The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday granted California its request to enforce vehicle emissions standards stricter than federal rules, including the state’s ban on sales of new gasoline-powered cars.

The EPA granted two waivers to the California Air Resources Board to allow full implementation of its regulation requiring all new car sales to be zero-emission by 2035 and a second rule lowering emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks and off-road vehicles.

The stricter rules would also set interim quotas for zero-emission vehicles. Starting with 2026 models, 35% of new cars, SUVs and small pickups sold in California would be required to be zero-emission vehicles, with quotas increasing each year until 2035. 

The quotas would allow 20% of zero-emission cars sold to be plug-in hybrids. The rules would not affect used vehicles, allowing gas-powered car and trucks to remain on the roads.

Other states that have followed California’s lead on stricter emissions rules are weighing whether or not to also adopt the ban on gas cars.

Trump administration seeks to block California rules

California’s strict emission rules will likely see an immediate challenge from the incoming administration. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to bar the state from setting its own rules on emissions, which his first administration did in 2019 by revoking the state’s EPA waiver. The move prompted California and 22 other states to sue the administration, a lawsuit that became moot when President Joe Biden took office and reversed the Trump administration policy. 

“Clean cars are here to stay. The Biden-Harris Administration reaffirmed what we’ve known for decades — California can rise to the challenge of protecting our people by cleaning our air and cutting pollution,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom in a prepared statement. “Naysayers like President-elect Trump would prefer to side with the oil industry over consumers and American automakers, but California will continue fostering new innovations in the market.”

Last month, Newsom announced the state would renew a rebate program for electric vehicles if the incoming Trump administration follows through on its threat to eliminate the federal tax credit of $7,500.

Efforts by the incoming administration to block California’s emissions standards will likely prompt a series of legal challenges that could delay any action.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a narrow case on whether the oil and gas industry has the standing to sue California over its tailpipe emission standards.

California’s battle to cut pollution levels

In granting California the waiver requests, the EPA said its review found that opponents did not meet the burden to show how either program is inconsistent with the federal Clean Air Act.

“California has longstanding authority to request waivers from EPA to protect its residents from dangerous air pollution coming from mobile sources like cars and trucks,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan in a statement. “Today’s actions follow through on EPA’s commitment to partner with states to reduce emissions and act on the threat of climate change.”

California established the country’s first tailpipe emissions standards in 1966 and is the only state eligible for a waiver to the federal Clean Air Act of 1970, giving 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 established, 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 California’s current emission rules. Newsom said in a press 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 emission 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 carbon in transportation, but the question about the general authority of California to establish a vehicle emissions program – and for other states to follow that program – is ultimately something for policymakers and the courts to sort out,” the group said in a press release.  

Environmental groups hail EPA decision on California emissions

The advocacy group Earthjustice said the EPA’s decision would mean cars in the state would largely be zero-emission by the 2050s and the rule on heavy-duty truck emissions would “deliver critical health benefits to people affected by the worst polluters on the roads: large diesel trucks.”

“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” said Earthjustice director of Right To Zero campaign Part Cort in a press release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog.”

The National Resources Defense Council said in a press release that Congress has long recognized the state’s ability to set stronger emissions standards which has help California spur innovation and save lives.

“These waivers allow California – and states that chose to align with it – to curb the pollution spewing from tailpipes and address the impacts of the climate crisis,” said NRDC director of clean vehicles Kathy Harris. “California decided that transitioning to cleaner and zero-emission vehicles is the best way to address the unique burdens it faces. This is exactly how our system of federalism should work. If other states don’t like California’s approach, they don’t need to follow it. But no one should object to the longstanding authority of states to act to protect their residents.”

Legislation to expand Social Security benefits to millions of Americans cleared a key hurdle in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday afternoon and is now headed toward a final vote.

Senators voted 73-27 to approve a motion to proceed with consideration of the Social Security Fairness Act, according to an unofficial Senate tally shown in a webcast on the floor of the chamber.

“We will vote on taking up the Social Security Fairness Act to repeal flawed policies that eat away at the benefits of those who’ve worked as teachers, firefighters, postal workers, or public sector workers,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on social media shortly before the procedural vote. “Retirees deprived of their hard-earned benefits will be watching closely.”

The New York Democrat has pushed to bring the measure up for a full vote, which would eliminate two federal policies that prevent million of Americans, including police officers, firefighters, postal workers, teachers and others with a public pension from collecting their full Social Security benefits. 

“Social Security is a bedrock of our middle class. You pay into it for 40 quarters, you earned it, it should be there when you retire,” Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who lost his seat in the November election, told the chamber ahead of Wednesday’s vote. “All these workers are asking for is for what they earned.” 

Sen. Thom Tillis spoke against measure, saying that while a small percentage of people are not getting what they should from Social Security, enacting what he framed as an unfunded government mandate that would increase the federal deficit “is not the way to fix it.” 

“This bill will take $200 billion during the 10-year period out of the Social Security trust fund without any way to pay for it,” the North Carolina Republican added.

What is the Social Security Fairness Act?

Decades in the making, the Social Security Fairness Act would repeal two federal policies — the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO) — that broadly reduce payments to nearly 3 million retirees. 

That includes those who also collect pensions from state and federal jobs that aren’t covered by Social Security, including teachers, police officers and U.S. postal workers. The bill would also end a second provision that reduces Social Security benefits for those workers’ surviving spouses and family members. The WEP impacts about 2 million Social Security beneficiaries and the GPO nearly 800,000 retirees.

“This stuff takes time, but 21 years is ridiculous,” said Brown of the process. The Senate held its first hearings into the policies in 2003. 

The measure, which passed the House in November, had 62 cosponsors when it was introduced in the Senate last year. Yet the bill’s bipartisan support eroded some in recent days, with some Republican lawmakers voicing doubts due to its cost. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed legislation would add a projected $195 billion to federal deficits over a decade. 

At least one GOP senator who signed onto similar legislation last year, Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana, said he was still “weighing” whether to vote for the bill. “Nothing ever gets paid for, so it’s further indebtedness, I don’t know,” Braun said last week, the Associated Press reported. 

“In the end it’s going to come down to individual members are going to make their own decisions about where they want to come down on that,” incoming Republican leader John Thune said at a press conference Tuesday. “Obviously I am concerned about the long-term solvency of Social Security and that is an issue I think we need to address.”

Without Senate approval, the bill’s fate would end with the current session of Congress, and would need to be re-introduced in the next Congress.