Latest news with #AdvancedCleanCars
San Francisco Chronicle
14 hours ago
- Automotive
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
Politico
23-05-2025
- Automotive
- Politico
Congress to Musk: It's not you, it's us
Presented by With help from Camille von Kaenel WAIVING GOODBYE: Congress has an unintentional message for Elon Musk as he starts pulling back from politics: Don't let the car door hit you on the way out. Tesla is arguably one of the biggest losers of Senate Republicans' vote Thursday to revoke California's nation-leading clean vehicle requirements. Tesla made a lot of money in the early years of California's rules, which require automakers to sell increasing percentages of zero-emission cars or else buy credits from others who are selling more of them (i.e., mostly Tesla, in the early days of EVs). While Tesla's never disclosed exactly how much it's made from California's Advanced Clean Cars rule, which the Senate voted along party lines (with the notable addition of Michigan's Elissa Slotkin) to revoke federal permission to enforce, the program is widely credited with having kept the company out of bankruptcy in its early years. 'Tesla simply would not have existed as a company had not these rules been applied,' Gov. Gavin Newsom pointed out Thursday after the vote, in announcing plans to sue once President Donald Trump signs the resolution. That's on top of the megabill that House Republicans passed simultaneously Thursday, which would remove pretty much all federal tax credits for electric vehicles, including the $7,500 credit for new EVs. California's rules are even more important because 11 other states follow them, representing roughly a third of the country's auto market. Government incentives still made up some 43 percent of Tesla's net income as of the first 9 months of last year, as Corbin Hiar reported earlier this year for POLITICO's E&E News. It's a fitting denouement for an awkward partnership that never made sense for Musk's automotive interests (his space interests, of course, are another story). Trump's stumping for Tesla on the White House lawn didn't reverse the company's flagging sales. There's no evidence that Tesla ever lobbied Congress to keep the waiver or the tax credits, although it did lobby California regulators last year to keep another trading program for low-carbon transportation fuels that generates even more-lucrative credits. Tesla's not a member, though, of the auto industry's main trade group, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which put out a fairly nuanced statement praising the repeal. 'The problem really isn't California,' said John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO. 'It's the 11 states that adopted California's rules without the same level of readiness for EV sales requirements of this magnitude.' And California's rules were only set to become more lucrative for EV makers as they ratchet down on the way to 2035, when all new-car sales are supposed to be zero emissions. But the key to understanding any Musk method may be in the rise of other automakers. 'All the car companies are building a lot of capacity to start selling more EVs and buying less credits from Tesla,' said Gil Tal, director of the University of California, Davis' EV Research Center. 'The credit machine was kind of winding down for Tesla because all the OEMs are trying to meet these goals.' 'I think Tesla expected this,' said Dan Ives, a research analyst at Wedbush Securities specializing in tech and electric vehicles. 'It's the end of an era. They're in a position of strength where their future is less about selling cars and more around autonomous and robotics.' — DK ABOUT THOSE TAX CREDITS: House Republicans' proposed two-stage repeal of the electric vehicle tax credit would benefit some smaller automakers and those late to release electric models, POLITICO's James Bikales reports. The proposal would repeal the $7,500 credit at the end of the year — except for manufacturers that have sold fewer than 200,000 EVs since 2009. Those companies would be allowed to continue claiming the credit through the end of 2026. Tesla, General Motors, Stellantis, Ford, Toyota, BMW, Nissan and Hyundai all have passed the 200,000 threshold, while Kia likely will in the coming months, according to Loren McDonald, chief analyst at EV analytics firm Paren. But others, such as Rivian, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Honda, Volvo and smaller manufacturers, would be able to claim the credit for another year. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! HAPPY SUSPENSE: Friday is Suspense Day, the Sacramento custom celebrated with coffee and frantic spreadsheet cross-referencing during which lawmakers rapid-fire advance, kill or significantly amend hundreds of bills before the day's end deadline to approve measures with significant price tags. Some bills we're watching, like Assemblymember Lisa Calderon's AB 942 to reduce subsidies for longtime rooftop solar customers, have already made it through. But most are coming down to the wire. The $12 billion budget deficit projected by Newsom last week, along with his past track record of citing budget limitations to veto bills, will add pressure to the already high-stakes negotiations between lawmakers. Here's what we're watching (and as always, tip us off to what you are, too.) The energy biggie: Sen. Josh Becker's big energy affordability proposal, SB 254, will eventually need support from two thirds of his colleagues in a full floor vote because of its urgency clause — and he'll need them to be OK with a price tag the Newsom administration estimated in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Agency overload: State regulators have increasingly said they already have too much on their plate, an argument that's found traction to kill bills before. And the trend is popping up again. The California Air Resources Board, which is already staffing up to enforce the greenhouse gas disclosures required by 2023's SB 253, is facing the prospect of 'significant additional workload' with another climate disclosure bill: AB 405 by Assemblymember Dawn Addis, which is targeted at fashion sellers. Another example: the California Energy Commission suggested that a bill by Sen. Aisha Wahab, SB 332, to restructure executive compensation at investor-owned-utilities to promote safety would take at least twice as long to implement as the bill's current timeline and cost at least $18 million. How many firefighters: State lawmakers have so far enthusiastically supported proposals to expand the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's peak staffing year-round, though Newsom made no such sign in his budget proposal last week. SB 581, a proposal by Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire would reclassify seasonal firefighters as permanent for $175 million annually. A similar proposal, AB 252, by Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains could cost more than twice as much because it reclassifies seasonal firefighters at a higher level. — CvK COUNT YOUR DATA: Texas and Virginia have California beat in total number of expected data centers, according to an analysis by Catherine Allen, Rosmery Izaguirre and Claudine Hellmuth. The AI supercomputers come with growing thirst and hunger: Data centers are projected to use up to 9 percent of the nation's electricity by 2026, double their share in 2023. California has 277 data centers that are operational and 35 others planned or under construction; Virginia, meanwhile, has 372 already up and running and another 192 in the works. Read the full subscriber-only data analysis here. — CvK STAY CURRENT: Can't get enough of this newsletter? You'll want to keep tabs on editor Debra Kahn's new reported column on the conversations, conflicts and characters animating the energy, environment and climate debates (It's called Currents.) In her first-ever edition, published Thursday, Debra unpacks how Australian politics have moved beyond climate wars in a way the U.S. just can't crack. She writes: 'Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's trajectory holds lessons for not only how to win on climate-friendly energy policies, but how to hold power while executing on them.' — CvK — The number of trees that died in California last year hit a 10-year low, though the number is still above normal. — Speaking of Elon Musk: He's building a 'Tesla diner' in Hollywood with superchargers and movie screens. — The California Water Commission is concerned about delays besetting a project to build a new dam near Pacheco Pass in Northern California.
