In a win for consumer choice, this week the U.S. Senate voted 51-44 to rescind California’s federal waiver authorizing a de facto “EV mandate”. The move, made under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), targets three emissions waivers – chief among them, California’s plan to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.

Notably, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) crossed party lines to support the CRA, joining Senate Republicans in rejecting California’s attempt to set vehicle policy for the entire nation. The House passed the same measure in April with even broader bipartisan support: 35 Democrats broke ranks and joined Republicans to back the resolution, demonstrating how out of step California’s EV mandate is with consumer sentiment nationwide.

Industry Applauds the Defense of Consumer Choice

The move drew praise from energy trade groups, consumer advocates, and auto manufacturers and dealers. American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Mike Sommers and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) President and CEO Chet Thompson welcomed the resolution, calling it a critical step in preventing regulatory overreach:

“Congress has made clear that California regulators have no authority to dictate what cars Americans can buy or to ban internal combustion engine vehicles. President Trump can now deliver on a major part of his campaign promise to end EV mandates in the United States. This is a massive win for consumers and working families all across the country.”

Consumer Freedom Wins, Especially in California

Despite claims to the contrary, rescinding California’s waiver doesn’t “ban” EVs. Drivers across the United States, including in California, can still buy the car of their choice, whether it runs on gasoline or batteries. What the CRA does is restore balance by blocking California from forcing consumers into EVs through regulation.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), who led the Senate push and chairs the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, explained the widespread benefits of ending the rule:

“The impact of the California’s waiver would have been felt across the country, harming multiple sectors of our economy and costing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. I’m proud to have led this effort to protect American workers and consumers from this radical and drastic policy.”

California consumers, already facing some of the highest energy costs in the country, stand to benefit the most. According to Joel Kotkin, presidential fellow at Chapman University and senior research fellow at the University of Texas-Austin, CA’s zero-carbon mandates, including forced EV adoption, are driving up power bills and straining the grid:

“California’s zero-carbon climate policies — pushing EVs as your next car purchase and heat pumps to cool and heat your house — rely largely on electricity that in turn depends on expensive, and intermittent, energy sources, such as wind and solar.”

With California consumers facing high electricity costs, further limiting freedom of choice and forcing expensive EVs on them sounds like the wrong solution. Congress agrees.

California Officials’ Contrasting Responses

As expected, California Attorney General Rob Bonta responded with threats of legal action – no surprise given his record of antagonism toward American energy. Bonta has previously launched a lawsuit targeting oil and gas producers for climate impacts and pursued a baseless, hypocritical plastic recycling case. His opposition to the CRA is just another entry in his activist resume.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, however, took a different track – opposing the vote not for environmental reasons, but on the grounds it allegedly weakens America’s competitiveness with China, specifically in regard to clean air policies. Newsom’s response is notable, as it is the latest in his recent steps away from policies that have long defined his far-left brand in California. Now, in the middle of a soft rebrand to position himself as a more centrist national figure, Newsom is attempting to publicly shift toward economic pragmatism.

But his messaging remains muddled. In a widely shared clip posted by KCRA reporter Ashley Zavala on Thursday, Newsom compared California’s 2035 gas car ban to the transition from the horse and buggy to the iPhone. When Zavala pointed out that the government didn’t mandate the iPhone, Newsom insisted the 2035 ban isn’t a mandate at all, stating: “We’re saying stop polluting.”

Gov. Newsom said CA’s 2035 ban on new gas powered cars is about clean air and innovation, pointing to the horse & buggy and the iPhone.

When I replied I didn’t recall the government mandating the iPhone, Newsom said the 2035 ban isn’t a mandate.

“We’re saying stop polluting..” pic.twitter.com/kW9JIiFDw3

— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) May 23, 2025

Mixed messaging aside – under Newson’s leadership gas prices soared, electricity costs spiked, and reliability declined, a trend Energy in Depth has consistently analyzed.

Bottom line: By rescinding California’s ability to set national policy through federal waivers, the Senate has set a clear message that Americans, not state regulators or political activists, should decide what kind of car they drive. With this CRA vote, the Trump Administration and Congress are following through on promises to end EV mandates and put American industry and workers first.