House Vote Challenges California's Plan to Ban New Gas Cars by 2035

On May 1, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 246-164 to block California from enforcing its plan to ban sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. The decision, driven largely by Republican lawmakers with some Democratic support, targets a waiver granted by the Environmental Protection Agency that allows California to set stricter vehicle emissions standards. This move has reignited a long-standing debate over how much power states should have to shape environmental policy, especially when their rules influence the nation’s auto market.

California’s policy, adopted by 11 other states, requires 35% of new vehicles sold by 2026 to be zero-emission, plug-in hybrid, or hydrogen-powered, rising to 100% by 2035. Supporters see it as a critical step to curb air pollution and combat climate change. Opponents argue it oversteps state authority and burdens consumers and businesses. The House vote, using the Congressional Review Act, now faces an uncertain path in the Senate and potential legal challenges, with far-reaching implications for the U.S. auto industry and climate goals.

Transportation accounts for 27.2% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with cars and light trucks contributing over half of that share. As global pressure mounts to meet Paris Agreement targets, policies like California’s aim to accelerate the shift to electric vehicles. Yet the House’s action reflects deeper tensions over federalism, economic priorities, and the pace of the clean energy transition, setting the stage for a contentious battle.

California has long led the charge on environmental regulation, leveraging its unique authority under the Clean Air Act to set vehicle emissions standards tougher than federal rules. The state’s 2035 ban, part of a broader push to electrify transportation, builds on decades of efforts to tackle smog and air pollution. In 2024, 25% of new cars sold in California were zero-emission, a testament to the policy’s early impact. Leaders in Sacramento argue that phasing out gas-powered vehicles is essential to protect public health and meet climate targets, potentially saving trillions in health and environmental costs.

The House vote, however, challenges this vision. Lawmakers who backed the measure contend that California’s rules effectively set national policy, given the state’s massive auto market and the 11 other states following its lead. They argue this creates an uneven playing field, raises vehicle costs, and strains an electric grid not yet ready for mass EV adoption. Some also question the environmental benefits, pointing to the carbon footprint of battery production and the reliance on fossil fuels in many power grids.

Legal experts note that the Congressional Review Act may not apply to EPA waivers, as both the Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian have ruled they are not formal regulations. California officials have vowed to fight the House action in court, asserting that their authority to set stricter standards is a cornerstone of state-led environmental progress. The outcome could redefine the balance between state innovation and federal oversight.

Advocates for California’s policy, including environmental groups and state officials, emphasize the urgency of cutting transportation emissions, the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gases. They argue that state-level bans drive innovation, create jobs in the clean energy sector, and protect vulnerable communities from pollution’s health impacts. Data shows that California’s rules have already spurred significant EV adoption, with similar trends in states like New York and Colorado. Supporters also point to global trends, with the European Union and China mandating zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035, suggesting the U.S. risks falling behind without bold action.

Opponents, including many House Republicans and some auto industry leaders, raise concerns about consumer choice and economic fallout. They argue that banning gas-powered vehicles could limit options for buyers, especially in rural areas with limited charging infrastructure. Polls indicate 70% of U.S. voters oppose gas car bans, with affordability and vehicle availability as top concerns. Critics also highlight the auto industry’s heavy reliance on gasoline vehicles and the potential for job losses if the transition happens too quickly. The electric grid’s readiness and the environmental cost of battery production remain sticking points in the debate.

The global EV market offers context for both sides. In 2025, EVs are projected to make up 20% of global vehicle sales, led by China, where over half of new cars are electric or plug-in hybrid. The U.S. lags at 9.1% market share, partly due to policy uncertainty and infrastructure gaps. While automakers like Tesla and Mercedes-Benz align with Paris Agreement targets, others struggle to keep pace, underscoring the uneven path to electrification.

The House vote is just one chapter in a decades-long tug-of-war over environmental regulation in the U.S. Since the Clean Air Act of 1970, states have had the flexibility to exceed federal standards, a system known as cooperative federalism. California’s leadership in this space has driven innovations like catalytic converters and hybrid vehicles, but it has also sparked conflicts when federal priorities shift. Recent Supreme Court decisions limiting regulatory authority have emboldened efforts to curb state-led policies, framing them as overreach.

Public opinion reflects the divide. While 91% of Democrats support expanding renewable energy, 73% of Republicans favor more fossil fuel production, with EVs caught in the crossfire. Yet bipartisan support exists for some climate measures, as seen in recent infrastructure investments. The challenge lies in balancing economic concerns, technological readiness, and environmental imperatives without alienating key stakeholders.

As the Senate considers the House measure and courts prepare for legal battles, the stakes are high. California’s policy, if upheld, could reshape the U.S. auto market, pushing automakers to prioritize zero-emission vehicles. If blocked, it might slow the transition to EVs, potentially undermining climate goals and ceding ground to global competitors. The debate is as much about federalism as it is about the future of transportation.

The House’s vote to block California’s 2035 gas car ban marks a pivotal moment in the U.S. push for cleaner transportation. With the Senate’s response uncertain and legal challenges looming, the outcome will likely hinge on judicial rulings and political negotiations. California’s track record of defending its environmental policies suggests a fierce fight, but opponents are equally determined to preserve federal authority and consumer options.

For now, the clash underscores a broader question: how should the U.S. balance state innovation with national cohesion in the race to address climate change? As automakers, policymakers, and consumers navigate this shifting landscape, the road to a zero-emission future remains bumpy but unavoidable. The decisions made in the coming months will shape not just California’s ambitions but the nation’s path toward sustainability.