Gavin Newsom’s moment of truth is about to arrive.

The US Senate is expected to vote this week on legislation to repeal the Clean Air Act wavier granted California.

It allowed Sacramento to ban the sale of new vehicles powered by fossil fuels starting in the year 2035.

A healthy number of Democrats joined Republicans in the House on Sept. 23, 2024 to pass the waiver revocation bill on a 222 to 190 vote and send it to the Senate.

The sputtering high speed rail project aside, the dictate that 100 percent of all new vehicles sales be zero emission by 2035 is by far the highest profile portion of California’s climate-related initiatives.

Newsom, even if a lot of other people set the stage to make the 2035 decree happen and he essentially rubber-stamped it, is the face of that decision.

It is why Newsom’s political strategists are likely driving themselves nuts on how the governor handles the political grenade the US Senate appears poised to lob his way.

Newsom wants to run for President.

He can’t afford to be portrayed being behind the wheel of the 2035 gas powered vehicle sales ban given Pew Research Center data in June showed:

*58 percent of Americans oppose mandates aimed at dramatically increasing electric vehicle sales in the United States.

*57 percent indicate they will not buy, or are extremely unlikely to buy, an electric vehicle.

Given autos are typically the second biggest purchase — if not the biggest purchase —  of households, the poll numbers likely will have significant consequences if the issue is turned into a ballot box battle in upcoming elections.

Autos are also a daily must for most Americans to get to work, handle family needs, and such.

They are also an ongoing big cost item to maintain and operate.

The odds are a similar poll conducted only in California would have the opposite results.

Perhaps Newsom can afford to anger his supporters in California by agreeing the 2035 mandate needs to be re-examined or even being wishy-washy on the subject.

He’s not running for re-election as governor due to term limits.

And it’s highly doubtful if he became the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 2028, that Democrats would abandon him in large enough numbers for whoever the Republican nominee is to win California.

But progressives that embrace the idea of the New Green Deal, that has wilted in terms of being a dominate part of the political lexicon, in states that are neither hard blue or hard red would likely question Newsom’s climate warrior credentials.

Any political strategist worth their salt running a candidate against Newsom would paint him as “environmental lite” or “that crazy environmentalist that tried to take away gas powered cars,” depending upon the ideological leanings of the politician writing the check for their consulting services.

Newsom has backed himself into a corner with his much ballyhooed rollout of the $50 million defense fund in December to protect “California values” from Trump’s actions.

Granted the waiver repeal bill didn’t actually start with Trump, but it dovetails into his view of the world and he’d most assuredly would sign it into law.

That would trigger a lawsuit from Sacramento that Newsom has made it impossible as governor to try and stop.

And it has more to do with reality than politics, even if looking back in the year 2099 the gas car sales ban may appear as overkill or inconsequential if it happens on time.

California has received more than 100 waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency since the Clean Air Act was adopted in 1967.

Among them was the ability to get the ball rolling on requiring catalytic converters.

Another was being able to mandate reformulated gas.

And another was higher vehicle mileage based on overall sales in California.

The result of that can be seen today in Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon and the rest of the San Joaquin Valley.

Air quality, based on pollution control district data, has improved by roughly 50 percent in a number of measured categories in the eight county region since 1990.

At the same time, the population has grown by 55 percent with a corresponding increase in vehicles.

It is unlikely any lawsuit would be a one court appearance and done thing.

As such, it would be taking place as the 2028 election cycle starts picking up steam.

There has always been issues with set mandates for actions California has obtained exemptions from the EPA.

Included where deadlines to get rid of lawn care equipment that was gas powered and had no carburetors as well as banning most agricultural waste burning. Each waiver was pushed back a number of years until the technology by the private sector got to the point it would work.

A similar approach might be needed regarding the 2035 mandate.

The technology development and implementation just doesn’t involve the vehicles but having a network of chargers with a sufficient power supply.

Then there are other issues to address such as EVs being heavier across the board and how government is going to deal with the acceleration of the breakdown of pavement on streets, highways, and freeways.

Then there is the boondoggle known as the California High Speed Rail Project.

It is the most obvious evidence that Sacramento imposed deadline on major climate change initiatives are capricious decisions rooted in politics with a lot of Pollyanna wishful thinking.

High speed trains, Sacramento declared in 2008 in a ballot measure, would be running between San Francisco and Los Angeles by 2020.

The high speed train project may not ding Newsom’s presidential aspirations.

But his perceived role, justified or otherwise, of being the man who ordered the government to pry the fingers of Californians off gas-powered vehicles is going to shadow him into 2028.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com