House Votes To Block California's Ban On New Gas-Powered Vehicles In 2035 (cbsnews.com)
- Reference: 0177243369
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/05/01/1957215/house-votes-to-block-californias-ban-on-new-gas-powered-vehicles-in-2035
- Source link: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-gas-powered-vehicle-ban-house-votes-to-block-hjres88/
> The House of Representatives on Thursday [1]voted to block California from implementing plans to block new sales of gas-powered vehicles in a decade . In a 246-164 [2]vote , members approved [3]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."
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-gas-powered-vehicle-ban-house-votes-to-block-hjres88/
[2] https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025114
[3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-joint-resolution/88
Inconsequential.... (Score:3)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: Inconsequential.... (Score:2)
What positives do EVs have over ICEs besides being able to charge at home?
Re: (Score:2)
- Smoother powertrain
- Faster acceleration
- Fewer parts
- Less noise pollution
- Less localized pollution
Re: (Score:2)
- Lower center of gravity means improved handling
- Far less fluids to replace (gear oil, brake fluid and coolant are about it and those all last longer in an EV)
- More storage space
- Regenerative braking means less brake pad wear
Re: Inconsequential.... (Score:2)
- Smoother powertrain: not really sure how that is a benefit. Are you trying to make a souffle in your car?
- Faster acceleration: very easy to build a fast ICE car for what a Tesla costs. How do you add 200 horsepower to an EV if you want it to be faster? Very easy with an ICE.
- Fewer parts: yet more expensive and less reliable so what's the point? Also a double edged sword because when something wears out you can't just replace a small part.
- Less noise pollution: most cars you can just hear the tir
Re: (Score:2)
- A smooth ride is much better than a jerky ride.Stop-start traffic is much, much, much nicer in an EV than in an ICE car, for example. It just strains credulity to imagine that you truly believe that no-one finds value in a smooth ride.
- Pretending that cars don’t make engine noise — ditto.. surely you can’t truly think that’s credible? For example, people buy pickup trucks with big V8s in droves, and specifically love that these are really noisy engined machines
Re: (Score:2)
As owner of an EV I can mention a few advantages; cheap maintenance, cheap energy, quiet, clean.
Re: (Score:2)
> What positives do EVs have over ICEs besides being able to charge at home?
Enough that lots of people like them, sometimes for that reason alone. Not my thing but so long as nobody is being forced it is all good.
Re: Inconsequential.... (Score:2)
Well Canada has the same law of no ices after 2035 that hasn't been removed yet, so...
Re: (Score:2)
> What positives do EVs have over ICEs besides being able to charge at home?
Don't have to deal with fluctuating gas prices, no oil changes, and here's the absolute craziest thing - there are even a few places you can plug in for free .
As long as we get to zero emission economy (Score:2)
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
There's always a way (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
sTates rIGhTs (Score:2)
sTates rIGhTs
Temporary win (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrids are neat but are the most complex systems versus the other two options and all those things you mention add even more weight and complexity to already heavy vehicles reducing the advantages they are built for to begin with.
Hybrids are what they were intended to be, a transition technology. They'll hang around but they only remain relevant until EV's get cheap enough then they will remain as the minority vehicle but they will have their uses cases.
Why do people take such mandates seriously? (Score:1)
A 15 year plan from a politician that cannot be in that office for more than 8 years is not to be taken seriously.
Do we know of a politician that made promises and was taken seriously? President Kennedy. He said he'd land men on the moon and bring them home safely within 8 years. At the time Kennedy was in his first year as POTUS so he set a deadline to where he could reasonably expect to still be in office when that happened. That's not what happened though, men walked on the moon within 8 years but Ke
Re:Why do people take such mandates seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't give me a 10 year plan, give me one for the next 2 years.
And this is why the U.S. keeps flailing. Instead of long term goals we seek short ideas. Whereas China has plans for [1]100 years in the making [forbes.com]. They even have designated [2]five year plans [wikipedia.org] which stretch for decades.
Even if they're not wholly successful at implementing these plans, who do you think will be more successful? Someone who only looks 2 years out or someone who looks decades into the future?
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2019/11/12/chinas-grand-plan-to-take-over-the-world/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_five-year_plan
Re: (Score:2)
> A 15 year plan from a politician that cannot be in that office for more than 8 years is not to be taken seriously.
> And this is why the U.S. keeps flailing. Instead of long term goals we seek short ideas.
You're both right. It's not just the U.S. either, but any modern democracy in which a leader or party is unlikely to be in power longer than 8 - 10 years has little incentive to create a 5, 10, or 100 year plan. Doubly so when politics is so polarized that almost anything you can't get finished while you're in power will be immediately axed as soon as the other team wins (it doesn't HAVE to be this way - a new CEO will want to bring their own ideas and flavour to the direction of a company, but they aren't
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't give me a 10 year plan, give me one for the next 2 years.
That explains so very much, lol. I imagine you can't even see the irony.
Further, you're not even correct.
Kennedy entered office on Jan 20, 1961.
He would have left office, had he served 2 terms, on Jan 20, 1969.
He would have missed the moon landing by half a year.
That's ignoring the 6 new Congresses he would have had to deal with in the interim, all with their own "2 year plans".
He didn't say, "by the end of this decade" because he planned on being in office. He said it because it was a good date far
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, 3 new Congresses.
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't give me a 10 year plan, give me one for the next 2 years.
Guess MacMann has given up on nuclear power, since it takes more than 10 years to build one.
Meanwhile solar and wind projects can get approved and under construction in under 2 years, so at least that fits their preferred timeline!
=Smidge=
That's silly grandstanding (Score:3)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
10,000% sales tax, equally outrageous registration fees, tolls at roads entering the state, etc.
"All to baselessly attack California." (Score:2)
And that is the inherent goal here. Republicans hate California because its success undermines the validity of their politics.
Declera independence or join Canada... (Score:2)
Intrusive federal government is squashing freedom of people of California ...
Time for Zorro...
How about some reverse propoganda (Score:1)
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.
States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if so, why would one not try to limit man made smog?
Proof that the left can be anti-science, too (Score:2)
Yes, we know you've been hanging out in /r/fuckcars and believe every straw they've grasped at in order to demonize even sustainable personal transportation options. Human-created smog is primarily the result of nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx) reacting with unburned hydrocarbons. It's the reason why you'll even see things like [1]low NOx gas furnaces [lennox.com] on the market, because that's where the smog is coming from.
Guess what electric cars don't produce at all ? NOx and hydrocarbon emissions. In fact, if you truly
[1] https://www.lennox.com/residential/heating-and-cooling/low-nox/
Re: (Score:3)
> Because electric cars don't eliminate or even reduce smog.
Yes, they do.
> Most of that smog you see is tire particulate.
No, it's not.
It is true that most particulate emissions from cars is tire and break particulates. However, the nasty shit you see as photochemical smog are nitrogen oxides and various VOCs.
EVs will not increase smog. Nor will they eliminate it entirely. They will reduce it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Because electric cars don't eliminate or even reduce smog. Most of that smog you see is tire particulate. We've been running zero emissions cars from most vehicles for a while now. We do have a problem with idling semi trucks but they mostly do that outside city limits. Most of the smog you're seeing is coming from little bits of tire. It's one of those things where scientists wondered for years were tires went because they aren't on the roads and it turns out the answer is in your lungs. Electric cars if anything are going to make smog worse. They're heavier and they burn through tires faster because of it. Nobody wants to hear this because this is a forum full of old farts and we don't like change and we want to keep driving our cars and our SUVs. There are some upsides to electric cars, specifically it drastically reduces our dependency on foreign oil which is a good thing for all kinds of reasons. And in theory if we all switched to renewables and we might get a small but noticeable improvement to climate change. Although keep in mind the energy needed to build out and maintain electric cars means it's not going to be night and day. If you actually want clean air and to fight climate change you need walkable cities and public transportation. Try not to worry about the government controlling where you go because give it a few years and you'll be stuck in a self-driving car anyway, never mind that the government still needs to build the roads so they still decide where you're going to go. But again change sucks and we all grew up playing with toy cars so nobody wants to hear it. And because most of us are older we are probably going to be dead before the problems really hit. Kind of fucked up to leave the mess to our kids though...
So, while what you point out is true, or at least true-adjacent, the devil is in the details.
First up, the assertion that BEVs don't eliminate or reduce smog is incorrect. I can find plenty of studies indicating that tire particles pollute soil, water, and air, I couldn't find any that indicate the air pollution is in the form of smog . And I couldn't find anything indicating what amount of the tire particle pollution is airborne. Or for how long it lingers. Or how far it travels. Doing a little diggi
Re: (Score:1)
The democrats should be secretly celebrating this; the ban was always a remarkably stupid virtue signal that was going to come back to bite them. There is no way the state could possibly be ready for the ban in 10 years ( look at their rail project lol ).
The republicans just saved the democrats from themselves. If they're smart they'll bitch, whine and moan but not do anything to try to overturn this.
Re:States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:4, Insightful)
And the State of California couldn't have figured that out and changed the date themselves if their analysis showed what you say it will? They had no time to do that before 2035 in Sacramento, and needed the United States Congress, with all the agility and velocity with which they move to do it for them (and 49 other states)?
No, sorry, that's partisan nonsense making excuses for Republican hypocrisy. If they can ban abortions in Texas under the guise of States Rights and make the people of Texas suffer through the consequences, then why can't California ban gasoline powered vehicles and make the people of California suffer through the consequences?
It's the same god damn thing. The only difference here is that you agree with the people that are for States Rights when it suits them, and against them when it doesn't.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that republicans delibarately and knowingly elected a child rapist, twice , as their president should tell you all you need to know about their "ethics".
Re: (Score:2)
> If they can ban abortions in Texas under the guise of States Rights and make the people of Texas suffer through the consequences, then why can't California ban gasoline powered vehicle
Well, it may be along the lines of, that the Feds can regulate interstate commerce ....and cars are manufactured and sold across the states....an so, CA banning a broad category would have an effect on interstate commerce .
Abortion, really doesn't fit in that category of trade....without a LOT of stretching the legal term
Re: (Score:2)
Not buying that one either.
Fireworks are manufactured elsewhere and sold across state lines, yet nobody has a problem with states banning fireworks due to wildfire danger.
What the hell's the difference, other than that Republicans are in the pockets of Big Oil, Michigan is a swing state, and no Republican ever got in trouble for sticking it to California?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't think that anybody really thought that all of the auto manufacturers (with the exception of EV makers like Tesla) were going to be ready to fully transition to electric vehicles by 2035. Many of them are just releasing their 1st generation EV products now, and they are outrageously expensive and have terrible range. The new Dodge Charger EV comes to mind as an example... the Scat Pack version costs $75,000, only has a 240 mile range, and can be outperformed by a $55,000 Tesla Model 3 Performan
Re: (Score:2)
> (with the exception of EV makers like Tesla)
Tesla would probably be thrilled though. The world's fourth largest economy and the traditional automakers all caught with their pants down? That's like a license to print money. Goes to show Musk either ain't as clever or influential as he imagines himself to be, since you'd assume he'd be all for California's ICE ban.
> Many of them are just releasing their 1st generation EV products now, and they are outrageously expensive and have terrible range.
The real issue though isn't that the cars aren't ready, it's that the charging infrastructure isn't ready. Lots of folks live in apartments where there's no place to charge, and having to
Re: (Score:2)
Exceptions, even a large number of them, doesn't make them a rule.
Re: (Score:2)
> The real issue though isn't that the cars aren't ready, it's that the charging infrastructure isn't ready. Lots of folks live in apartments where there's no place to charge, and having to do all your charging away from home kind of makes EV ownership a pain in the ass. I was at an EA station one time talking to a mother who was there with her kids (who were obviously quite irate at the ritual of having to wait while the car charged), and she was adamant that as soon as she could, she was trading in her EV for a car that ran on gas. She'd bought it when she had access to charging at work, had changed jobs, and because she lived in an apartment, no longer had any place to plug in.
One of the worst arguments I hear against EV's. If they don't suit a person's lifestyle, buy a petromobile or the the bus.People living in apartments should not control what is or is not made.The same argument might be made that since people in apartments so often use public transportation, the only vehicles allowed to be produced are buses. I mean, they often cannot afford or even have access to parking, so no cars allowed.
The problem of course is the use case. I do a lot of off-roading, so I buy Jeeps
Re: (Score:2)
Then that sounds like a problem the market will sort out for them. Make better products. You have 10 years.
Or, alternatively I suppose, make some well-placed financial contributions to a few Congress critters and then you don't have to make better products while trampling the wishes of a few million people.
California has all the tools they need to adjust this policy in the next 10 years right there in Sacramento. And if the people of California don't like it, they have all the tools to adjust this policy
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt anyone expected this ban to go into effect, at least all of those that stopped to consider the implications on this for a minute. This was virtue signalling bullshit from the start.
There have been places on Earth that had considerable success in getting to all-electric vehicles. That works by driving up the cost of EV prices until enough of the EV production lands in the places that banned gasoline vehicles to meet demand. As more governmental jurisdictions on Earth ban any internal combustion ve
Re: (Score:2)
> I expect that the PHEV will be the most common option for cars and light trucks fairly soon.
The problem with PHEVs though, is that quite often [1]their owners do not actually plug them in. [insideevs.com] When run entirely in hybrid mode, they're generally not anything special in the efficiency department.
Granted, most PHEVs can realistically be charged from a standard 5-15 outlet, so access to charging becomes a case of "can I trail a cord out to the car?" rather than "I need to hire an electrician". Never underestimate people's ability to be lazy, though.
[1] https://insideevs.com/features/727919/phev-plugged-in-user-data/
Re: (Score:2)
> The democrats should be secretly celebrating this
Trust me, they are. I'm sure they maneuvered to get it to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
So democrats are both feckless enough to pass a bill they would secretly oppose enough to undermine it but also that would suggest they are all powerful and coordinated enough to do both actions in an intentional and duplicitous manner.
Spot on of one of Umberto Eco's 14 points; “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it's more a case of that outside of heavily blue states, Democrats tend to share more traits with Republicans. Hell, here in Florida at our last gubernatorial election, the Democratic candidate previously was a Republican.
As to why other states' representatives care about what goes on in California, they're worried that the ICE ban might have further reaching effects beyond California's borders.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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. [1]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.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/13/how-americans-view-electric-vehicles/
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
[1]Might be too late though [techcrunch.com]
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/06/tracking-the-ev-battery-factory-construction-boom-across-north-america/
Came here for this (Score:2)
Leaving satisfied.
Re: (Score:2)
What on Earth makes you think the Abortion blocking thing was ever "states rights"? [1]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
[1] https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf