The House Energy and Commerce Committee has subpoenaed the chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), escalating a months-long dispute over the state’s EV mandate.
According to the New York Post, the subpoena targets Lauren Sanchez, who has led CARB since September.
It demands communications and documents tied to regulations that would phase out sales of new gas-powered vehicles in California by 2035.
Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (Republican, Kentucky) said the probe, which began in August, has been met with insufficient cooperation from the agency.
“After months of negotiations, CARB’s lack of cooperation with this investigation requires the issuance of compulsory process,” Guthrie wrote in a letter accompanying the subpoena.
“Forcing Americans to buy unreliable, and costly, EVs would eliminate consumer choice, strain our electric grid, raise costs, and increase our reliance on entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party,” Guthrie told the New York Post.
He added that the committee “will continue to follow the facts and demand accountability from California. I urge California to comply with this subpoena speedily and in good faith.”
Guthrie also accused California of continuing to block automakers from bringing vehicles to market unless they comply with regulations he said had already been voided through Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions signed into law last year.
Last year, US President Donald Trump signed a bill revoking what his administration called the “California EV mandate,” stripping EV tax breaks in California and overturning the state’s diesel engine regulations.
The committee said it is specifically seeking communications between CARB and the offices of the California governor and attorney general.
“Reviewing these documents and communications is vital to understanding what actions, including actions related to enforcement and implementation of the aforementioned laws and regulations, the state of California has taken thus far with respect to its new vehicle and new motor emission reduction plans following the CRA resolutions signed into law last year,” Guthrie said.
A CARB spokesperson said the agency has previously provided information and documents, including material on “California’s longstanding authority under the Clean Air Act and the actions CARB has taken to protect public health and welfare in the state.”
“CARB’s goal is to support the Committee’s legislative inquiry through a transparent, cooperative exchange of information,” the spokesperson added.
Clean Air Act
The dispute centres on what Trump calls a “California EV Mandate” over Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) — the main federal law governing air pollution in the US, originally passed in 1963 and substantially expanded in the following decades.
Section 209(b) prohibits states from implementing emissions standards on new cars or engines that differ from those imposed by the federal government, unless they obtain a waiver.
California — which had its own vehicle emissions rules before the federal law existed — can request such waivers from the EPA to enforce stricter standards.
The EPA must grant the waiver unless it finds that California’s standards aren’t at least as protective as federal ones, that the state doesn’t face “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” or that the standards are inconsistent with the CAA.
Many other states have adopted California’s standards under the same framework, giving these waivers national reach.
For decades, the system was deemed uncontroversial, covering traditional pollutants.
The conflict began in 2005 when California started using the waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which has pushed electric vehicle adoption in the state.
Under Biden, the EPA granted several major waivers — which have led, most notably, to the Advanced Clean Cars II program, which requires all new car sales in California to be zero-emission by 2035.
Last year, a coalition of 11 states — including New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Washington, among others — sued the Trump Administration, the President himself and the EPA, asking the Court to rule that the federal government cannot override their individual emissions standards.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and CARB have joined the legal challenge. The case is now before the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
DOJ x California
Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has sued California on what it calls an “illegal” EV mandate.
The Administration is arguing that individual states are not allowed to adopt state-specific mileage requirements for car manufacturers.
In the new lawsuit, the Administration is also arguing that California’s separate emissions regulations — which are stricter than the new national standards — would effectively require automakers to alter their production lines nationwide to sell vehicles in the state.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated that “California is using unlawful policies from the last administration to create exorbitant costs for our citizens.”
According to the DOJ, this creates inconsistency in the national auto market, raises vehicle costs, limits consumer choice, and conflicts with interstate commerce rules.
NHTSA’s Administrator Jonathan Morrison said earlier this month that “it was a mistake by Presidents Obama and Biden to enable California to set its own backdoor fuel economy policies, which have now spiraled into a costly patchwork quilt of individual state fuel economy requirements.”
“This litigation will correct that misstep,” he added.
CAFE Standards
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, introduced by Congress in 1975, require automakers to meet minimum fuel efficiency averages across their vehicle fleets.
Late last year, the NHTSA revised these standards, excluding EVs from compliance calculations and setting the fuel economy target at 34.5 mpg by model year 2031 — a reduction from the Biden administration’s target of approximately 50 mpg.
According to the Administration, the previous rule made it easier for electric vehicle manufacturers to meet federal efficiency targets.
Congress also removed civil penalties for CAFE noncompliance through Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025.
Clean Energy Cuts
According to official records, California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta has filed over 50 lawsuits against the Trump Administration during the first year of his term.
Among the areas affected, clean energy funding has seen significant cuts.
Since the start of Donald Trump’s second term, California has experienced more than $1.6 billion in clean energy project cutbacks.
On his first day in office, the President issued executive orders declaring a “national energy emergency” and calling for the termination of the Green New Deal, frequently referred to as a ‘Green New Scam’ by the Administration.
Trump also promised to reduce clean energy tax breaks — including the $7,500 federal credit for purchasing or leasing electric vehicles — which were eliminated last September.
Earlier this year, 13 US states — including California — sued the federal government over withheld grants approved by Congress for clean energy projects, totaling about $2.7 billion.
According to California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, who co-led the lawsuit alongside Washington and Colorado, the funding cuts reflect “partisan retribution,” as most of these states voted for the Democratic Party in the latest elections.
