A Courtroom Clash Over Clean Air Begins
California is taking a stand for its air quality rules. On May 22, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit to protect the state’s clean vehicle program. The action followed a 51-44 Senate vote to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to cancel Environmental Protection Agency waivers. These waivers, part of the 1970 Clean Air Act, allow California to enforce strict emissions standards, including the Advanced Clean Cars II rule, which targets a phase-out of gasoline-only vehicle sales by 2035.
The Senate’s vote caught clean energy supporters off guard. California’s lawsuit argues the move is unlawful, pointing to rulings from the Senate parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office that Clean Air Act waivers are not 'rules' the CRA can touch. The state also contends Congress cannot legally revoke a single-state exemption, framing the vote as a violation of federal law.
This dispute reaches beyond legal jargon. It affects the air quality for California’s 39 million residents and 17 other states that adopt its rules. The outcome will influence health care costs, fuel prices, and the nation’s approach to pollution and climate change.
The Stakes for California’s Air
California has fought air pollution for decades. Its geography, with valleys that hold smog, creates severe challenges. Five of the ten most polluted U.S. cities are in California, and ten million residents in places like Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley live with air quality so poor it’s labeled 'severe nonattainment' for ozone. These conditions drive up rates of asthma and heart disease.
The state’s clean vehicle rules tackle this head-on. By promoting zero-emission vehicles, California has slashed greenhouse gas emissions by 20% since 2000, while its economy grew 78%. Over 100 EPA waivers since 1970 have let the state set standards that push carmakers to innovate. These efforts have led to cleaner vehicles across the country.
The health benefits are clear. Harvard research shows that reducing vehicle pollutants from 2008 to 2017 saved thousands of lives each year. The EPA estimates that by 2030, national vehicle standards could prevent 40,000 premature deaths and millions of lost work days. California’s rules are central to these gains.
Voices on Both Sides of the Debate
Senators like John Thune and Shelley Moore Capito, who backed the Senate vote, argue that California’s rules burden the auto industry. They claim the state’s standards force carmakers to meet demands that raise vehicle prices and threaten jobs. In their view, the CRA is a valid way to ensure national consistency in regulations and prevent one state from setting rules that affect the entire country.
On the other side, lawmakers like Sheldon Whitehouse and Alex Padilla defend California’s authority. They emphasize that the Clean Air Act explicitly grants the state power to set stricter standards, a system supported across decades by both parties, starting with the Nixon and Reagan eras. They warn that overturning the waivers would harm public health, increase costs for consumers, and weaken America’s clean energy leadership.
Economic impacts are a key point of contention. California’s rules promote electric vehicles, which can save money on fuel and maintenance, potentially delivering $91 billion in savings by 2040. Yet opponents highlight the high upfront costs of electric vehicles and supply chain hurdles, which could make new cars less affordable for many families.
Global Competition and Local Costs
This fight has global implications. China leads the world in electric vehicle production, accounting for over 70% of global supply. In early 2025, global EV sales rose 35%, largely due to affordable Chinese models. The U.S. lags behind, importing more EVs than it exports. California’s rules aim to spur domestic innovation, but critics argue they could strain automakers already struggling to keep up.
Closer to home, the Senate’s vote could hit Californians hard. Undoing the waivers might lead to $45 billion in added health care costs from worse air quality. For communities in polluted regions, this translates to more doctor visits and higher bills. At the same time, some fear stricter rules could drive up vehicle prices, putting new cars out of reach for working families.
The Road Ahead for Clean Energy
The courts will now settle this dispute. The case hinges on whether the CRA can apply to Clean Air Act waivers, a question that could reshape how states and the federal government share power. Past rulings, like Massachusetts v. EPA, have upheld state environmental authority, but recent challenges, including a Trump executive order from April 2025, create uncertainty.
California’s clean energy progress, from 15,000 megawatts of battery storage to 51 days of 100% clean electricity in 2024, shows what’s at stake. The Senate’s vote underscores how fragile that progress can be. This clash weighs public health, innovation, and state rights against concerns about costs and federal oversight.
As the lawsuit moves forward, the nation faces big questions about balancing local needs with national priorities. The outcome will shape not just the air we breathe but also America’s role in a world racing toward cleaner energy.