Why Democrats Joined Republicans to Block a California Climate Policy

The representative Lou Correa, a Democrat who repeats parts of Orange County, California, drives a hybrid car and wants the federal government to address climate change.

But he joined another 34 Democrats last week to help Republicans repeal the historical requirement of his state that all new vehicles sold in California are electric or that they are not not contaminated by 2035. In doing so, he helped President Trump and the main large cars of Republican gasoline.

“I don’t like to give Trump a victory,” Correa said in an interview after the vote. But electric vehicles are still exquisite and not very practical in their blue neck district, he said.

“We have just finished a choice in which every survey I see, everyone with whom I speak, says:” You need to listen to the working class, middle -class people, “Correa said.” I’m listening to my voters who say “don’t kill us.”

The vote from 246 to 164 in the Chamber surprised the environmentalists, who said they struggled to understand why almost three boxes of the Democrats voted to kill one of the most ambitious climatic policies in the country. During the few years, Democrats have voted too much in favor of stronger policies to address global warming.

Some wonder if that unit is beginning to fray before the intense lobbying and concerns about the increase in prices in the midst of Trump’s commercial wars.

“It was a great disappointment,” said Margo Oge, who served as the main regulator of vehicle emissions at the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

California’s plan “would save money, put the country in position to combat climate change and allow us to compete in the global market,” said Mrs. Oge, nodding to the fact that electric vehicles are cheaper to operate and Mintain in the long term than cars with gasoline.

Transport is the largest source of global warming pollution in the United States, which contributes approximately 29 percent of total carbon emissions in the country. The prohibition of California was expected, which had adopted another 11 states, helped change the country to cleaner electric vehicles.

The ban will begin in the next year, ordering that 35 percent of new vehicle sales are not emissions by 2026. California is a leader in the adoption of EV; 25 percent of new cars sold in the state last year were electric. Nationally, that participation was 10 percent.

The Biden administration granted permission to California to prohibit cars with gasoline under the clean air law of 1970, which specifically allows California to establish more strict pollution rules than the federal standards that the State has historical had the worst air pollution.

To overcome the action of the State, the Republicans of the House of Representatives invoked the Congress Review Law, a 1996 law that allows legislators to reverse the recently adopted regulations with a simple majority vote.

But the prohibition of California is not a federal regulation. It is an exemption under the law of clean air, something that has been granted more than a hundred times over the years by the administrations of both parties. And he is not subject to the review of the Congress, according to a 2023 decision by the government’s responsibility office and the Senate parliamentarian. Even so, the Senate is expected to act in a few weeks.

Senator Chuck Schumer from New York, the Democratic leader, warned Monday of “dangerous and irreparable consequences” if the Senate’s Republicans challenged the parliamentarian.

“Such action would be a procedural nuclear option, a dramatic rupture of the precedent of the Senate with deep institutional consequences,” Schumer and another 20 Senate Democrats wrote in a letter to Senator John Thune of Dakota del Sur, the leader of the Republican majority.

In the Chamber, the 35 Democrats who voted to accelerate a repeal of that exemption were a mixture: the moderates of the red and purple states, as well as those that represent the blue states.

Some, such as Henry Cuellar, a fossil fuel champion of Texas, and Marcy Kaptur, whose northwest district of Ohio is slightly republican, it is known that they oppose strict environmental regulations.

But the list also included Democrats who had been reliable supporters of climatic policies. Two Californians voted against (in addition to Mr. Correa, representative George T. Whitesides voted to repeal the exemption). And, five Democrats from New York and one from Maine also opposed, only although both states have adopted the prohibition of California.

Governor Gavin Newsom or California, a Democrat, decreased through a spokesman to comment on the camera vote.

Senator Alex Padilla, a Democrat of California, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” in the number of legislators of his party who voted against politics.

“I attribute it to the intense and misleading lobby of the oil industry,” he said. He accused the Republicans of “cursed and cynical attempts to gut the law of clean air and undermine California climate leadership.”

Federal records show that since January of oil and gas companies along with car manufacturers, car dealers and free market groups, more than $ 10 million legislators on the California plan spent. That adds to a seven -digit campaign of US fuel and petrochemical manufacturers, representing oil refiners.

“Automotive companies have tracked over them for weeks and months,” said Ren Steinzor, an emeritus professor of administrative law at Maryland University.

On the contrary, environmental and public health organizations spent $ 435,000 to press legislators on the prohibition of California since January, as shown in records.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a conservative research group that supports fossil fuels, said the opponents simply had a better discussion.

“At the end of the day, people realized that they don’t want to be forced to certain types of vehicles,” Pyle said. “People will vote with their pockets, and the price of electric vehicles for many people is out of reach.”

Environmental activists, who have been fighting Trump’s administration and the actions of the Congress that eliminate climatic protections, recognized in private that they did not make California vote a priority.

Several also said that there may have been deposited too much faith in the findings of the government’s responsibility office and the Senate parliamentarian that the exemption of California was not subject to the type of rapid repeal provided by the Congress Review Law.

“There is no sugar that covers this,” said Térnan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of government issues for the conservation voters league. “This was a terrible vote.”

But she also argued that it was an aberration. “This vote is not emblematic or where the Democrats are in climate change more widely,” he said.

Representative Laura Gillen, whose New York district includes Nassau County, said she was concerned that market restrictions caused vehicles with gasoline to be more expenses. “My components have seen their 401 (k) eliminated with this commercial war and what is happening in the market,” said Screaming, who voted against the prohibition of California, referring to retirement savings plans. “The last thing they need is something to add to their financial burns.”

“I want to reduce emissions, I care about the environment,” he said, adding: “I want to encourage people to adopt and adopt clean energy. Putting unfeasible mandates that could increase costs is not the way to do it.”

Mr. California Correa said that one of the most convincing arguments heard about the impact of California’s policy on the days before the vote of a Chevrolet dealership in its district.

“He told me,” Lou, this will force me to increase prices on tariffs. It will be a perfect storm for us, “Correa said.

Mike Murphy, a republican strategist and supporter of electric vehicles, agreed. Mr. Murphy said he supported the elimination of California combustion motor vehicles, but thought it was not the ideal way to stimulate the adoption of EV.

“The prohibitions are hard in a child in the country free of life,” said Murphy, executive director of the EV policy project, a bipartisan effort to reduce the partisan gap in electric vehicles. He said that electric vehicles should be a market success instead of a regulatory demand. “You have to win the hearts and minds of consumers,” he said.

Already, some states that had adopted the prohibition of California are retiring.

Governor Glenn Youngkin or Virginia, a Republican, last year withdrew the plans to follow the prohibition of California. Governor Wes Moore of Maryland, a Democrat, issued an executive order last month to delay the execution of his version of California’s prohibition to vehicles with gasoline. And Governor Matt Meyer of Delaware, also a Democrat, said in an interview that if Congress did not eliminate California’s policy, he would revoke the adoption of his state.

Governor Meyer professed his love for electric vehicles, emphasizing that he drives an Rivian and pointed out that, when he served as New Castle county executive, he made the transition on the county fleet, except police vehicles, to electric models.

“You can love electric vehicles and want to buy EV and want to invest public money in the purchase of electric vehicles and still be strongly in favor of the freedom of car dealers to sell what they want and car buyers to buy what they want,” he said in an interview.

The governor insisted that he was still committed to the objective of delaware to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent from 2005 levels for the end of this decade.

But without the prohibition of the vehicle with gasoline, Hey acknowledged: “We are working to review our strategy to achieve those objectives.”