Congress Sends Bill Blocking California's EV Mandate to Trump, But Doesn't Stop There
California's ambitious ban on sales of new internal-combustion-engine (ICE) vehicles, set to phase in by 2035, is a target in the latest bills being sent from congress to President Trump's desk to be signed into law. This was probably easy to predict: Republicans in congress, in lockstep with the fossil fuel industry, have long chased California's EPA waiver to set its own fuel economy standards that are stricter than the federal government's own rules. California is not only the biggest car market in the country, but several other states adopt its stricter standards—making it a rich target for those who balk at any regulations that encourage EV adoption.
0:00 / 0:00
When originally introduced in 2020, the California ban was seen as aggressive and championed by environmentalists while, to critics, was touted as proof that federal EV mandates were coming and removing consumer vehicle choice (as stated by the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association , SEMA). But as reported in the Associated Press, the bill targeting California's EV mandate wasn't the only bill being sent to Trump that's related to California's efforts to curb pollution in the state. The second and third measures passed by Congress would block California from enforcing its own tailpipe emissions regulations—essentially, attacking its EPA waiver to set its own environmental standards—and rules on the emissions of nitrogen oxide pollution on commercial and heavy-duty trucks.
Essentially, Congress is trying to curb the ability of a state to control its own pollution standards, something that has been legal to do with EPA waivers since 1967 with the Federal Air Quality Act in addition to the Clean Air Act of 1970. Part of these acts were State implementation plans (SIPs)—a federal enforcement model and the waivers you hear about—as a way for states to control pollution locally, as states would have a better understanding of their own air quality conditions.
Ironically, California was sued in 1970 by the EPA, as it was unable to meet the EPAs standards of the time. The SIP rule allowed California to enact its own pollution rules through the California Air Resources Board (CARB)—a panel signed into existence with the 1967 Mulford-Carrell Act signed by Ronald Reagan, then governor of the state. Those standards are viewed by the Clean Air acts as the minimum and that no state could mandate anything less, but there is nothing against implementing tighter requirements.
But, again, those regulations have reach beyond California: 16 states and the District of Columbia follow CARB rules on pollution and equally rely on the Clean Air Act and its SIP allowance. It's also an open secret of sorts, but since as much as 11 percent of all new cars are sold in the state, OEMs already build their pollution controls hardware around the CARB model. It's mostly as a matter of convenience to build only a single pollution control system for a vehicle. The only real differences are the emissions stickers put on California cars versus 'Federal' emissions ones and some additional engine software calibrations in some cases.
While there are many who will cheer this break from 58 years of California's dominion over its air quality, these entities shouldn't break out the champagne just yet. California already has plans to sue if—or, more likely, when—these bills are signed by President Trump. This is also not the first time California's emissions regulations have been challenged; it happened as recently as 2020. With nearly six decades of law behind them, California has precedent on its side. But as we've seen with Trump's convulsive tariff game, that might not matter...
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
13 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Appeals court lets President Donald Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
LOS ANGELES — An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. 'The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows,' the court wrote. 'The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.' It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a 'BIG WIN.' He wrote that 'all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.' Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision. 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,' Newsom said. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wolfspeed nears bankruptcy deal with lenders including Apollo, Bloomberg News reports
(Reuters) -Wolfspeed will be taken over by creditors including Apollo Global Management under a proposal that would put the struggling chipmaker into bankruptcy, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the plan. The company will soon announce a deal for a so-called prepackaged bankruptcy, that would be long enough to slash billions in debt, the report said. After a restructuring support agreement is signed, Wolfspeed will ask creditors to vote on the plan and then file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Shares of Wolfspeed, which makes chips using silicon carbide — a more energy-efficient material than traditional silicon, rose about 3% to $1.29 on Wednesday. The stock had fallen about 81% so far this year. Wolfspeed and Apollo did not immediately respond to Reuters requests for comment. The chipmaker raised going-concern doubts earlier in May, as deepening economic uncertainty stemming from changing U.S. trade policies, combined with weakening demand, triggered a series of financial challenges for the company. As of March, the company had about $1.33 billion in unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments, and about $6.5 billion of debt obligations, it said in a regulatory filing in May. In a prepackaged bankruptcy, companies and their creditors agree on a reorganization plan prior to the bankruptcy filing and creditors even vote on the plan. Shareholders could recover as much as 5% in the proposed scenario, the report said. In a typical bankruptcy, shareholders are usually wiped out because creditors must be paid first, and there often is not enough value left for equity holders. In 2023, Wolfspeed announced $1.25 billion in debt financing led by Apollo, with the option to increase the total to as much as $2 billion to support the company's U.S. expansion plans.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
On Juneteenth, Trump says the US has 'too many' holidays
Trump criticized the number of American holidays and claimed they cost billions in productivity. The post was made on Juneteenth, a federal holiday that Trump previously supported. Joe Biden later said making it a federal holiday was "one of the proudest moments of my presidency." Joe Biden has reiterated his support for Juneteenth as a federal holiday, after Donald Trump said America has "too many" of them. "Too many non-working holidays in America," Trump wrote on Truth Social late Thursday. "It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed." The president said that the frequency of holidays "must change" and that workers didn't want them, either. "The workers don't want it either!" he continued. "Soon we'll end up having a holiday for every once working day of the year. It must change if we are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Juneteenth, held on June 19 every year, commemorates the end of slavery in the United States and has long been celebrated by Black Americans. It became the 11th federal holiday in 2021 with a law signed by then-President Joe Biden. The bill passed with broad bipartisan support, receiving unanimous approval in the Senate and all but 14 votes in the House of Representatives. Biden later posted on X that he had celebrated the day in Texas and that making Juneteenth a federal holiday was "one of the proudest moments of my presidency." "It's a day of liberation. It's a day of remembrance. And it's a day of celebration. Today, it was an honor to be in Galveston where freedom rang out 160 years ago," he said. The White House press office didn't immediately respond to Business a request for comment from Business Insider regarding Trump's Truth Social post. Most federal offices, such as the US Postal Service, are closed during Juneteenth. Markets like the Nasdaq and New York Stock Exchange don't trade during the holiday, either. But whether private companies and state governments remain open varies. Most major banks are closed for the holiday, but not all companies provide paid time off. Earlier on Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a press briefing that the White House was open. When asked by a journalist about commemorating Juneteenth, she said she was "not tracking" Trump's signature on any proclamations for the holiday. "I know this is a federal holiday," she said. "I want to thank all of you for showing up to work. We are certainly here. We're working 24/7 right now." Trump himself supported making Juneteenth a federal holiday in the wake of widespread protests following the killing of George Floyd. "Make Juneteenth a National Holiday" was included among his "Promise to Black America over 4 years" policy proposals in his 2020 presidential campaign. During that campaign, Trump took credit for publicizing Juneteenth after moving one of his rallies from June 19 to June 20 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. "I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous," Trump told The Wall Street Journal at the time. "It's actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it." In the same interview, Trump expressed surprise that his administration had commemorated Juneteenth every year. "Oh really? We put out a statement? The Trump White House put out a statement?" he said, according to the Journal. "OK, OK. Good." The White House did not publish a statement on its website commemorating Juneteenth this year. Read the original article on Business Insider
