On May 22, the U.S. Senate passed the resolution H.J.Res.88 with a vote of 51 to 44. This resolution is aimed at overturning California’s strict emissions standards that mandate a phased-out transition from fuel-powered vehicles. The resolution seeks to repeal the special exemption granted to California by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce its Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) emission regulations.
Under the Clean Air Act, states in the United States are not allowed to set their own vehicle emissions standards unless granted a waiver by the EPA. Once receiving the exemption, California can independently establish its own emission regulations.
According to a statement by Republican Congressman Doug LaMalfa on May 1, the ACC II mandates that by the end of 2026, California must achieve 35% of new car sales to be zero-emission vehicles, reaching 100% by 2035.
Last December, the EPA approved California’s waiver request, permitting the implementation of ACC II.
One major concern raised by LaMalfa is that once California activates ACC II, other states can adopt California standards under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, effectively spreading California’s regulations nationwide as approximately 12 states currently follow California’s emission policies.
H.J.Res.88 was passed in the House of Representatives on May 1 with a vote of 246 to 164. Following its approval in the Senate, it is highly likely to be signed into law by President Trump, thereby nullifying California’s ACC II and its mandatory zero-emission vehicle conversion requirements.
The National Federation of Independent Business expressed appreciation for the passage of H.J.Res.88 in the House of Representatives on May 2. The organization had previously voiced support for the resolution in a letter to the House on April 29, cautioning that the electric vehicle mandates under ACC II would impact “millions of small businesses nationwide.”
The organization stated that ACC II is akin to allowing a single state’s policymakers to influence nationwide vehicle regulations, a practice that they believe oversteps boundaries and imposes costly and impractical obligations that most people cannot afford to comply with.
According to the California Air Resources Board, ACC II will significantly reduce air pollutants that threaten public health and contribute to climate change.
Furthermore, to facilitate the transition, California has designed subsidies and incentives for both new and used vehicles. It is estimated that consumers purchasing zero-emission vehicles can save up to $7,500 in maintenance and operational costs over a ten-year period.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune warned on May 20 that the EPA’s waiver to California poses a threat to the U.S. economy, consumers, and grid stability. Thune highlighted that California’s electric vehicle mandate would result in the closure of numerous traditional vehicle production lines nationwide, leading to “severe consequences” such as declining economic output, reduced tax revenue, and job losses.
“American consumers will face fewer choices, higher prices, and decreased availability of vehicles,” he stated, “and the already unstable grid will rapidly encounter enormous pressure from the influx of electric vehicles.”
H.J.Res.88 was proposed under the Congressional Review Act, allowing Congress to overturn administrative rules issued by federal agencies.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the Republican party for exploiting the Congressional Review Act to advance this resolution on May 22. He accused them of “hijacking the Congressional Review Act solely to appease the fossil fuel industry by repealing clean air regulations.”
In response to such claims, Thune had already refuted them during his speech on May 20, accusing Democrats of deliberately raising objections under the guise of procedural issues to hinder the repeal of ACC II.
“Democrats argue that California’s waiver is not a ‘rule’ and therefore cannot be repealed under the Congressional Review Act,” he said, “but let’s be clear: the EPA has submitted these waivers to Congress, treating them as rules – which fulfills all the requirements needed to invoke the Congressional Review Act.”