot = good, stick = bad.

    • by ksw_92 ( 5249207 )

      With the way California is treating the POL industry, internal combustion engines are likely going to get VERY expensive to operate. California is losing refineries as operators decide to shut them down instead of deal with all the regulatory crap that has been piled on lately.

      No further taxes will be needed to get people to move to EVs, public transportation (heh) or out of the state.

      • No worries, California already has a scheduled gas tax increase for the next couple years.

        On November 8, 2024, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed new special blend mandates for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The new standards require that refiners produce, and retail gas stations sell, a new California special blend in 2025. The CARB contends that the new special blend is necessary to achieve carbon and methane emission reduction targets and is consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2035 mandate to eliminate the sale of internal combustion car sales and 2050 targets. By its own admission, the CARB projected that the new special blend could increase the retail price of gasoline by $0.47 a gallon. However, in hearings, CARB staff noted that “Any estimate of cost from the LCFS regulatory proposal are inherently uncertain because they involve conducting estimates and speculative projections about what may happen in the future.”

        https://californiaglobe.com/fl... [californiaglobe.com]

        So you see, we are already working on making ICEV painful to drive. Sadly, we also have the most expensive electricity in the country as well. Until gas breaks $6.50, my hybrid will be cheaper to drive then your standard EV. EVs would be amazing in the rest of the country, since energy prices are significantly less pretty much everyone outside of California.

        Biggest problem is not enoug

  • sTates rIGhTs
    • Remember how they respond to questions about the Civil War and you'll know what they mean when they talk about state's rights.
  • by ukoda ( 537183 ) on Thursday May 01, 2025 @04:37PM (#65345359) Homepage
    Companies making ICEV sales to California probably should treat this as a temporary win and plan accordingly. Given there is elections before 2035 I suspect California could at the very least say that the plans for 2035 remain and will be reinstated should the balance of power change in future to allow it.

    The flame bait comment is this assumes that you guys will actually be allow to have votes that are counted in future, as it is pretty high up the GOP list to ensure they stay in power without the need to worry about what the population actually wants.
  • The obvious response is just to radically increase that tax on gasoline. Since every state is doing that, it would be hard to justify overruling it. But a limit on generated pollution is better, and less damaging to those who bought gas cars in prior years.

    (That said, there should also be a weight based tax on tires, as that's another form of pollution.)

    • by Ossifer ( 703813 )

      10,000% sales tax, equally outrageous registration fees, tolls at roads entering the state, etc.

    • The obvious response is just to radically increase that tax on gasoline.

      Then you're just punching down at the poor. The only fair way to phase-out ICE vehicles is based on model year, which is much easier to do at the time of registration rather than at the pump.

      Eventually, the existing grandfathered ICE vehicles will age out and that'll be that, with no harm done to people who are just trying to commute to their crappy paycheck-to-paycheck job.

      • So if a person has an all original 1970 Chevelle SS worth $30k then too bad for them?
        • So if a person has an all original 1970 Chevelle SS worth $30k then too bad for them?

          Grandfathering means that your 1970s classic should (ideally) not be subject to the higher environmental impact fees assessed on registering a 2035 and later model year vehicle. As long as you don't mind paying California's outrageous gas prices, you should be allowed to keep driving it as long as you maintain it in roadworthy condition.

          Of course, this is California we're talking about. They may very well go ahead and find some way to make ICE vehicle ownership unaffordable across the board; I wouldn't pu

    • by sinij ( 911942 )

      The obvious response is just to radically increase that tax on gasoline.

      Or sales tax, or anything else that actually would stay in California. The issue is that California is part group of states [ca.gov] that coordinate vehicle emission standards, so California banning ICE would be a widespread problem in a lot of places.

  • Intrusive federal government is squashing freedom of people of California ...

    Time for Zorro...

  • More electric vehicles and renewable energy projects saves more of our oil for military use making the U.S. more secure. The fact that it also makes our air and water cleaner is just a nice bonus for being an energy patriot.

  • by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Thursday May 01, 2025 @06:11PM (#65345645)

    I'm sure we in Canada would be happy to have them as the 11th province!

  • by Bahbus ( 1180627 ) on Thursday May 01, 2025 @06:22PM (#65345673) Homepage

    California's GDP alone is the 4th largest in the world with a faster growing economy than the rest of the U.S. If California wants to ban the creation of new gas-powered vehicles within the state, they still can. If they want to block/confiscate the import of new gas-powered vehicles at the border, they still can. If they want to fine owners or sellers of gas-powered vehicles, they still can. They could just revoke the business licenses of any company selling gas-powered vehicles if they wanted. They could add taxes out the wazoo on gas-powered vehicles, if they wanted. The feds can't help with any of that.

  • Well, there's also the part where 35 Democrats voted to block as well, with 14 not voting. That's a quarter (24%) of the Democrats not siding with Newsom.

  • by Ogive17 ( 691899 ) on Thursday May 01, 2025 @06:27PM (#65345699)
    How to turn the US into a shitty 3rd world country so a handful of already wealthy people can make even more money.

We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.

Working...