Court rejects challenge to California’s clean air rules trump said he’d kill
The US Supreme Court today rejected a bid by Ohio and other states to stop California from implementing its own clean air rules, a legal right that California has had since the 60s which Donald Trump has repeatedly tried and failed to remove.
Ever since the 1960s, California has been able to set its own clean air rules, as long as they are at least as strict as federal clean air rules. California was granted this waiver in the Clean Air Act as recognition of its unique air quality challenges.
When the link between gasoline-burning vehicles and smog was discovered, California was building its own clean air rules at the same time as the federal government was.
At the time (and still), Los Angeles was choked with smog. The city is built around car transportation (after public transit in the city was destroyed by literal cartoon villians), has unique geography which traps smog above most of its population, and is also currently home to the largest container ports in America, through which ~40% of the country’s containerized traffic now comes.
The central valley of California is also home to a lot of smog – with the most agriculturally productive land in the country producing half of the nation’s fruits, nuts and vegetables. But it’s surrounded by mountains, and smog has nowhere to go.
Since the federal government didn’t want to pre-empt efforts that were already underway in California (under then-Governor Ronald Reagan), and acknowledging that California’s challenges were unique, it allowed the EPA to review California’s rules and grant it a waiver to run under its own clean air regulations as long as they are at least as good as the EPA’s.
Other states are allowed to follow these rules, but only if they copy them exactly. These are known as “section 177 states,” named after the section of the Clean Air Act that grants this waiver, or “CARB” states, named for the California Air Resources Board which creates the state’s regulations.
So for the last 60 years, California has mostly run under its own clean air rules. There was a brief period during the Obama administration where California and federal rules were harmonized – but industry lobbying and the meddling of an ignorant reality TV host resulted in a shattering of that harmony, giving companies a more difficult regulatory environment.
These clean air rules have been a success, resulting in a >98% reduction in vehicle-based pollutants in the LA area, even as total vehicle miles traveled have gone up (and that news was from 2012 – it’s gotten even better since then due to EVs).
However, there’s still more work to be done, as LA and the nearby Inland Empire still have quite dirty air.
And so, California released a new set of clean air rules in 2022, which the EPA is expected to approve this week.
But other states immediately challenged those rules, despite that the rules do not affect them.
The challenge was brought by Ohio and 16 other republican-led states who sought to end the California’s long-supported state’s right to protect its residents from dirty air.
The states argued that the Constitution doesn’t allow the government to treat states unequally (despite that all of the states bringing the lawsuit have more Congressional representation per capita than California does), so letting California set clean air rules is unfair. The states seem to think that Californians should be required to breathe just as much poison as their republican leadership is forcing onto their citizens.
The case has already made its way through the court system, with courts reasonably ruling that the law, which has been effective for 60 years at reducing pollution and health costs for Californians and other CARB states, should stand. In April, the DC court of appeals affirmed California’s right.
But that wasn’t enough for Ohio and the 16 republican states, who brought their desire to poison Californians all the way so the Supreme Court of the United States.
That Court today denied the states’ petition, thus affirming the DC Court’s decision will stand. 8 of the 9 individuals sitting on the Court agreed not to review the case and to let the lower court’s decision stand, though Clarence Thomas stated that he would have taken the case.
In addition, last Friday, while the Court did agree to hear a case involving an oil industry challenge to California’s clean air rules, that case is narrowly limited to the issue of standing, or deciding what entities are allowed to bring cases to court. When it accepted that petition, the Court said it will not consider review of California’s right to set its own emissions standards.
Electrek’s Take
Well, I’ll take this as my opportunity to eat a little bit of crow. Even as late as last week, I thought there was a good chance the Court would torture itself into some sort of extra-legal reasoning to try to stop California’s rules, as it has before on CO2 emissions and Chevron deference.
But on Friday and today, the Court denied review of not one but two separate cases in that respect, so it seems like it either doesn’t want to hear cases about California’s well-established legal authority – or perhaps that it’s just waiting until the time is right to strike. We’ll have to see which one it is – I still don’t trust them given their explicit corruption, but we can take a breath for now.
All of this happens just over a month before convicted felon Donald Trump, who finally received more votes than his opponent on his third attempt (despite committing treason in 2021, for which there is a clear legal remedy), will once again find himself squatting in the White House. Mr. Trump has stated repeatedly that he wants to reverse clean air policies, thus saddling Americans with dirtier air, higher costs and poorer health, and to destroy the US EV market and send US manufacturing jobs to China.
And one of his common targets has been California, the state that has done the most in favor of advancing clean air – which is obviously anathema to a dirty air advocate like himself. He has signaled that he wants to “rip up” California’s waiver, an effort which he tried and failed to do before. So expect a fight to come in the coming years, with California once again on the side of clean air, and Mr. Trump once again on the side of poisoning Americans.
If you’d like your electric vehicle to be even cleaner, charge it at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Coterra shifts its view on oil, again. Here are our 3 takeaways as investors in the stock
Another company claims to have solid-state EV batteries in the works that will unlock well over 1,000 miles (3,000 km) of range and fast charging in just five minutes. And it’s not BYD this time. Is it too good to be true?
Can solid-state EV batteries unlock +1,000 miles range?
Last week, a local report surfaced, claiming BYD was already testing solid-state batteries in its Tesla Model 3-rivalling Seal sedan.
BYD addressed the rumors in a statement released on Monday (via CLS), saying, “Currently it is unknown, and the first model and parameters are not officially reported.”
In a new patent, discovered by CarNewsChina, Chinese tech giant Huawei filed for a sulfide-based all-solid-state battery. The new battery reportedly unlocks a driving range of up to 3,000 km, or over 1,800 miles, and supports ultra-fast charging in just five minutes.
Is it really possible, though? To put that into perspective, the current longest-range electric vehicle you can buy, the 2025 Lucid Air Grand Touring, is rated with a WLTP driving range of up to 839 km (521 miles).
On the EPA scale, Lucid’s electric sedan is rated for a driving range of up to 512 miles and features fast charging (up to 200 miles) in 12 minutes.
That would mean Huawei’s new battery would unlock over three times the driving range while cutting charging times by over half. It would also have energy density that’s two to three times higher, between 400 and 500 kWh.
According to industry experts in Korea, the claims might be too good to be true. Yang Min-ho, professor of energy engineering at Dankook University, explained that “Even the most advanced lithium-ion batteries, which generally have higher capacity than solid-state prototypes, fall far short of that kind of range.”
Yang said that “Such performance might be possible in lab conditions,” adding “but real-world factors like energy loss and thermal management make mass production extremely difficult.”
The patent describes a new approach, doping sulfide electrolytes with nitrogen, to improve stability. According to a researcher for one of Korea’s major battery makers, the nitrogen doping approach is “a standard technique with limited scalability.”
“While nitrogen doping can help with interface stability, it’s usually done under vacuum and with great precision,” the researcher pointed out, adding “It’s not something you can scale for commercial production without major cost and time penalties.” They described it as “like trying to sprinkle pepper on a sandwich using tweezers.”
Although it sounds promising, Huawei’s patent needs additional third-party validation or other data to suggest it’s production-ready. “That’s the nature of patents. They grant rights, not credibility.”
According to the researcher, Korean battery giants, LG Energy, Samsung SDI, and SK On, don’t seem too worried. “We monitor developments in China closely, but this doesn’t look like a game-changer yet,” they said.
Samsung SDI has already sent solid-state battery samples to clients and aims to begin mass production by 2027: LG Energy and SK On both plan to introduce solid-state battery tech by 2030.
Are solid-state EV batteries capable of delivering ultra-long driving range as promised? It may, but it could be a few years before it hits the market. As Yang said, “Battery science doesn’t move in leaps. It moves in increments, and those increments take years to scale.”
Meanwhile, several automakers and others are also advancing solid-state EV batteries, promising longer driving range and faster charging.
Mercedes-Benz announced it had tested “the first car powered by a lithium-metal solid-state battery on the road” with Factorial Energy earlier this year using a modified EQS. Last month, BMW completed its first on-road tests using Solid Power’s all-solid-state battery (ASSB) cells. CATL, Stellantis, Nissan, Volkswagen, and Nissan have also announced plans to launch EVs with solid-state batteries in the next few years.
Will the “holy grail” of EV batteries live up to its hype? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Source: The Korea Herald
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
HappyRun G300 Pro review: It’s an electric motorcycle with pedals and I’ve got some thoughts
The HappyRun G300 Pro is the epitome of an out-of-class electric bike. That is to say, it has many of the components of an electric bicycle, key among them the functional pedals, but its extremely high power and speed place it well outside the limits of traditional e-bike classifications. The result? Basically, an electric motorcycle with pedals. And I’ve got some thoughts about that.
But before I dive into those, this is one of those rides that you’ll want to see in action. Check out my review video below. Then keep reading for the full details.
HappyRun G300 Pro Video Review
HappyRun G300 Pro Tech Specs
- Motor: 3,000W continuous and 6,500W peak-rated rear hub motor
- Top speed: Up to 50 mph (80 km/h)
- Range: Claimed up to 70 miles (121 km)
- Battery: 72V 30Ah (2,160 Wh)
- Weight: Heavy (well off the scale on my 100 lb scale)
- Brakes: Quad-piston DYISLAND hydraulic disc brakes
- Front suspension: inverted front fork
- Rear suspension: “Yopi Box” rear spring suspension
- Extras: Looks like a Sur Ron or Talaria-style bike, color LED display, included fenders, LED headlight and tail light with turn signals, very nice kickstand, two color options available.
What is this even for?
Despite looking like a bicycle in some regards, I definitely felt wrong using this in the bike lane. That meant for 95% of my road riding, I was simply in the lane like a motorbike. The only times I would use the bike lane were when I could see it was completely empty, and it was basically just a shortcut past the stopped traffic at red lights. And even then, it just didn’t sit right with me. I’m an e-biker and I live a car free life, so the safety of bike lanes is an important issue for me. I’m not going to jeopardize other riders or even make them feel unsafe in the tiny little sliver of asphalt that is supposed to feel like home for us, and so I ride this thing in the road when I’m on the road.
That being said, I don’t even think the road is the right place for this bike. Where it really shines is off-road. Between the long travel suspension, the enduro-style seat, and the unnecessarily high power for commuting purposes, the HappyRun G300 Pro is at home in the dirt and on the trails. In fact, I even enjoyed overlanding on it, going places where trails couldn’t take me. It felt like a great exploring-the-outdoors type of ride!
If you watch my video above, you’ll see that this type of riding, recreational and exploring, is where the HappyRun G300 Pro really came into its own, and I think that’s precisely where it belongs. Just like how Sur Rons and Talarias shouldn’t really be taking over the streets, but instead should stick to the dirt trails they excel at, this is a great bike for that purpose. You’ll also notice in the video that I prefer to wear my motorcycle gear when I ride these types of bikes, and I’d make that recommendation to anyone else. A t-shirt and a bike helmet just don’t feel like enough here.
With that in mind, the included bicycle pedals start to seem superfluous though, and I really only pedaled at slow speeds, or when ghost pedaling because a cop was in the area and I didn’t want to get a bike impounded before I was even done reviewing it. So if you ask me, it doesn’t really need the pedals, and it doesn’t even really need the roads.
What about the build?
The HappyRun G300 Pro is an interesting mix of quality parts and merely acceptable parts. Nothing about it seemed terrible or dangerous, and a few components like the Sur Ron kickstand actually impressed me. But then the use of a bicycle-level handlebar stem and budget-level shocks seems to undercut that message.
On the other hand, the massive 72V 30Ah battery is huge and likely more than most people would need. I’d have preferred to see it being UL-listed, but I guess at least it claims to be underwritten by some Chinese insurance agency. I guess that’s better than nothing?
The geometry actually kind of sticks the landing, at least for me and my 170 cm (5’7″) height. The saddle is plenty comfortable, though my off-roading had me out of the saddle much of the time anyway and letting my legs join the full-suspension to better absorb the terrain.
What’s my verdict?
Here’s the thing: nothing about this bike is top shelf, but it still offers an incredibly fun, solid feeling ride. The power is more than most people need, the speed is faster than most people should ride (especially on trails), and the battery has more capacity than most people would require. So it’s not like they’re cutting corners on performance.
Some components could have been beefed up, and the decision to lean more towards bicycle-level components does make me question what a few years of hard off-road riding could do to this bike. But when used correctly, in an area where the bike is meant to be used (i.e., not where it legally isn’t allowed to be ridden), then it seems to fulfill the role of a fun adventure-style bike. At a price of $2,599 (or $100 off with the code ELECTREK), it significantly undercuts the cost of a Sur Ron or Talaria bike while giving a similar type of ride, even if the components don’t live up to the level of those costlier light electric dirt bikes.
My biggest worry, though, isn’t about the bike, but rather the potential for it to be misused. Look, it’s a fun ride and offered me more performance than I needed for all the different types of riding I tested it with. But like any bike, it has to be used in its element. We don’t blame the hammer if someone hits their thumb while driving a nail, and we shouldn’t blame the bike if someone wraps it around a parking meter. But it also really shouldn’t be used in that kind of environment, and it definitely shouldn’t be used in a way that could put others at risk.
It’s a fun ride for exploring, but this level of power requires some serious personal responsibility. If you’re a parent wondering if you should get this for your 16-year-old, the answer is probably “No.” But if you’ve got a fully developed prefrontal cortex and you want a fast and powerful ride without breaking the bank, this might be a decent option.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike