Connect with us

California

Ending Biden’s EV Mandate Requires Ending California’s Waiver

Published

on

Ending Biden’s EV Mandate Requires Ending California’s Waiver


President Trump has repeatedly promised to end what he terms the “Biden electric vehicle mandate.” In a day-one executive order, Trump directed that this EV mandate should end. This action was only the beginning, not the end, of rolling back the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. In order to end this mandate, three major regulatory actions must be revised or rejected: the tailpipe emissions standards from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards from EPA and the Department of Transportation (DoT), and the state of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulation, granted a waiver from Clean Air Act preemption during Biden’s lame duck period. Of these three prongs, the California program subject to the waiver is the most important as it takes actions (such as banning internal combustion vehicles) that no federal agency has been granted the power to take, and because both the tailpipe mandate and the CAFE mandate rely on the California regulation for legal support.

While none of these three prongs alone constitute an electric vehicle mandate, the interaction of all three creates a de facto EV mandate by attempting to regulate non-battery-electric vehicles out of the market. The tailpipe emissions standards from EPA do this by setting emissions standards so low that only full battery-electric vehicles can qualify; not even highly efficient hybrids can meet the tailpipe mandate. The CAFE mandate does this by setting fleetwide fuel efficiency requirements so high that as many as two-thirds of the cars automakers manufacture will have to be electric.

California’s program is not restricted to California.  Under the Clean Air Act, if California receives a waiver, other states can follow California’s regulations, and indeed, many have. In fact, thus far, 18 states have followed some parts of California’s EV mandate. California has also used this provision to bully car manufacturers into following and defending California’s regulations.

If both of these federal mandates sound excessive and unreasonable, that’s because they are. Both the tailpipe and CAFE regulations likely exceed the agencies’ statutory authority. Neither EPA nor DoT has the authority to mandate EVs, which is why these standards are presented as technology-neutral. These agencies also have requirements about technological feasibility and compliance costs that must be part of their regulatory considerations. Both these regulations face strong legal challenges, though the Trump administration is also moving to review and replace the regulations.

Advertisement

The major regulatory defense offered by EPA and DoT to their excessive mandates is to rely on the third prong, California’s ACC II program, the main feature of which is a ban on the sale of internal combustion engines. The agencies assume that this regulation takes effect, so California and the more than a dozen states who choose to follow their regulations all mandate electric vehicles. With these mandates already in place forcing the adoption of EVs, the federal agencies claim that the cost and feasibility of compliance with their mandates will be small because automakers and the public will already be forced to reach those levels by the state mandates.

So, while there are indeed three components to the “Biden EV mandate,” the California waiver program is the foundation upon which it all stands. The only way that the tailpipe and CAFE mandates are even remotely defensible is if California’s EV mandate is in effect. The Biden administration didn’t have the power to mandate EVs directly, but by waiving California’s program, they could achieve the same result through the back door.

All this means that the key element that must be tackled to end the Biden de facto EV mandate is the revocation or rejection of the waiver for the California EV mandate. There is a potential regulatory process for withdrawing a waiver that has already been granted, though there are legal questions surrounding that process, and it would take an extended period to get through administrative procedure hurdles. Congressional action to disapprove of the granting of the waiver through the Congressional Review Act process, however, would immediately halt the implementation of the California program and thus fatally undermine the entire structure of the Biden EV mandate. Either way, the only way to end the Biden EV mandate is to revoke California’s waiver.





Source link

Advertisement

California

California dad charged with incest after allegedly assaulting daughter; DA may drop case

Published

on

California dad charged with incest after allegedly assaulting daughter; DA may drop case


When Makayla Rene Settles turned 18, she left Raleigh, North Carolina, for a fresh start. She moved to Moorpark, California, to live with her biological father, Stephen Vincent Chavez, with plans to attend college and build a new life. Two days after she arrived, her family says she called terrified and asking for help.

“It was just the fear in her voice, her crying. I didn’t need details. I knew something was wrong, and I said, ‘I’m on the way,’” said Carolina Sandoval, Makayla’s mother.

Advertisement

Carolina says she rushed to Chavez’s home. When she saw her daughter, she was devastated.

“She’s barely walking,” Carolina said. “My brother picks her up and hugs her.”

Advertisement

Makayla was taken to a hospital, where a rape kit was performed. According to the family, the results came back positive for Stephen Vincent Chavez’s DNA. He was arrested that same night and charged with incest, taking advantage of a position of trust, and providing alcohol to a minor.

Her cousin, Crystal Sandoval, was in disbelief. She said, “I was screaming, I was crying. I just kept thinking, why would he do that to her? This is something she could not come back from.”

Crystal was right. Five months later, Makayla Rene Settles died by suicide.

Advertisement

“If I’m being honest, it feels like I handed my daughter to the devil,” said Carolina.

On the night Makayla was taken to the hospital, Sandoval says Chavez sent her a text message. It read, “I’m never drinking liquor again. I don’t want that blackout to happen again.”

Advertisement

Now, the family says they’ve been dealt another devastating blow. According to Crystal Sandoval, the Ventura County DA’s Office has told them the case may not go to trial because Makayla is no longer alive to testify.

“The DA was essentially saying, ‘We don’t know if we have a case because she’s no longer here,’ and when she told me that, I immediately said, ‘No, we’re not going to let that slide,’” said Crystal.

Determined to get justice, Crystal took to social media. Her videos went viral, drawing widespread outrage and prompting hundreds to promise to show up to Chavez’s next court hearing, scheduled for April 21 at the Ventura County Courthouse.

Advertisement

“It was like he took her sunshine away and just kind of broke her soul,” Crystal said.

The Ventura County District Attorney’s Office issued the following statement:

Advertisement

“We have seen the posts online and want to let the public know that our Sexual Assault Unit continues to prosecute the defendant for this extremely serious crime. This case has been filed since July 2025, when the evidence supported the filing of felony charges. As with any case, prosecutors filed charges based on the evidence. The court sets bail. Our office successfully moved to increase bail to $250K in July 2025 when the case was filed. The defendant requested that bail be reduced, but we successfully argued against that. The defendant has since posted $250K bail and is out of custody. With respect to the upcoming hearing, the April 21 date is an early disposition conference. This is a standard pretrial proceeding where the court and parties address the status of the case and set future dates as appropriate.”

Despite that statement, the family says they have already been told a trial is not guaranteed, and they are not backing down. Chavez has pleaded not guilty. His next court hearing is April 21 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 14 at the Ventura County Courthouse.

MoorparkInstastoriesInvestigationsCrime and Public Safety
Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California’s leading GOP candidate for governor reacts to Swalwell’s exit from race | CNN Politics

Published

on

California’s leading GOP candidate for governor reacts to Swalwell’s exit from race | CNN Politics


California’s leading GOP candidate for governor reacts to Swalwell’s exit from race

Republican Gov. candidate Steve Hilton joins CNN’s Dana Bash after one of his opponents, Rep. Eric Swalwell, exited the California governor’s race amid sexual misconduct allegations. “We desperately need change. And no Democrat can provide that,” Hilton says.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

AB 2276 pilot targets seven California counties with speed-limiting devices for speeders

Published

on

AB 2276 pilot targets seven California counties with speed-limiting devices for speeders


A new effort to crack down on dangerous drivers in California is gaining attention as lawmakers push forward legislation aimed at repeat speeders.

Assembly member Esmeralda Soria has introduced a bill that would require certain drivers with multiple speeding offenses to install a device in their vehicles that automatically limits how fast they can go. The measure, known as the “Stop Super Speeders Act” (AB 2276), is designed to improve road safety and prevent deadly crashes.

The program could first roll out as a pilot in several counties, including Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Clara, and Shasta. While the proposal was initially intended to be implemented statewide, consultants recommended starting with a smaller pilot program.

The legislation is driven in part by tragic cases like that of Paul Martinez, who was killed at just 21 years old after being struck by a speeding driver in Fresno. His father, Joe Martinez, says the loss is something he lives with every day.

Advertisement

“Being 21 years old and suddenly your entire life, dreams, goals—everything—is just wiped out by the distraction of one person who was speeding,” he said. According to reports, the driver who hit Paul was traveling 54 miles per hour in a 40 mph zone.

Traffic safety remains a serious concern in Fresno. Data from Smart Growth America ranks the city as the seventh worst in the nation for pedestrian deaths.

“I do not want to see another father who grieves every single day because he lost his child to someone driving recklessly,” Soria said.

Under AB 2276, judges would have the authority to require repeat offenders to install Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) devices in their vehicles. The technology functions similarly to cruise control but automatically adjusts a car’s speed based on posted limits using GPS data.

“Once the technology is installed, it knows the speed limit of the neighborhood or freeway and makes adjustments accordingly,” Soria explained. “This is for those folks who haven’t learned their lesson from simply getting a ticket.”

Advertisement

However, the proposal has drawn criticism from some groups. Opponents argue that the bill’s language is too broad and could create unintended safety risks. Critics say there are situations where drivers may need to accelerate quickly to avoid danger, and limiting speed could make those situations more hazardous.

Supporters counter that the bill is about accountability and protecting lives on the road.

“You would think this is a no-brainer bill,” said Martinez, “It holds repeat offenders accountable.”

The bill is still in the early stages of the legislative process. Its next step is review by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending