Question

"California is banning the sale of all gas powered cars by 2030" is not true. The advanced Car Clean rule, which is part of California's actual plan, prohibits the sale of new gas-only vehicles beginning in 2035 rather then 2030.

Answer 1

This claim was initially true. In 2022, the date that the LA Times article was published, the mandate planned to phase out gasoline and diesel cars, minivans, utility vehicles, and pickup trucks that are powered by batteries or fuel cells. Under these new rules, throughout the next ten years laws would enforce that certain percentages of new cars sold must be zero emission, leading up to all cars being zero-emission by 2035. However, Senate republicans have moved to block California's ban on petrol cars, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgq4wxd583o. BBC states that, in 2025, the Senate killed California's law and nullified the waiver which contained the stricter standards for petrol-powered cars. President Trump proceeded to sign off on this decision which will set the stage for a legal battle. New York Times also has an article that gives more detail about the voting process. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/climate/senate-republicans-electric-vehicles-california.html

Comments

Nice work locating legitimate news sources besides the one that the OP used to support the claim.

---

I really like how you mentioned it use to be true but the information was outdated, and proceeded to find reliable resources and correct the facts adding information that was missing or has been added.

---

I think the way you answered the claim was really smart; by recognizing it used to be correct but also stating that the information was outdated, it was a respectable way of critiquing them, which is admirable. The sources you provided in rebuttal to the claim were accurate and credible as well as a good tool for completing your claim.

---

I liked how you stated how this claim was initially true, then stated how senate republicans blocked the ban on gas powered vehicles, making it false.

---

You made some good points about how the plan has continued to evolve and how our current political state has made things more complicated. I'll add, though that the rule never banned used gas cars or full hybrids, it’s about new gas-only vehicles sold after 2035. Also, California’s power to enforce this depends on an EPA waiver, which Congress is now trying to revoke. So it’s not set in stone yet it’s more of a back and forth thing right now than a total reversal on it.

---

I think you did a good job in showing sources and how the story changed over time. However, I do think an important addition to this would be how California's authority to do any of this hinges on EPA waivers, which have recently come under fire, leading to more possible developments on this in the near future

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/22/nx-s1-5387729/senate-california-ev-air-pollution-waiver-revoked

---

Great job investigating and proving the initial claim, but an even better job to peer more thoroughly and find that the initial source is outdated and that this is no longer true. I also appreciate your use of multiple sources to get a clearer picture.

Answer 2

While the claim seemed to be partially true in the date it was written in 2022, the article is outdated and the new date for the ban of sale of gas powered cars is 2035. The claim is also slightly misleading as it only applies to new cars and not old gas powered cars from previous years. According to the California Air Resource Board "The regulation applies to automakers (not dealers) and covers only new vehicle sales. It does not impact existing vehicles on the road today, which will still be legal to own and drive". There are more complications with this claim since the senate recently voted against the mandate according to CalMatters a nonprofit and nonpartisan news source that highly awarded and respected that focuses on accountability journalism and in-depth reporting. Trump is expected to sign off on this in which California plans to sue the Trump administration for "an unlawful use of an act allowing Congress to review some regulations enacted by the previous administration". Overall the claim is dated and there is more nuance to the statement than is made clear by the Los Angeles Times.