The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday granted California its request to enforce vehicle emissions standards more stringently than federal rules, including the state’s ban on the sale of new gasoline cars.
The EPA granted two waivers to the California Air Resources Board to allow for its full implementation regulations requiring all new car sales to be emissions-free by 2035 and a second rule lowering emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks and off-road vehicles.
The stricter rules would also establish temporary quotas for zero-emission vehicles. Beginning with 2026 models, 35% of new cars, SUVs and small pickups sold in California should be zero-emission vehicles, with the quota increasing every year through 2035.
The quotas could allow 20% of zero-emission cars sold to be plug-in hybrids. The rules would not affect used vehicles, allowing gas-powered cars and trucks to remain on the road.
Other states have followed California’s lead in stricter emissions rules are considering whether the ban on petrol cars should also be introduced.
The Trump administration is trying to block California’s rules
California’s strict emissions rules are likely to face an immediate challenge from the new administration. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to block the state from setting its own rules on emissions, which his first administration did in 2019 by revoking the state’s EPA exemption. The move prompted California and 22 other states to sue the governmenta lawsuit that came into question when President Joe Biden took office and reversed the Trump administration’s policies.
“Clean cars are here to stay. The Biden-Harris administration has reaffirmed what we have known for decades: California can rise to the challenge of protecting our people by cleaning our air and reducing pollution,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a prepared statement. “Naysayers like President-elect Trump would rather side with the oil industry than consumers and American automakers, but California will continue to promote new innovations in the marketplace.”
Last month, Newsom announced the state would do so renew an electric vehicle rebate program if the new Trump administration follows through on its threat to eliminate the $7,500 federal tax credit.
Efforts by the new administration to block California’s emissions standards are likely to trigger a series of legal challenges that could delay any action.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a limited case on whether the oil and gas industry has standing to sue California over its tailpipe emissions standards.
California’s struggle to reduce pollution levels
In granting California the waiver requests, the EPA said its investigation found that opponents did not shoulder the burden of showing how both programs are inconsistent with the federal Clean Air Act.
“California has long had the authority to request waivers from EPA to protect its residents from hazardous air pollution from mobile sources such as cars and trucks,” EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement. “Today’s actions reflect EPA’s commitment to work with states to reduce emissions and take action on the threat of climate change.”
California set the nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards in 1966 and is the only state eligible for a waiver from the federal Clean Air Act of 1970, which gives the EPA the authority to regulate pollution nationwide. The Clean Air Act also allows other states to adopt California’s standards. Since the Clean Air Act was enacted, the EPA has granted California more than 75 waivers for its vehicle emissions program.
Major automakers such as BMW, Ford, Honda, Stellantis and Volkswagen have adopted current California emissions rules. Newsom said in a news release Wednesday that millions of Californians and other Americans have already switched to clean vehicles and more than two million zero-emission vehicles have been sold in the state.
Industry group Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which has consistently spoken out against California’s stricter emissions rules, said Wednesday it expects President-elect Trump to revoke the waiver in 2025.
“We’ve said the country should have a single, national standard to reduce CO2 emissions in transportation, but the question of California’s overall authority to create a vehicle emissions program — and that other states should do so to follow that program – is ultimately something for policymakers and the courts to figure out,” the group said in a news release.
Environmental groups are applauding the EPA’s decision on California emissions
Advocacy group Earthjustice said the EPA’s decision would mean cars in the state would be largely emissions-free by 2050 and that the rule on heavy-duty truck emissions would deliver “critical health benefits to people affected by the worst polluters on the roads : large diesel cars.”
“This may seem like checking a bureaucratic box, but the EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the costs of combustion fuels,” said Earthjustice director of the Right To Zero campaign Part Cort in a press release. “The gradual shift in vehicle sales to zero-emission models will reduce smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Reducing truck pollution will help us clear the air of smog.”
The National Resources Defense Council said in a news release that Congress has long recognized the state’s ability to set stricter emissions standards, which has helped California spur innovation and save lives.
“These waivers allow California – and states that have chosen to join them – to curb pollution coming from tailpipes and address the impacts of the climate crisis,” said Kathy Harris, NRDC director of clean vehicles. “California has decided that transitioning to cleaner, zero-emission vehicles is the best way to address the unique burdens facing the country. This is exactly how our system of federalism should work. If other states don’t like California’s approach, they have no need. But no one should object to states’ long-standing authority to act to protect their residents.”
