Fueling The Conversation, Week of May 20th, 2025
It’s crunch time for the United States Senate. In the eleventh hour of his presidency, Joe Biden gave California the green light to ban gas-powered cars and trucks. This action, along with a suite of additional federal rules, fulfills a decades-long quest by the green left to force people out of their cars. President Trump, with an eye towards keeping a campaign promise, issued a day-one executive order to end the electric vehicle (EV) mandate and promote true consumer choice. But he can’t do it alone, and time is running out.
The impact of California’s gas-powered car ban stretches far beyond the state’s borders. Under the Clean Air Act, other states are permitted to follow California’s lead. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have signed on. Even if President Trump removed the remaining federal rules advancing an EV mandate, the size of California and the adjoining states’ market means that many automakers would still be compelled to shift to EVs, raising prices for everyone else and making fewer gas-powered cars available in the market.
The deadline to reverse the California waiver through the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is in early June. If Congress misses that window, a major pillar of President Biden’s electric vehicle mandate will remain in effect.
The House of Representatives did its job. Thirty-five Democrats (including two from California) joined two hundred and eleven Republicans to disapprove the Clean Air Act waiver. As I said at the time of the vote, “By invoking the Congressional Review Act to overturn California’s car ban, House Republicans are signaling their commitment to the promises they made to voters.”
Now it’s the Senate’s turn to deliver on what they were elected to do. While much has been written about whether the waiver is repealable under the CRA, it is much ado about nothing. The legal basis for repealing the waiver is strong: the Government Accountability Office is an advisory body, nothing more, and it’s clear that the waiver is a rule of general applicability, making it eligible for the CRA. These procedural arguments are little more than last-ditch efforts by proponents of the EV mandate to try and protect the waiver. At its core, this debate is about whether the Senate will uphold consumer choice as the cornerstone of our auto market, and whether they are willing to push back against California’s regulatory overreach and the broader agenda of climate extremism.
Our friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute nailed the importance of consumer choice in their recent letter to the Senate: “Automobility is the principal mode by which Americans exercise and enjoy the liberty of directing their own movements and going about their lawful pursuits. Regulations that significantly reduce vehicle affordability and automotive choice erode that bedrock American liberty. Practically, the waivers will make it more difficult for Americans to get around and especially hurt the poor by limiting their options for going to work, visiting family, or getting to medical appointments, among other things.”
The Senate now stands at a critical juncture as the Senate Majority Leader has indicated that they intend to take up the vote. This is a defining moment to reassert congressional authority, defend consumer choice, and push back against the growing trend of regulatory overreach driven by one state’s agenda. If the Senate fails to act, it will effectively endorse a policy that limits mobility, drives up costs, and sidelines the very voters who gave Republicans their mandate last November. The House has done its part. Now the Senate must do theirs — by passing the CRA resolution, restoring balance to the regulatory process, and standing up for the freedom of all Americans to choose the vehicles that work best for their lives.
__________________
Fueling the Conversation, a weekly column by IER President Tom Pyle, offers a principled take on energy events. Energy underpins all aspects of modern life, so policies that artificially limit production hurt everyday people paying to heat their homes and driving to work. “Green” groups push these policies for idealogical reasons, but this column uses economic logic and hard facts to advocate for energy freedom.
