WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives took a trio of votes this week targeting California’s decades-old authority to enforce its own environmental standards, setting the stage for a significant standoff in the U.S. Senate, where Democrats say Republican leaders would have to defy long-standing congressional order to get the measures passed.

The votes called into question California’s waiver from the Clean Air Act of 1970, an authority that has allowed the state to set stricter pollution guidelines and empowered its leaders to set an alternative standard on car emissions to those of the federal government.

On Thursday, Republicans in the House, joined by a handful of Democrats, voted to prohibit California from banning the sale of new gasoline-only cars by 2035. The day before, the House voted along similar lines to end California’s ability to set emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks and to combat smog levels in the state.

For decades, automakers have bent their car production lines to meet California mileage standards, in part due to the size of the California market and in part because the industry has found it a safer bet — with changes in power so common in Washington — to be more stringent on fuel efficiency standards than the alternative. Today, more than a dozen states follow California’s standards, including New York, Colorado, Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon.

But since President Donald Trump took office, the Environmental Protection Agency has questioned whether that authority amounts to a technical “rule” that allows for the Senate to disapprove of the waiver with a simple majority vote, under the Congressional Review Act.

Trump campaigned on a promise to reverse government programs promoting the sale of electric vehicles — often derided by critics as “EV mandates” — promoted by former President Joe Biden and the California government, which aims to phase out the sale of new gasoline-only vehicles by 2035 with its latest program, Advanced Clean Cars II.

Over the last two months, two independent offices — the Senate parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office — have found that California’s waiver authority is not subject to review under the act.

California’s waiver, the GAO said, is “not a rule” under the law, noting that the matter had been reviewed multiple times over the last 60 years. The “EPA’s recent submission is inconsistent with this caselaw,” the office found.

But those rulings were not enough to stop votes from proceeding in the House.

It now falls to Senate Republican leadership, under Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to decide how to proceed — and Thune has “made no commitments” either way, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said Thursday in an interview with The Times.

“I hope for the best, but I prepare for the worst,” Padilla said. “In my heart of hearts I think that he wouldn’t. He has made statements about respecting the parliamentarian’s determinations.

“But given the start of the year that we’ve had, and how the Republican Congress, including the Republican majority in the Senate, are just sort of caving and giving Donald Trump everything he’s asked for — we have to prepare for anything,” he continued. “I wouldn’t put it past him, I guess I should say.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, described the House vote as a “lawless” act of defiance against the Senate parliamentarian’s findings.

“Our vehicles program helps clean the air for all Californians, and we’ll continue defending it,” Newsom said.

The office of state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said he was “monitoring the situation closely,” suggesting litigation may follow if Senate Republicans proceed with a vote.

“The Congressional Review Act was designed to provide a mechanism for congressional oversight of new rules by federal agencies — not for partisan attacks on duly-adopted state laws,” Bonta said. “Not only would the misuse of the CRA undermine the integrity of our democratic process, but it would also be unlawful.”

An EPA spokesperson declined to comment on the process to come in the Senate, but noted that Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican senator from West Virginia, put out a statement in support of the House measures shortly after their votes.

Climate activists are expressing concern over the activity on Capitol Hill, with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute characterizing the Republican actions as a “sneaky and illegal” procedural trick “to try and kill California’s clean air protections.”

Others that have long advocated against California’s influence over fuel efficiency standards hailed the votes on Thursday.

In a statement, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers President and Chief Executive Chet Thompson and American Petroleum Institute President and Chief Executive Mike Sommers said that action in the House was “a huge win for U.S. consumers,” asserting that states are far from achieving their target sales numbers under Advanced Clean Cars II.

“We are one step closer to restoring consumers’ ability to choose the cars that best meet their needs,” the executives said. “California’s unlawful ban should never have been authorized, and Governor Newsom should never have been allowed to seize this much control over the American vehicle market.”

“We urge the Senate to act swiftly,” they added.

California Sen. Adam Schiff’s office said he would be urging others in the Senate to adhere to the GAO’s findings, noting that Thune had previously committed to following “regular order” on votes — which, traditionally, has meant heeding the parliamentarian and GAO offices.

“Republicans have themselves admitted that the Congressional Review Act is not a tool at their disposal to ignore the law and overturn precedent, as has the Senate Parliamentarian,” Schiff said in a statement.

“We will fight this latest attack on California’s power to protect its own residents,” he added, “and I will urge my colleagues in the Senate to recognize the severe implications of proceeding with this violation of state’s rights, as well as the dangerous precedent it would set by flouting the unanimous opinion of Congress’ trusted arbiters.”

_____

©2025 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.