The GOP says states' rights matter — unless it's California
California's current standards require 35 percent of new cars sold in the state to be zero-emissions by 2026, and 100 percent by 2035.via Grist
This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
For nearly 60 years, California has enjoyed the ability to set its own standards governing air pollution from automobiles, as long as they're more stringent than the federal government's. This rule, written into the Clean Air Act, was meant to recognize the state's long-standing leadership in regulating air emissions.
The US Senate undermined that authority on Thursday when it voted 51-44 to revoke a waiver the Environmental Protection Agency approved allowing the Golden State to implement and enforce a de facto ban on the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. The Senate also rescinded waivers allowing California to set stricter emissions standards for new diesel trucks and mandating the adoption of zero-emission trucks.
Environmental groups quickly decried the votes, saying that California's standards are essential to protecting public health and achieving nationwide emissions reduction targets. The rules are seen as a sort of national benchmark since automakers don't create separate product lines: one for California and another for everyone else. A provision in the Clean Air Act also allows other states to adopt the Golden State's standards; 16 states and the District of Columbia have adopted many of the rules established by the California Air Resources Board.
'These standards are vital in protecting people from the vehicle pollution which causes asthma attacks and other serious health problems,' Dan Lashof, a senior fellow at the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said in a statement.
On a wonkier level, however, legal and policy experts objected to the way senators rescinded California's waiver: They used the 1996 Congressional Review Act, or CRA, a law enacted to allow Congress to overturn some federal actions with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes. Two government watchdogs said the act did not apply to the state's waiver.
'Republicans twisted the Senate's own rules,' Joanna Slaney, vice president for political and government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. UCLA law professor Ann Carlson warned in a blog post ahead of the vote that Congress 'may be opening up a Pandora's box it can't close' and that 'there will be no limit on using the CRA to overturn all kinds of actions that the act doesn't cover.'
At the heart of the controversy is whether the air pollution waiver that the EPA granted to California last year qualifies as a 'rule' under the CRA. Both the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan oversight agency, and the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan appointee tasked with interpreting congressional rules and procedures, issued advisory opinions earlier this year saying that it doesn't. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) appeared to agree with this interpretation: A one-pager on a bill he proposed to repeal California's waiver said that the exemptions 'cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act because the waiver granted by EPA is not a rule as that term is defined in the CRA.'
Party leaders don't usually contravene the parliamentarian's guidance. If they do, they run the risk of their opponents doing the same when they are in power. 'Republicans should tread carefully today,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, told NPR on Thursday. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said in a statement that 'radical Republicans' had 'gone nuclear on the Senate rule book.'
'It won't be long before Democrats are back in the driver's seat again,' Padilla added. 'When that happens, all bets will be off. Every agency action that Democrats don't like — whether it's a rule or not — will be fair game, from mining permits and fossil fuel projects to foreign affairs and tax policies.'
Dan Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley Law, told Grist that the Senate's capricious interpretation of the CRA means it could be used to rescind waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services allowing states to modify Medicaid requirements or broadcasting licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission. The act could also be used to revoke pollution permits that the EPA grants to states.
He clarified, however, that the Senate only nullified specific waivers in California affecting the sale of gasoline-powered cars. It did not repeal provisions in the Clean Air Act that allow the EPA to issue new waivers, as long as they're not 'substantially the same' as the rescinded ones. 'I think that California still has the power to put forward, and EPA has the power to approve, different emissions regulations in the future,' Farber said. 'Changing the deadlines by a few years could be enough.'
California's current standards require 35 percent of new cars sold within the state to be zero-emissions by 2026, ratcheting up to 100 percent of new sales by 2035. President Donald Trump revoked California's waiver allowing such regulations in 2019 during his first term, but that move was challenged in court and the waiver was restored by Joe Biden's administration.
Although automakers have previously backed California's air pollution standards, industry groups cheered the vote on Thursday. John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group, said in a statement that the Senate deserved 'enormous credit.'
'The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,' he said. 'Automakers warned federal and state policymakers that reaching these EV sales targets would take a miracle, especially in the coming years when the mandates get exponentially tougher.'
California Attorney General Rob Bonta objected to the Senate vote and vowed to challenge it in court. 'Reducing emissions is essential to the prosperity, health, and well-being of California and its families,' he said in a statement. Gov. Gavin Newsom said undoing his state's air pollution rules risked 'ced[ing] American car-industry dominance to China.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Court Will Consider Trump's Use of Troops as Immigration Protests Spread
California liberals welcomed Gov. Gavin Newsom's speech condemning President Trump, but some remained skeptical of the governor. Republicans, meanwhile, saw his address as opportunistic and blamed him for the state's turmoil. For months, Californians weren't sure what to make of Gov. Gavin Newsom. There was the new podcast on which he interviewed right-wing influencers and said he felt trans athletes shouldn't participate in women's sports. There was the meeting in February with President Trump in the White House. And there were occasional snipes at Republicans, but nothing like those Mr. Newsom had dished out in years past. Then came a blistering nine-minute speech on Tuesday in which Mr. Newsom warned Americans that Mr. Trump was destroying democracy and acting as an authoritarian who would eventually send the military to states across the country. Many liberals in California cheered Mr. Newsom, finally seeing in him the leader of the resistance that they had been missing. Those feeling confused and fearful since Mr. Trump started his second term were looking for someone to stick up for them and said they appreciated Mr. Newsom's forcefulness. 'In a time of rising fear and growing threats to democracy, he spoke not just as a governor, but as a moral leader,' said Representative Lateefah Simon, Democrat of California. 'He named the danger plainly.' But others, while supportive of his message, were not entirely convinced. They said testing the political climate ahead of a potential run for president. 'Even if you're late to the party, you know, welcome to the fight,' said Hugo Soto-Martinez, a progressive City Council member in Los Angeles, who appreciated what Mr. Newsom said but wished the governor had stood up to the president sooner. Adrian Tirtanadi, executive director of Open Door Legal, a nonprofit which provides free legal representation for immigrants and others, said he liked all of the words in Mr. Newsom's speech. But, he said, he wondered why the governor was not backing up the rhetoric with more financial support for immigration lawyers who could fight deportation. Big talk without much action, Mr. Tirtanadi said, is often the California way. Still, others appreciated that Mr. Newsom had demanded that Mr. Trump stop workplace raids and filed lawsuits seeking to block the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines in Southern California. That has given some hope to immigrants who have felt powerless. When David Campos was 14, he and his family traveled by foot and by bus, across deserts and over mountains, to California from their home in Guatemala. They scurried under a border fence and settled in South Central Los Angeles without legal papers. The family eventually obtained citizenship through his father's carpentry job. Mr. Campos went on to Stanford University and Harvard Law School, served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is now the vice chairman of the California Democratic Party. Mr. Campos said he was glad that Mr. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor with whom he sometimes clashed, took a defiant stance toward Mr. Trump. 'I'm glad he's rising to this moment,' Mr. Campos, 54, said in an interview. 'The governor reminded us that if the president can do this in California, he can do it anywhere in this country. That's how a democracy can die.' Republicans in California, many of whom have aligned with President Trump, said they were decidedly unimpressed with the governor's speech. Senator Brian Jones, the State Senate minority leader, said that the governor seemed to have been filming an early campaign commercial with his speech, from the way the flags were set in his backdrop to the suit he was wearing. 'It doesn't do anything to lower tensions in L.A.,' Mr. Jones said. 'When he says we all need to stand up, is he encouraging more people to show up to the riots and participate?' James Gallagher, the Republican leader of the California State Assembly, called the governor's address 'self-righteous political posturing.' Mr. Gallagher said California's policy of preventing local law enforcement from working with federal immigration officials created the current tension. He said he found it funny that Mr. Newsom was accusing Mr. Trump of being authoritarian when the governor ordered Californians to close their businesses, stay home from church, attend school on Zoom, wear masks and get vaccinated during the Covid-19 pandemic. 'He was a total tyrant, and he has no business talking about authoritarianism because he is exhibit A,' Mr. Gallagher said. Mr. Newsom's speech, as well as his sharp-tongued retorts to Republicans on social media this week, won some plaudits from younger influencers. Dwayne Murphy, Jr., a 34-year-old content creator who lives in Downey, Calif., and said he votes Democrat, said he appreciated that the governor 'seems to be hyper-focused on standing up for this state at a time like this, and I feel like that's what people are very encouraged by.' Inkiad Kabir, 20, a pop culture content creator who lives in the Inland Empire region of California, said that Mr. Newsom was the rare Democrat willing to go on the attack, calling him 'basically liberal Trump, in a way.' Mr. Kabir created a popular TikTok video this week in which he called the governor 'Daddy Newsom' and likened the governor to a 'toxic ex that you promise you're not going to go back to, but you always go back to.' For now, it seems, Mr. Kabir has gone back.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: I still can't believe Republicans chose Trump over stability | Opinion
Axios
41 minutes ago
- Axios
Congress' "doc fix" spurs value-based care concerns
Physicians are divided over how the massive Republican budget bill moving through Congress would insulate doctors from future Medicare cuts without continuing financial incentives to provide better care through alternative payment models. Why it matters: The "doc fix" championed by the American Medical Association, among other groups, would solve a long-standing complaint about the way Medicare pays physicians. But some physician groups worry it would maintain a system long criticized for tying pay to the volume of procedures delivered and the number of patients seen. State of play: Physician practices that agree to be paid based on patient outcomes get bigger payouts in exchange for taking on the extra financial risk are in line, under current law, for a pay boost through a key adjustment called the conversion factor, starting next year. But the version of the GOP budget bill that passed the House of Representatives would instead create a single conversion factor for all physicians that's updated based on Medicare's measure of inflation. That would leave providers in the performance-based payment models getting higher payments than currently prescribed from 2026 through 2028, but lower payments than outlined in current law after that through 2035, according to an analysis from Berkeley Research Group viewed by Axios. Primary care physicians and providers embracing value-based care worry that removing an incentive for participating in the models will set back efforts to move Medicare toward a more holistic payment system that's meant to improve patient care. "Signals matter in health care," said Shawn Martin, CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians. "I think it's a signal [to physicians] of an entrenchment back in fee-for-service." The American College of Physicians, the trade group for internal medicine doctors, told lawmakers last month that it's concerned the policy as structured will disincentivize doctors' participation in value-based care. "It's being marketed as a long-term fix," said Mara McDermott, CEO of value-based care advocacy group Accountable for Health. "I don't read it that way. I read it as creating a new cliff." Zoom out: Many provider groups are also concerned that the legislation doesn't fix the 2.83% cut to physicians' Medicare payment that took effect in January. The American College of Surgeons in a May statement praised lawmakers for recognizing that Medicare physician payments have to be adjusted for inflation, but that the legislation's provision "is not sufficient to make up for the 2025 cut, and more work is needed." The other side: The AMA wrote to House leadership last month that it "strongly supports" the provision to consolidate into one conversion factor and tie updates to inflation starting in 2026. Reductions made to the conversion factor over the past half-decade to keep the physician fee schedule budget neutral have made private practice financially impossible for many doctors, the AMA said. "It is absolutely vital that this issue be addressed," the letter to House leaders said. The AMA disagrees that the provision would discourage participation in alternative payment models, it told Axios in an email. Although payment updates to alternative payment model physicians starting in 2029 would be lower than current law provides, those doctors will still get positive payment updates overall, it said. Between the lines: The policy would go into effect as the Trump administration seeks to leverage Medicare alternative payment models to drive HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s priorities of prevention and personal choice in health care. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Axios it does not comment on proposed legislation, but said it's continuing to prioritize policies that encourage providers to join payment models that reward high-value and coordinated care. Reality check: Just about all physicians and physician trade organizations agree that stable Medicare payment updates with some link to inflation is necessary to ensure continuous access for Medicare patients, AAFP's Martin said. It's "extraordinarily healthy" for physician advocacy groups to have different opinions on exactly how to reach that conclusion, he added. The Senate is currently debating what to include in its own version of the reconciliation bill.
