• The U.S. House passed a resolution to overturn Biden’s waiver allowing California to ban gas-powered cars by 2035, with 35 Democrats joining Republicans.
• Critics argue the EV mandate ignores grid instability, high costs, and environmental harms from battery production, calling the 2035 deadline unrealistic.
• California’s rule requires 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035, with 11 states adopting similar policies, covering 40% of the U.S. auto market.
• Proponents claim the ban improves air quality, but opponents warn of blackouts, soaring energy prices, and economic fallout from forced EV adoption.
• The Senate faces procedural hurdles to block the waiver, leaving automakers at risk of penalties if California’s mandate takes effect.

In a sharp rebuke of California’s aggressive climate policies, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to overturn the Biden administration’s waiver allowing the state to ban gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. The vote, which saw 35 Democrats join Republicans, highlights growing skepticism about the feasibility and consequences of forced electric vehicle (EV) adoption. Critics argue that California’s mandate, which could influence national auto markets, ignores the dangers of unreliable energy grids, soaring costs, and the environmental toll of EV production.

The resolution, H.J. Res. 88, introduced by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA), passed 246-164 on Thursday, aiming to reverse an EPA waiver granted in late 2024 that enabled California’s Advanced Clean Cars II rule. This rule mandates that 100% of new car sales be zero-emission by 2035, with incremental targets starting in 2026. Eleven states, representing 40% of the U.S. auto market, have already adopted similar policies.

A policy divorced from reality

Proponents of the ban, like Gov. Gavin Newsom, believe it will preserve air quality. Yet the policy overlooks glaring infrastructure gaps. California’s power grid, already strained by renewable energy dependencies, has suffered blackouts—a problem dramatically illustrated by Spain’s nationwide blackout this week spurred by the collapse of its grid following a shift to renewable energy.

“The marketplace isn’t ready for it,” said Phil Flynn, a FOX Business contributor, who called the 2035 deadline “unachievable.” He warned of economic fallout, noting EVs’ high costs, lagging charging infrastructure, and declining consumer demand. Even automakers, through the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, admit the rules are “way ahead of the consumer.”

Congress draws the line

The House vote reflects bipartisan concern over California’s outsized influence. “Congress cannot allow California to set national policy,” Rep. Joyce declared, urging the Senate to act. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) echoed this, slamming the waiver as “radical climate policies” that could “rob every American of consumer choice.”

Yet procedural hurdles remain. The Government Accountability Office and Senate parliamentarian ruled the EPA waiver isn’t subject to the Congressional Review Act, potentially shielding it from repeal. If the Senate fails to act, California’s mandate could take effect, forcing automakers to comply—or face penalties.

The hidden costs of “zero emissions”

While marketed as eco-friendly, EVs carry environmental harms rarely acknowledged by policymakers. Their batteries require rare-earth minerals mined under destructive conditions, and their fire risks—difficult to extinguish and toxic—pose new safety threats. Meanwhile, California’s energy prices, already among the nation’s highest, could spike further as demand outstrips supply.

John Bozzella of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation warned of “jobs and manufacturing fallout” from unrealistic timelines. Even Democrats like Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) broke ranks, signaling doubts about their own state’s plan.

California’s EV mandate is a textbook case of ideological overreach. By ignoring grid limitations, economic realities, and the environmental costs of EVs, policymakers risk replicating Europe’s energy failures. The House’s pushback offers a rare check on green dogma, but unless the Senate follows, Americans may soon face the consequences of a policy built more on wishful thinking than practical solutions.

Sources for this article include:

ZeroHedge.com

FoxBusiness.com

FoxNews.com