California

Supreme Court ruling could jeopardize California's environmental rules

Published

1 year ago

July 3, 2024

Supreme Court ruling could jeopardize California's environmental rules

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling will probably pave the way for more legal challenges — and potential setbacks — for California’s groundbreaking clean air rules and myriad other federal environmental protections.

In a 6-3 decision last week, the Supreme Court overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine, a long-standing legal precedent that instructed U.S. courts to rely on federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. By invalidating the legal doctrine, the nation’s highest court has effectively stripped power from federal administrative agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and handed more authority to U.S. courts to independently decide whether newly enacted rules are consistent with federal law.

The six justices voting to overturn the deference rule were appointed by Republican presidents, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion. The decision was repudiated by Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented along with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor — all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents.

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

“What actions can be taken to address climate change or other environmental challenges?” Kagan asked. “What will the nation’s health-care system look like in the coming decades? Or the financial or transportation systems? What rules are going to constrain the development of A.I.?

“In every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role.”

After years of political divisiveness and congressional gridlock, the U.S. EPA has been forced to use decades-old environmental laws to craft modern regulations to slow climate change and crack down on pollution from new industries. Legal experts say the ruling could have a chilling effect on ambitious federal rulemaking, which will now be subject to a federal judiciary filled with Trump appointees.

This may also spell trouble for California’s ambitious rules for vehicle emissions, which have relied on Obama- and Biden-era interpretations of the Clean Air Act — a law last amended in 1990 that doesn’t even mention greenhouse gases.

With at least nine of California’s clean air rules awaiting EPA approval, the Supreme Court decision raises the stakes on the numerous court battles over the state’s zero-emission vehicle mandates and other emissions standards.

“While the courts are entitled to hear what the agency thinks, they don’t have to respect it,” said Julia Stein, deputy director for the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law. “They’re open to adopt their own interpretation.”

The Supreme Court ruling could also have implications for the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into bodies of water.

The law applies to “navigable waters,” which has left uncertainty over whether habitats like wetlands and creeks are covered.

The potential for federal courts to alter environmental rules underscores the importance of states having their own laws on the books, Stein said.

“We have our own statutory scheme in California applied very robustly by state agencies here at home,” Stein said about water regulation. “So even if something were to happen at the federal level, we have a very robust backup at the state level to manage that.”

Source link

California

California wants Verizon to compromise more on DEI

Published

7 hours ago

December 18, 2025

Press Room

California wants Verizon to compromise more on DEI

A CA judge recommends approval for Verizon/Frontier but thinks more DEI commitments are neededNotably, the judge determined Verizon’s letter to the FCC doesn’ | A state judge recommended California approve the Verizon/Frontier deal, if the operator agrees to some DEI and workforce commitments.

Source link

California

California governor race heats up with uncertainty and potential surprises

Published

19 hours ago

December 18, 2025

Press Room

California governor race heats up with uncertainty and potential surprises

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) As the race for California’s next governor intensifies, uncertainty looms with the primary election just six months away.

A recent Emerson College poll shows Republican Chad Bianco leading by a narrow margin of one point, while 31% of voters remain undecided.

California governor race heats up with uncertainty and potential surprises (KBFX)

“The field remains wide open,” said Tal Eslick, owner of Vista Consulting. “There’s a half dozen credible Democrats in the race. There’s really a couple – two – namely Republicans.”

Eslick noted that Bianco’s lead is more reflective of the crowded Democratic field than a shift toward Republicans statewide.

California governor race heats up with uncertainty and potential surprises (Photo: AdobeStock)

He suggested a “black horse candidate” could still emerge, possibly from Hollywood or outside politics.

With rising energy and gas prices, affordability is expected to be a key issue for voters.

California governor race heats up with uncertainty and potential surprises (AP Photo/Juliana Yamada, File)

“I think that you could also see voters vote with their pockets,” Eslick said, highlighting the potential for a non-traditional candidate to gain traction.

Source link

California

California threatens Tesla with 30-day suspension of sales license for deceptive self-driving claims

Published

1 day ago

December 17, 2025

Press Room

California threatens Tesla with 30-day suspension of sales license for deceptive self-driving claims

SAN FRANCISCO — California regulators are threatening to suspend Tesla’s license to sell its electric cars in the state early next year unless the automaker tones down its marketing tactics for its self-driving features after a judge concluded the Elon Musk-led company has been misleading consumers about the technology’s capabilities.

The potential 30-day blackout of Tesla’s California sales is the primary punishment being recommended to the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles in a decision released late Tuesday. The ruling by Administrative Law Judge Juliet Cox determined that Tesla had for years engaged in deceptive marketing practices by using the terms “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” to promote the autonomous technology available in many of its cars.

After presiding over five days of hearings held in Oakland, California in July, Cox also recommended suspending Tesla’s license to manufacture cars at its plant in Fremont, California. But California regulators aren’t going to impose that part of the judge’s proposed penalty.

Tesla will have a 90-day window to make changes that more clearly convey the limits of its self-driving technology to avoid having its California sales license suspended. After California regulators filed its action against Tesla in 2023, the Austin, Texas, company already made one significant change by putting in wording that made it clear its Full Self-Driving package still required supervision by a human driver while it’s deployed.

“Tesla can take simple steps to pause this decision and permanently resolve this issue — steps autonomous vehicle companies and other automakers have been able to achieve,” said Steve Gordon, the director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Tesla didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

The automaker has already been plagued by a global downturn in demand that began during a backlash to Musk’s high-profile role overseeing cuts in the U.S. government budget overseeing the Department of Government that President Donald Trump created in his administration. Increased competition and an older lineup of vehicles also weighed on Tesla sales, although the company did revamp its Model Y, the world’s bestselling vehicle, and unveil less-expensive versions of the Model Y and Model X.

Although Musk left Washington after a falling out with Trump, the fallout has continued to weigh on Tesla’s auto sales, which had decreased by 9% from 2024 through the first nine months of this year.

Despite the slump and the threatened sales suspension in California, Tesla’s stock price touched an all-time high $495.28 during Wednesday’s early trading before backtracking later to fall below $470. Despite that reversal, Tesla’s shares are still worth slightly more than they were before Musk’s ill-fated stint in the Trump administration — a “somewhat successful” assignment he recently said he wouldn’t take on again.

The performance of Tesla’s stock against the backdrop of eroding auto sales reflects the increasing emphasis that investors are placing on Musk’s efforts to develop artificial intelligence technology to implant into humanoid robots and a fleet of self-driving Teslas that will operate as robotaxis across the U.S.

Musk has been promising Tesla’s self-driving technology would fulfill his robotaxi vision for years without delivering on the promise, but the company finally began testing the concept in Austin earlier this year, albeit with a human supervisor in the car to take over if something went awry. Just a few days ago, Musk disclosed Tesla had started tests of its robotaxis without a safety monitor in the vehicle.

California regulators are far from the first critic to accuse Tesla of exaggerating the capabilities of its self-driving technology in a potentially dangerous manner. The company has steadfastly insisted that information contained in its vehicle’s owner’s manual on its website have made it clear that its self-driving technology still requires human supervision, even while releasing a 2020 video depicting one of its cars purportedly driving on its own. The video, cited as evidence against Tesla in the decision recommending a suspension of the company’s California sales license, remained on its website for nearly four years.

Tesla has been targeted in a variety of lawsuits alleging its mischaracterizations about self-driving technology have lulled humans into a false of security that have resulted in lethal accidents. The company has settled or prevailed in several cases, but earlier this year a Miami jury held Tesla partly responsible for a lethal crash in Florida that occurred while Autopilot was deployed and ordered the automaker to pay more than $240 million in damages.

Source link