Congress impotently declares end to CA EV rules it can’t actually end
Republicans in Congress have voted to use its authority under the Congressional Review Act to roll back California’s states’ right to protect its own residents’ lungs and pocketbooks with better emissions rules.
But here’s the thing: Congress doesn’t have that authority, and the republican party is once again just farting in the wind with the sole purpose of letting everyone know that it wants to poison Americans and raise their fuel costs.
We’ve heard plenty of stories recently about how the senile felon squatting in the White House wants to harm Americans. But in the last 100 days of the exact kind of incompetent flailing that anyone with half a brain expected out of him, relatively less attention has been paid to the attempts of republicans in Congress to poison Americans.
Well, they’ve decided to jump into the spotlight and remind everyone just how bad the entire party is, as republicans in Congress have voted to increase pollution and fuel costs for California and 11 other states.
The vote comes in the form of a Congressional Review Act action withdrawing California’s “waiver” from the EPA. For more than half a century, California has asked for and been granted this waiver that allows it to set its own emissions rules. Other states can follow California’s rules (and around 11 states do so, though that amount differs for each rule), as long as they do so exactly, and as long as those rules are stronger than the national ones.
It has this unique authority because California had its own Clean Air Act before the federal Clean Air Act was passed, and because the state had a unique problem with smog at the time and needed stricter rules than the rest of the country. California’s clean air laws have been effective in reducing pollution, with vehicle-based pollutants dropping by 98% in the last 50 years. But of course, there’s still more to be done, as the LA area remains one of the smoggiest in the country.
Despite the protestations of industry at the time and since, these rules have not made it impossible for them to operate, or sell cars, or profit from selling cars, in the region.
And California’s newest set of rules is set to save Californians, and the residents of other states who follow them, hundreds of billions of dollars on health, fuel, and maintenance costs through 2050 by encouraging electrification – and of course will save thousands of lives due to pollution reductions. Republicans targeted not just California’s regulation on light duty vehicles today (ACC II), but tried to roll back some other truck emissions rules yesterday (the ACT and HD low-NOx Omnibus rules).
So, Congress has declared it wants to end California’s progress in protecting its own residents. Despite the massive improvement in health and air quality, and reduction in health costs as a result, republicans in Congress are once again making it clear that they favor poisoning Americans, so much so that they’ll even try illegal actions to do it.
The problem with using the Congressional Review Act in this situation is that it is doubly illegal to do. The CRA gives Congress the authority to roll back government agency actions, like those of the EPA, but it has been rarely used since its passing, since doing so results in a dysfunctional government and an unpredictable business environment.
But the CRA has a time limit, and Congress must act to reverse these rules within 60 days. The EPA approved California’s waiver on December 18, 2024, which is more than 60 days ago; therefore, the CRA does not apply.
Further, even if it were within 60 days, the CRA can’t be used to reject California’s waiver, because it isn’t a “rule.” The CRA only allows Congress to change “rules,” and the waiver isn’t a rule itself; it’s just EPA telling California that it can set its own rules. Both the Senate Parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office (the real government office that holds government to account, unlike Elon Musk’s fake and redundant “Department of Government Efficiency” advisory board), along with many others have recognized that this is the case, and Congress knows it. But hey, at least they have the oil companies on their side.
So, Congress’ action today is illegal, and doubly so. It knows that this vote has no legal backing – but it still took the vote anyway, impotently screaming from the rafters “WE WANT TO KILL YOU!!!”… which apparently some people still need to hear.
For its part, the California Air Resources Board, the organization responsible for California’s regulations, said “CARB will continue its mission to protect the public health of Californians impacted by harmful air pollution.” So, we hope that CARB will continue to act within the law, and ignore Congress’ ridiculous protest.
Meanwhile, doctors, nurses, scientists, environmental groups, many businesses, people who recognize that they have lungs which they would like to continue using, and so on, generally support the strongest regulation possible. This week, more than 100 clean air groups sent a letter supporting the waiver. But who listens to those idiots anyway?
That hasn’t stopped other bad actors from stepping in to show support. The auto lobbyist that represents virtually every car company, which calls itself the “Alliance for Automotive Innovation” despite routinely opposing electrification efforts, came out in favor of ending California’s clean air rules. This is despite the weasel who runs the organization, John Bozzella, appearing on stage to give a speech when the EPA implemented rules with similar goals on a national level.
Bozzella has long stated that he thinks California and the EPA should have the same set of rules – but his organization is the one that originally lobbied Mr. Trump, during his first period squatting in the White House, to shatter the single national standard that had been set up under President Obama, opening this Pandora’s Box to begin with. And in case you need a reminder, California ended up winning that fight, which somebody predicted well ahead of time.
And don’t forget: the Alliance Against Automotive Innovation’s opposition to EVs will signal the nail in the coffin for the US auto industry. China is getting great at building EVs, to the point that other nations are desperately trying to put up barriers to stop them. But it hasn’t worked, and it won’t work. The only thing that will work is getting more serious about EVs, and trying to stop them ain’t it.
And, of course, the oil industry, responsible for untold death and destruction, has also arranged itself on the side of poisoning Americans, alongside republicans in Congress. What a surprise.
We, at least, know what side we’re on.
Update: Republicans have passed the second round of votes today, and have now illegally tried to end all three of California’s regulations they were targeting.
They were joined by some Democrats in each respective vote, including two California Democrats, Whitesides and Correa, both of whom represent areas around LA with high levels of pollution (both of these traitors need to be removed from their posts in the next primary election and feel free to click those links to give them a piece of your mind).
Only one republican, Fitzpatrick of PA, had the good sense to vote against two of these illegal and violent moves (though he voted for the third, and the one that will cause the most pollution and increase people’s costs the most – trying to roll back ACC II). The bills will now go to the Senate, but even if they pass there, they are still illegal.
To reduce your carbon footprint and live more sustainably, consider going solar. EnergySage is a free service that connects you with trusted, reputable installers in your area – without having to give up your phone number until you select an installer. Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way through EnergySage. Get started today! – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
![ACT Expo 2025 – one step forward, two steps back for clean trucking [part 1]](https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/05/ACT_2025.png?resize=1200,628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)
ACT Expo is North America’s premier clean truck and transport trade show – and for 2025 it was bigger than ever, with more exhibitors and more, more capable battery electric vehicles than ever. The downsides? NACFE have scored with their “messy middle” messaging, and the return of “clean diesel” talking points.
The re-election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States has thrown the steady pace of electric fleet adoption – along with just about every thing else – into a state of confusion and disarray. Into that chaos, NACFE (the North American Council for Freight Efficiency) has thrown a positively progress-shattering bromide that may as well have been designed to distract attention from the proliferation of practical medium- and heavy-duty EVs, the rapid expansion of a comprehensive DC fast charging network, and the rapidly decreasing delta between the up-front costs of conventional diesel and battery electric offerings.
I’m talking about the phrase, “the messy middle,” which posits that, while we can all agree that electric vehicles and battery technology are the future, “we’re not quite there, yet.” The result is a series of observations that, while very timely in 2019, seem to disingenuously portray EVs as new technology today, while claiming that there are unanswered questions regarding battery costs and component longevity.
Never mind that next year will mark the (checks notes) twenty-ninth year of Toyota Prius production, and the thirtieth anniversary of the production launch of GM’s EV1, or that Volvo is on its third generation of battery electric semi, or that dozens of EV fleets have logged hundreds of millions of all-electric miles on their vehicles – never mind, in other words, that BEVs are in production now, ready now, in customer hands now, delivering on the promise of reduced TCO now … an EV may not be suitable for some fleets – and NACFE’s “messy middle” messaging is going to give a lot of fleets an excuse to buy one more round diesel-engined semi trucks to fill up with more diesel from Shell their favorite truck stops.
All that said, it’s catchy. Outside of NACFE’s booth or Shell’s panels I’ve heard the phrase “messy middle” repeated sincerely at least a dozen times over the last three days, and I have to admit that the alliterative lure of that particular little ear worm that, regardless of the sincerity of NACFE’s intent, is going to set the pace of EV adoption back at least the length of one Presidential term (give or take 100 days).
Moving on …
There was plenty of good stuff
Despite my ranting and raving against the whole “messy middle” messaging, there was an incredible amount of awesome, zero-emission, battery-powered goodness at this year’s ACT Expo. Too much, in fact, to jam into a single article (unless y’all like 5,000 word articles).
As such, I won’t even try.
Instead, I’ll use this post to give you a sneak peek at some of the stories I’ll be posting in the coming days, bringing you fully up to speed with all the latest and greatest new EVs, EREVs, and HFCEVs that commercial fleet buyers can place an order for today, and start putting the messy middle (and their backwards-looking competitors) behind them. So, check out the short list, below, then watch this space to see the links go live.
ACT 2025 News
- Zenobe arrives in North America
- Honda wants to sell you a fuel cell
- Hyundai opens up about its hydrogen semi
- ABB has figured out this whole charging deal
- Windrose gets real, and Wen Han signs my truck
- Volvo has the best deal going for commercial EVs
- New Mack electric trucks are coming, and one is already here
- The new autonomous terminal tractor from Kalmar is a next-level EV
Original content from Electrek; special thanks to ACT Expo.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Minnesota just locked in a dozen new DC fast charging station sites along Interstates 90 and 94, defying Donald Trump’s suspension of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation announced the 12 new sites this week, backed by nearly $10 million in combined federal and state funding. About $4.5 million comes from the NEVI program, part of the Biden administration’s 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Another $4.7 million will come directly from the state.
This is Minnesota’s second round of NEVI funding; the state announced the first NEVI funding round in July 2024. And while the Trump administration recently shut down the NEVI program nationwide, MnDOT says it’s pushing forward with its EV charging buildout.
“While we were disappointed to learn the Trump administration has chosen to suspend this program, this second round of grants demonstrates we are honoring our commitments and continue to evaluate all options for continuing this important work,” said MnDOT Commissioner Nancy Daubenberger.
The 12 new charging sites will be located at:
- Energy Hunters Minnesota – Barnesville
- Francis Energy Charging – Fergus Falls
- Love’s Travel Stops – Rockville
- Kwik Trip – Lake Elmo
- Francis Energy Charging – Luverne
- Kwik Trip – Worthington
- Francis Energy Charging – Jackson
- Francis Energy Charging – Blue Earth
- Kwik Trip – Albert Lea
- Kwik Trip – Austin
- Kwik Trip – Stewartville
- Love’s Travel Stops – St. Charles
All 12 stations are being placed along federally designated Alternative Fuel Corridors. That means each location is within a mile of an interstate exit and spaced no more than 50 miles apart. They’ll each have at least four 150 kW DC fast chargers that run simultaneously, and they’ll be open to the public 24/7 without an entrance fee and be sited next to well-lit amenities such as restrooms, food, and beverages.
This will bring Minnesota’s NEVI-funded charging station sites to 24. MnDOT says it’s continuing to explore ways to expand the state’s EV infrastructure.
Read more: US DC fast charging network surges past 55K ports – and it’s getting more reliable
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla is the only EV brand with a net negative brand perception, according to the Electric Vehicle Intelligence Report – and much of the negative shift has happened in the last 6 months.
The Electric Vehicle Intelligence Report (EVIR) surveyed 8,000 US consumers to ask them questions about electric vehicle purchasing decisions, both asking about brands and finding out what they value in an EV purchase.
The most notable result of the survey is that consumers had the most negative view of Tesla – and in fact, Tesla is the only brand in the survey which received a net negative brand image.
When asked whether they have a positive or negative view of Tesla, 32% said they have a “very” or “somewhat” positive view combined, but 39% said they have a “very” or “somewhat” negative view.
This means Tesla has a -7% net score, behind even VinFast, which has a 0% net score (mostly because most surveyed hadn’t heard of the Vietnamese brand).
As for other brands, ironically, the top-ranked EV brand was Honda, a company that only sells one full BEV in the US, the Prologue (which people like and is selling great), which it didn’t even make itself, but rather made it in partnership with GM. Chevrolet scored well also, third place overall in brand perception.
The other EV startups (Lucid, Rivian, Polestar) did tend towards the bottom of the table, but this was largely because they had comparatively lower brand awareness, and thus their net positive numbers could not have been much higher (Lucid, for example, had 9% positive and 4% negative scores). Tesla, however, had both extremely high brand awareness and negative brand association. (But you have heard of me…)
Tesla’s score gets even worse when “view intensity” is taken into account, with people 13 points more likely to have a “very negative” view than a “very positive” one.
This negative brand perception persisted through all income brackets, regions and ages, with Tesla holding last place in each category.
In every category save one, when asked whether they would consider purchasing a Tesla, the most common answer was “would never consider.”
Tesla also ranked last in a comparison of various home EV charger brands and home battery brands, with more consumers saying they “would never consider” it.
Similar numbers appeared in a question about “brand trust,” where Tesla again had negative net trust, and a much higher “distrust a lot” score than its “trust a lot” score.
Tesla performed slightly better in perceptions of safety (second last) and family-friendliness (fourth from last), but did well in perceptions of luxury, holding fifth place overall out of eighteen brands.
According to this survey, the drop in Tesla brand perception has been quite recent. EVIR asked how views of Tesla had changed over the last 6 months. 46% said their opinion hadn’t changed, but a total of 38% of people had a “more” or “much more” negative perception, versus 16% who had a “more” or “much more” positive perception.
This, again, becomes more of a severe difference when you look at the most intense answers: 27% had a “much more negative” perception, while only 6% had a “much more positive” perception – a 4.5x difference.
Overall, over the last 6 months, there was only a +1% net change in consumers positive perceptions of EVs as a whole, so this drastic recent change was limited to Tesla, not other brands.
There was one piece of good news for Tesla, though: when asked which sort of public charging equipment consumers would most prefer, Tesla came out on top… except it also came out on top of the list that consumers would least prefer.
EVIR also asked what the factors driving consumers’ interest or disinterest in purchasing an EV.
Consumers recognized the benefits of EVs, with the top factors driving EV interest being gas savings, environment/climate change, and the ability to charge at home. Consumers who were already considering buying an EV found these to be more important factors than consumers who said they aren’t thinking about an EV yet.
Unfortunately, consumers also fell victim to the myths they’ve long been told about EVs. We’ve seen for a long time that consumers claim that range is one of their main concerns with EVs, despite that there are plenty of EVs available with way more range than you actually need.
In the EVIR, consumers ranked “length of range on a battery charge” as their top concern, even though EVs on average have enough range for a full week worth of driving from the average driver.
The second and fourth concerns, “availability of charging stations” and “I couldn’t charge at my residence” are much more pertinent. While it’s common for non-EV drivers not to recognize how many chargers are available, this is an area where the EV industry could definitely improve (I’ve long been on record saying that charger availability, especially for apartment dwellers and street parkers, is the only real problem with EVs – and that solving these problems will help people recognize that giant range numbers are not as necessary as they think).
Happily, the NACS transition will help to solve a lot of these problems, along with the existence of new well-funded charging networks like IONNA.
You can check out the full Electric Vehicle Intelligence Report here.
Electrek’s Take
As we’ve been warning people about for quite some time now, Tesla CEO Elon Musk is doing his best to completely destroy Tesla’s brand.
As an EV publication, we have the same mission as Tesla – to advance sustainable transport. In order for that to happen, we obviously want the (formerly) largest EV company in the world to do its job the best it can.
The problem is, Musk doesn’t have that mission, and has been doing his best over the last year(s) to ruin Tesla’s brand perception with increasingly idiotic decisions, both in terms of his public advocacy and his work within Tesla.
Musk’s high-profile political advocacy, which has included support for German neo-Nazis and agreeing with a defense of Hitler’s actions in the Holocaust, among many other white supremacist statements, has driven protests against the company, embarrassed owners and pushed many customers away.
This report shows the effect of the constant drumbeat of bad Tesla business moves and horrendous public behavior by the company’s CEO. The company’s employees, for the most part, are still working to try to make good electric vehicles, but Musk is spending the money he made from selling EVs to try to ruin EVs – something that the company itself had to call him out on in its quarterly report (and which the formerly-more-lucid Musk would have opposed just a few years ago before he forgot how climate change works).
Unfortunately, Tesla’s board seems content to destroy the company, and its shareholders do too, as they voted again last year to give Musk $55 billion in exchange for his bad leadership, an award that is greater than the total amount of profits Tesla has made over its entire lifetime. That pay package was stopped by a court for violating corporate law.
We’re not sure what’s going to many any of them wake up to Musk’s destruction of the company, but this report is just one more data point showing how severe the situation has gotten.
Charge your electric vehicle 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.
-
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
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway