Massachusetts should uphold the state's clean car rules, advocates say
More than 60 environmental, business, and housing groups are asking Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat, not to delay the state's commitment to getting more electric vehicles on the road, despite pressure from automakers to do so.
'Massachusetts should not be asked to compromise its policy leadership or economic competitiveness to accommodate private automakers who would prefer to build less efficient, less technologically advanced cars,' wrote Kat Burnham, senior principal at industry association Advanced Energy United, and Jordan Stutt, Northeast senior director for clean transportation advocacy group Calstart, in a letter last week to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
The push to defend the state's plan to ramp up zero-emissions passenger vehicle sales follows a decision by Healey's administration in April to postpone enforcement of similar rules encouraging sales of zero-emissions medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
The regulations are crucial to reaching Massachusetts' goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, supporters said. Transportation is the state's largest source of carbon emissions, making up 38% of the total as of 2021, the last year for which full data are available. Getting more EVs on the road, advocates said, would also improve air quality and public health, and save consumers money since EVs cost less than gas-powered cars to fuel and maintain.
'If we roll back these regulations or prevent them from moving forward, we will have dirtier air, more unhealthy communities, and higher costs,' said Kathy Harris, director of clean vehicles, climate, and energy for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection yesterday issued a statement saying, 'We remain committed to working with all stakeholders on a path forward that eases the burden on car customers and dealerships, who are already being harmed by President Trump's tariffs, while continuing to increase access to affordable electric vehicles and achieve our climate goals."
The Natural Resources Defense Council will join the Green Energy Consumers Alliance, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Green Latinos to present a webinar on May 1 that will explain the regulations, their potential impact, and how residents can let the state know if they want to keep them on track.
The regulation in play is Massachusetts' iteration of the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) rule, which became law in California in 2022. The regulation calls for 35% of the light-duty vehicles automakers provide to dealerships to be zero-emissions as of the 2026 model year; the requirement increases every year until it hits 100% in 2035.
California is the only state with the authority to implement vehicle emissions standards stricter than those of the federal government, though other states are allowed to adopt the regulations passed by California. As of today, 11 other states and Washington, D.C., have signed on to ACC II. Combined, these jurisdictions and California account for about 28% of new light-duty vehicle registrations in the country.
In recent months, however, resistance to the regulations has grown, particularly among industry and business groups that claim rules deprive consumers of choice and will force automakers to reduce inventory in order to artificially inflate the percentage of EVs they are putting on the market. Opponents also argue that the targets are unrealistic. Indeed, there is a gap between current sales in Massachusetts and the ACC II goals: In the fourth quarter of 2024, EVs made up about 14.2% of the state's new car sales, well below the 35% goal slated to kick in next year.
The U.S. House yesterday voted to repeal California's authority to set similar rules for truck sales; a vote on revoking the state's ability to implement the light-duty vehicle regulations is slated for today. And opposition has cropped up in the states as well: Last year, refinery workers in New Jersey and Delaware protested the rules, with some attendees inaccurately saying ACC II would ban gas-powered cars. In Maryland, Democratic Gov. Wes Moore last month issued an executive order delaying penalties for noncompliance by two years.
Massachusetts advocacy groups are now hustling to make the case that their state should not be the next to waver.
Despite the gap between current sales and the ACC II target, advocates are confident that demand will grow to meet the numbers set out in the regulations. Interest in electric vehicles has steadily risen in recent years: Light-duty EV purchases in Massachusetts rose nearly 50% in 2023 compared with the year prior, though growth slowed in 2024.
'This [opposition] is not coming from consumers. It is coming from companies that are not eager to meet the moment,' Advanced Energy United's Burnham told Canary Media.
The regulations are also unlikely to limit consumer choices, supporters contend. New gas-powered cars will still be in the mix until 2035, and even then, used gas-powered cars will be available for many years to come. Plus, zero-emissions options are only increasing: There are now 144 different electric models for sale in the U.S., and more are likely to come as ACC II drives up adoption, proponents said.
'There are plenty of light-duty passenger vehicles that are great options,' said Anna Vanderspek, electric vehicle program director for the Green Energy Consumers Alliance. 'There is really no way automakers can make an argument that they can't comply with these regulations.'
Furthermore, Massachusetts has a strong system of electric vehicle incentives and programs that will support the transition, advocates said. A state rebate program offers from $3,500 to $6,000 to drivers buying new or used EVs. The state has also invested in the planning and development of charging infrastructure in recent years.
'There is so much programming and infrastructure there to make it happen,' Burnham said. 'There is really a handful of automakers who have procrastinated on preparing, but we can't afford to procrastinate any longer.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democrats are at odds over response as Trump announces the US has entered Israel-Iran war
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats seemed to remain at odds over policy toward Iran. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Donald Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could 'measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' 'Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,' Martin said in a statement. 'Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.' Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran 'does not make America more secure.' 'This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,' Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tact, stating, 'Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.' Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions, 'Horrible judgement' and said he'd 'push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war , even before Trump's announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Progressive Democrats also are using Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the so-called 'manosphere' of male Trump supporters. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., said 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X. The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. ___ Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
6 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump wins immediate praise from Republicans in Congress after announcing strikes on Iran
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional Republicans — and at least one Democrat — immediately praised President Donald Trump after he said Saturday evening that the U.S. military bombed three sites in Iran. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Texas Sen. John Cornyn called it a 'courageous and correct decision.' Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin posted: 'America first, always.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Wicker posted on X that 'we now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies.' The quick endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump had publicly mulled the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican and a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X after Trump announced the attacks that 'This is not Constitutional.' Many Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say. The Senate was scheduled to vote as soon as this week on a resolution by Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine requiring congressional approval before the U.S. declared war on Iran or took specific military action. Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House intelligence panel, posted on X after Trump's announcement: 'According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Axios
7 hours ago
- Axios
Trump faces bipartisan blowback in Congress on Iran strikes
While most congressional Republicans and some pro-Israel Democrats are praising President Trump's strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, pockets of opposition are already emerging in both parties. Why it matters: The objections center on the argument that Trump needed congressional authorization for such a provocative use of military force, with one House Democrat pushing for a vote to restrict further unilateral action. "We need to immediately return to DC and vote on [Rep. Thomas Massie's] and my War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). Massie (R-Ky.), a libertarian who often breaks with Trump, said in a post on X reacting to the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." What happened: Trump announced in a Saturday night post on Truth Social, "We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran." "A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow," he added. "All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors." The decision to intervene directly in Israel's war with Iran marks a historic escalation in the Middle East, Axios' Barak Ravid reported. State of play: Khanna and Massie, along with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), had been trying to build bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress for their war powers measures in the days leading up to the strikes. There is little appetite among the ruling Republicans, outside of a handful of right-wingers, to be in direct conflict with Trump on the issue. Both Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) publicly backed the strikes on Saturday night. Zoom in: The position that Trump's strikes were constitutionally unsanctioned is more mainstream with Democrats, including House Intelligence Committee ranking member Jim Himes (D-Conn.). Himes called the strikes a "clear violation of the Constitution" in a statement, adding, "We also don't know if this will lead to further escalation in the region and attacks against our forces." "I am continuing to closely monitor the situation and demand answers from the Administration," he added. Kaine posted on Saturday that he will "push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war."
