Connect with us

Published

on

Republicans have used the Congressional Review Act to roll back California’s states’ right to protect its own residents’ lungs and pocketbooks with better pollution rules.

But here’s the thing: Congress doesn’t have that authority because that’s not how the Congressional Review Act works, so the republican party is once again just letting everyone know that it wants to poison Americans and raise their fuel costs, no matter the legality of doing so.

Update, June 12: Mr. Donald Trump has now placed his childish chickenscratch onto the illegal resolution, setting up yet another legal fight with California.

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 hundred-and-some 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.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Well, they decided to jump into the spotlight and remind everyone just how bad the entire party is, as republicans in Congress passed a bill to increase pollution and fuel costs for California and 11 other states.

Both the House and Senate narrowly passed the resolutions, led by republicans and with only a smattering of Democratic votes – including Sen. Slotkin of Michigan, who voted for the measure despite the harm it will bring to the auto industry that is so important in her state which will be made less relevant globally as it retreats in the face of rising competition from China; and Reps. Whitesides and Correa of California, both of whom who voted to harm their own state and restrict its freedoms, and who represent areas around LA, which suffers from high pollution.

Then the bill today reached the desk of a convicted felon who is Constitutionally barred from holding office in the US, where he marked it with his chicken-scratch, as he promised the oil industry he would do in exchange for a billion dollars in bribes (which he only received a fraction of).

How republicans are attacking clean air this time

The measure came in the form of three Congressional Review Act (CRA) actions withdrawing three of California’s “waivers” from the EPA, even though the CRA does not apply to the waivers.

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. So a carveout was made in the federal law in recognition of this.

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 due to factors including geography, high car dependency, heavy shipping traffic, and a lack of public transitt.

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 California or any other states that follow its rules.

California’s newest set of rules would 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 (ACC II), but also some other truck emissions rules (the ACT and HD low-NOx Omnibus rules).

So, the republicans have declared they want to end California’s progress in protecting its own residents, and the restidents of 11 other states. Despite the massive improvement in health and air quality, and reduction in health costs as a result, republicans 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 CRA can’t be used this way, and republicans know 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, we are past the deadline where the CRA can be used.

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, 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 here is illegal, and doubly so, because the waiver is not a rule, and it is outside of the 60 day window. This action is also dangerous to your health, exacerbates climate change, and will raise Americans’ fuel costs and cede ground to China in the changing global auto industry.

Notably, at least one republican Senator, Mike Lee of Utah, correctly acknowledged that this is an illegal action, stating clearly that “California’s CAA federal preemption waivers cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) because the waiver granted by EPA is not a rule as that term is defined in the CRA.” However, regardless of publicly acknowledging that this cannot be done in a document that is still up on his own website, Lee still voted for it anyway.

Despite illegality, republicans still agitate for dirty air

They know that this method of revocation has no legal backing – but it still went through with it anyway, impotently screaming from the rafters “WE WANT TO KILL YOU!!!”… which apparently some people still need to hear.

But if republicans know this is illegal, why did they do it? There are likely a number of reasons:

  • To avoid the filibuster, which would give Democrats a chance to stand up for clean air, and which is not allowed for CRA actions (at least, within the 60 day window… which we are outside of, so that’s another way republicans are acting illegally).
  • To avoid having to amend or repeal the Clean Air Act, which would likely raise more eyebrows from the few republican voters with any remaining rationality or self-interest. This action is harder to understand and therefore more likely to go under the radar.
  • To show to their oil donors that they are aligned in their mission to harm life on earth.
  • Likely as another meaningless entry into the republican culture war, where the party starts ridiculous fights over nothing in order to stop or distract from positive motion on changes that might help alleviate some of the plight republicans are constantly trying to force on Americans.
  • Because they’ve packed the courts with enough partisan operatives who are willing to ignore the law that they think this has a chance of still going through.

California pledges response to protect clean air

California already announced that it will respond with legal action – but despite that republicans’ action here is illegal, the CRA also claims that it is not subject to judicial review, which is a violation of the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution.

California could alternately seek to achieve the same goals through other measures that have no Congressional oversight, such as charging higher registration fees for gasoline-powered vehicles (something which many states, including California, already stupidly do against electric cars, at the behest of, once again, the oil industry – and yes, republicans want to do this federally, too).

To this end, it has already formed a coalition with 11 other states to expand clean cars in the face of these attacks.

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” after the House’s initial CRA vote. So, we hope that CARB will continue to act within the law, and ignore Congress’ violent action opposing clean air.

And California Governor Gavin Newsom reacted, stating “This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China.“

Who even supports this? Polluters, of course

Meanwhile, doctorsnursesscientists, environmental groupsmany businesses, and the vast majority of people who have lungs generally support the strongest regulation possible.

More than 100 clean air groups sent a letter supporting the waiver in the face of republican attacks on your health… and another one led by the American Lung Association, and another one led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, and another one led by the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards. But who listens to those idiots when there’s oil donor money at stake?

A few of the usual suspects did step in to show their support for this attack. 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 these 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 final 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 those barriers haven’t worked, and they won’t work. The only thing that will work is getting more serious about EVs, and trying to stop EVs from flourishing ain’t it.

The dealer lobby, NADA, also reached out to us to let us know that they support this legislation that will kill Americans and cost them money. They apparently appreciate Congress’ attempt to reduce Americans’ choice to breathe clean air, and to force death and sickness upon them.

And, of course, the oil industry, responsible for untold death and destruction, has also arranged itself on the side of this illegal action to poison Americans and raise their fuel costs, alongside republicans in Congress. What a surprise.

We, at least, know what side we’re on.


Another thing republicans are trying to kill is the the rooftop solar credit, which means you could have only until the end of this year to install rooftop solar on your home before the cost of doing so goes up by an average of ~$10,000. So if you want to go solar, get started now, because these things take time and the system needs to be active before you file for the credit.

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. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla was forced to reimburse Full Self-Driving in arbitration after failing to deliver

Published

on

By

Tesla was forced to reimburse Full Self-Driving in arbitration after failing to deliver

Tesla has been forced to reimburse a customer’s Full Self-Driving package after an arbitrator determined that the automaker failed to deliver it.

Tesla has been promising its car owners that every vehicle it has built since 2016 has all the hardware capable of unsupervised self-driving.

The automaker has been selling a “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) package that is supposed to deliver this unsupervised self-driving capability through over-the-air software updates.

Almost a decade later, Tesla has yet to deliver on its promise, and its claim that the cars’ hardware is capable of self-driving has been proven wrong. Tesla had to update all cars with HW2 and 2.5 computers to HW3 computers.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

In January 2025, CEO Elon Musk finally admitted that HW3 also won’t be able to support self-driving and said that Tesla will have to upgrade the computers. 6 months later, Tesla has yet to communicate a plan for retrofits to owners.

Tesla is now attempting to deliver its promise of unsupervised self-driving on HW4 cars, which have been in production since 2023-2024, depending on the model. However, there are still significant doubts about this being possible, as the best available data indicate that Tesla only achieves about 500 miles between critical disengagements with the latest software on the hardware.

The situation is creating a significant liability for Tesla, which already needs to replace computers in millions of vehicles, and it may need to do so in millions more.

On the other hand, many customers are losing faith in Tesla’s ability to deliver on its promise and manage this computer retrofit situation. Some of them have been seeking to be reimbursed for their purchase of the Full Self-Driving package, which Tesla sold from $8,000 to $15,000.

A Tesla owner in Washington managed to get the automaker to reimburse the FSD package, but it wasn’t easy.

The 2021 Model Y was Marc Dobin and his wife’s third Tesla. Due to his wife’s declining mobility, Dobin was intrigued about the FSD package as a potential way to give her more independence. He wrote in a blog post:

But FSD was more than hype for us. The promise of a car that could drive my wife around gave us hope that she’d maintain independence as her motor skills declined. We paid an extra $10,000 for FSD.

Tesla’s FSD quickly disillusioned Dobin. First, he couldn’t even enable it due to Tesla restricting the Beta access through a “safety score” system, something he pointed out was never mentioned in the contract.

Furthermore, the feature required the supervision of a driver at all times, which was not what Tesla sold to customers.

Tesla doesn’t make it easy for customers in the US to seek a refund or to sue Tesla as it forces buyers to go through arbitration through its sales contract.

That didn’t deter Dobin, who happens to be a lawyer with years of experience in arbitration. It took almost a year, but Tesla and Dobin eventually found themselves in arbitration, and it didn’t go well for the automaker:

Almost a year after filing, the evidentiary hearing was held via Zoom. Tesla produced one witness: a Field Technical Specialist who admitted he hadn’t checked what equipment shipped with our car, hadn’t reviewed our driving logs, and didn’t know details about the FSD system installed on our car, if any. He hadn’t spoken to any sales rep we dealt with or reviewed the contract’s integration clause.

There were both a Tesla lawyer and an outside counsel representing Tesla at the hearing, but the witness was not equipped to answer questions.

Dobin wrote:

He was a service technician, not a lawyer or salesperson. But that’s who Tesla brought to the hearing. At the end, I genuinely felt bad for him because Tesla set him up to be a human punching bag—someone unprepared to answer key questions, forced to defend a system he clearly didn’t understand. While I was examining him, a Tesla in-house lawyer sat silently, while the company’s outside counsel tried to soften the blows of the witness’ testimony.

He focused on Tesla’s lack of disclosure regarding the safety score and the fact that the system does not meet the promises made to customers.

The arbitrator sided with Dobin and wrote:

The evidence is persuasive that the feature was not functional, operational, or otherwise available.”

Tesla was forced to reimburse the FSD package $10,000 plus taxes, and pay for the almost $8,000 in arbitration fees.

Since Tesla forces arbitration through its contracts, it is required to cover the cost.

Electrek’s Take

This is interesting. Tesla assigned two lawyers to this case in an attempt to avoid reimbursing $10,000, knowing it would have to cover the expensive arbitration fees – most likely losing tens of thousands of dollars in the process.

It makes no sense to me. Tesla should have a standing offer to reimburse FSD for anyone who requests it until it can actually deliver on its promise of unsupervised self-driving.

That’s the right thing to do, and the fact that Tesla would waste money trying to fight customers requesting a refund is really telling.

Tesla is simply not ready to do the right thing here, and it doesn’t bode well for the computer retrofits and all the other liabilities around Tesla FSD.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

BYD says its about to launch the ‘largest-scale’ smart driving software update in history

Published

on

By

BYD says its about to launch the 'largest-scale' smart driving software update in history

After hitting a major milestone on Monday, BYD claimed it’s about to unleash “the largest-scale smart driving OTA in history.”

BYD preps for the largest-scale software update

BYD announced on Weibo that there are now over 1 million vehicles on the road with its God’s Eye smart driving system.

The milestone comes after it upgraded 21 of its top-selling vehicles with the smart driving tech in February, at no extra cost. Even its most affordable EV, the Seagull, which starts at under $10,000 (69,800 yuan), got the upgrade.

BYD didn’t reveal any specifics, only promising “it is safer and smarter.” The Chinese EV giant has three different “God’s Eye” levels: A, B, and C.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The highest, God’s Eye A, is typically reserved for BYD’s ultra-luxury Yangwang brand, which utilizes its DiPilot 600 smart cockpit with three LiDARs.

God’s Eye B is used for other luxury and higher-end models, including those under Denza, which utilize DiPilot 300 and one or two LiDARs.

The base God’s Eye C system, used for BYD brand models, includes 12 cameras, five wave radars, and 12 ultrasonic radars, all supported by DiPilot 100.

Last week, BYD’s luxury off-road brand, Fang Cheng Bao, launched a limited-time offer for Huawei’s Qiankun Intelligent Driving High-end Function Package. The discount cuts the price from 32,000 yuan ($4,500) to just 12,000 yuan ($1,700).

BYD-new-affordable-EV
BYD Seagull EV testing with God’s Eye C smart driving system (Source: BYD)

After selling another 382,585 vehicles in June, BYD now has over 2.1 million in cumulative sales in the first half of 2025, up 33% from last year.

With the “largest-scale smart driving” update coming soon, BYD’s vehicles are about to gain new functions and safety features. Check back soon for more details.

BYD claims it’s “capable of leading the transformation and popularization of intelligent driving” with over 5,000 engineers dedicated to the field. As the world’s largest NEV maker, BYD said it’s committed to transforming the auto industry with safer and more sustainable solutions for global markets.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

The Kia EV3 takes the crown as the most popular retail EV in the UK so far this year

Published

on

By

The Kia EV3 takes the crown as the most popular retail EV in the UK so far this year

Kia’s electric SUV is a hit in the UK. The EV3 was the most popular retail EV through the first half of 2025, pushing Kia to become the UK’s third top-selling car brand so far this year.

The EV3 is Kia’s fastest-selling EV in the UK and a massive part of the brand’s success this year. Kia said the compact electric SUV contributed to its best-ever June, Q2, and first half EV registrations so far this year.

In January, the EV3 “started with a bang,” racing out to become the UK’s most popular retail EV. The EV3 was the best-selling retail EV in the UK and the fourth best-selling EV overall in the first quarter, including commercial vehicles.

Through the first half of the year, the Kia EV3 maintained its crown as the UK’s most popular EV with 6,293 registrations.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The EV3 starts at £33,005 ($42,500) as the ‘brand’s most affordable EV yet.” It’s available with two battery packs: 58.3 kWh or 81.48 kWh, providing a WLTP range of up to 430 km (270 miles) and 599 km (375 miles), respectively.

Kia-EV3-most-popular-EV
Kia EV3 (Source: Kia)

Kia sold 31,643 electrified vehicles in the first half of 2025. Although this includes fully electric vehicles (EVs), plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), and hybrids (HEVs), it still accounts for over half of Kia’s total of 62,005 registrations.

Kia's-low-cost-EVs
Kia EV3 (Source: Kia)

After opening orders for the EV4 last week, Kia’s first electric hatchback, the brand expects to see even more demand throughout 2025. With up to 388 miles WLTP range, it’s also the longest-range Kia EV to date.

Next year, Kia will introduce the entry-level EV2, which will sit below the EV3 in Kia’s lineup. Kia is looking to add an even more affordable EV to sit below the EV2. It will start at under $30,000 (€25,000), but we likely won’t see it until closer toward the end of the decade.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending