Assemblymember Corey Jackson, D-Moreno Valley, has reintroduced legislation to lay the groundwork for EV manufacturing and job training in the Inland Empire.

In a phone interview, Jackson said there’s going to be strong demand in the coming years for EVs in California. A 2020 executive order signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom requires zero-emission vehicles to make up 100% of in-state sales of passenger cars by 2035.

“These are still jobs where you don’t need a college degree and you can receive training to be able to either help be a part of the building of electric vehicles, electric batteries and all of the things that go into it,” Jackson said.

Unlike California’s coastal counties, many Inland residents lack college educations. Diversifying the Inland economy is a top priority for many elected leaders in a region dominated by logistics — an industry expected to lose jobs to automation in the years ahead.

AB 72 would create an Electric Vehicle Economic Opportunity Zone in Riverside County “for the purpose of creating programs to make electric vehicle manufacturing jobs and education more accessible to lower income communities,” the bill’s text states.

California’s Labor & Workforce Development Agency would work with schools, EV makers and banks  “to develop … education, training and investment programs” in the zone, the bill read.

Riverside County would work with the state to map the zone’s boundaries, according to the bill. AB 72 would cost the state $5.8 million to start and $1.2 million a year going forward, according to a state analysis of the bill.

AB 72 is similar to AB 2448, which passed the legislature in 2024. Citing “cost pressures” to the state budget, Newsom vetoed the 2024 bill.

Jackson, whose district includes Perris, Moreno Valley, and parts of Riverside, San Jacinto and Hemet, hopes it’s different this time around.

“I know what it’s going to take, and I’m going to have to work on it to get the money necessary into the budget,” Jackson said.

Newsom, the assemblymember said, “only vetoed (the 2024 bill) because the money wasn’t already approved in the budget for it, and as a member of the budget committee and a leader in the budget committee, I’m going to work my butt off to try to get that done.”

Jackson sees parallels between his bill and how Hollywood and Silicon Valley, respectively, became dominant in the entertainment and technology sectors.

“Silicon Valley didn’t become Silicon Valley on its own. Hollywood did not become Hollywood on its own,” he said. “The state purposely invested dollars and incentives for those industries to take root and thrive.”

“The Inland Empire, it’s our turn to get those targeted investments. And our friends, families and neighbors need higher-paying jobs closer to where they live.”

The post Could Inland Empire become the Detroit of EV manufacturing? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In a 51 to 44 vote, the Senate overturned a Biden-era waiver that enabled California and a contingent of Democrat-led states to enforce zero-emission requirements for the sale of new passenger vehicles. After several hours of debate and testimony, legislators struck down a landmark regulation that aimed to drastically accelerate electric vehicle sales in California and nearly a dozen other states that chose to follow its lead, substantially reducing air pollution and planet-warming carbon emissions from tailpipes.

The Advanced Clean Cars II rule, enacted in 2022 by the California Air Resources Board and granted a federal waiver by the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency in December 2024, required car manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission or plug-in hybrid vehicles to California dealerships over the next decade. Starting next year, the rule would have mandated that 35% of all new vehicles supplied to California dealerships be zero-emission vehicles or plug-in hybrids. By 2035, it would’ve prohibited the sale of new, gas-only cars statewide.

By invalidating the rule, Republican senators stamped out one of California’s most ambitious environmental policies and, more broadly, challenged the state’s authority to enact vehicle standards to combat its notoriously unhealthy air quality. If the measure is signed into law by President Trump and survives impending legal challenges, the vote would serve as a coup de grace to the state’s decades-long efforts to comply with federal smog standards in Southern California and meet California’s own ambitious climate goals.

The zero-emission requirements were expected to eliminate nearly 70,000 tons of smog-forming emissions and 4,500 tons of soot statewide by 2040, preventing more than 1,200 premature deaths and providing $13 billion in public health benefits, according to the California Air Resources Board. It also was expected to prevent the release of 395 million metric tons of carbon emissions — roughly the amount released by 100 coal plants in a year.

Ahead of the vote, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) warned that nullifying this rule and stripping California’s regulatory power would have serious health effects across the state.

“We are sowing poison seeds for the future,” Schiff said. “Seeds that will grow to be more asthma and more sickness and more hospitalization and more death. That is the bleak but blatant reality of what we are debating here today.”

Republicans, however, argued that California’s zero-emission requirements threatened to cripple the American auto industry and significantly limit the options for car buyers. In the coming days, Republicans plan to undo additional California clean-air rules that require the state’s heavy-duty truck fleet to adopt cleaner engines and a growing percentage of zero-emission vehicles.

“Democrats have this delusional dream of eliminating gas-powered vehicles in America,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Tuesday from a lectern on the floor of the U.S. Capitol. “They want to force-feed electric vehicles to every man and woman who drives in this country. Well, Republicans are ready to use the Congressional Review Act to end this Democrat electric vehicle fantasy.”

Republicans moved ahead with the vote despite the warnings from the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian that the waivers could not be overturned with the Congressional Review Act — a law that was meant to allow legislators to inspect and potentially block federal rules adopted in the waning days of a previous presidential administration.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, said the vote was a flagrant abuse of the Congressional Review Act. He threatened to block or delay the confirmation process for four Trump nominees to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency if Senate Republicans voted to overturn California’s vehicle emission standards.

“It appears that Republicans want to overturn half a century of precedent in order to undermine California’s ability to protect the health of our residents by using the Congressional Review Act to revoke California’s waivers that allow us to set our own vehicle emission standards,” Padilla said. “Republicans seem to be putting the wealth of the big oil industry over the health of our constituents.”

Environmental advocates, many of whom had spent years supporting California’s emissions standards, expressed their disappointment in the vote.

“This is a major blow to the decades-long public health protections delivered under the Clean Air Act,” said Will Barrett, senior director of nationwide clean air advocacy for the American Lung Assn. “It is more important than ever that California and all other states that rely on Clean Air Act waivers continue to cut tailpipe pollution through homegrown, health-protective policies.”

Because of its historically poor air quality, California has been an innovator in clean car policy, enacting the nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards in 1966. California was later granted the special authority to adopt vehicle emission standards that are more strict than the federal government’s under the Clean Air Act. But the state must seek a federal waiver from the U.S. EPA for any specific rule to be enforceable.

In the five decades since then, the state has enacted dozens of rules to reduce air pollution and planet-warming greenhouse gases. Padilla stressed that these rules were largely meant to alleviate lung-aggravating smog, which was a persistent threat where he grew up in Los Angeles.

“On a pretty regular basis, we would be sent home from grade school because of the intensity and dangers of smog that settled over the San Fernando Valley,” Padilla said. “That’s the case for far too many Californians, still to this day. But it’s the reason why, decades ago, Congress recognized both California’s unique air quality challenges and its technical ingenuity, and granted California special authority to do something about it.”

Due to its enormous economy and population, automakers have conformed to California’s rules. In addition, many Democrat-led states have chosen to adhere to California’s auto emissions rules, applying more pressure on car companies first to make cleaner engines and later to manufacture more electric vehicles.

California leads the nation in zero-emission vehicle sales. In 2023 and 2024, about 25% of new cars sold in California were zero-emission or plug-in hybrids, according to the California Energy Commission. This year, the share of zero-emission vehicle sales has slightly slumped, making up only 23% of light-duty vehicle sales.

But the Advanced Clean Cars II rule would require a jump in zero-emission sales next year, with at least 35% of vehicles supplied to car dealer lots to be zero-emission or plug-in hybrids.

Mike Stanton, president of the National Automobile Dealers Assn., contended that consumer demand for electric vehicles falls far below California’s requirements, in part, because of unreliable charging infrastructure.

“Banning gas and hybrid cars is a national issue that should be decided by Congress, not an unelected state agency,” Stanton wrote in a letter to senators, referring to the California Air Resources Board.

In February, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin brought the Biden-era waivers to Congress, suggesting that they were federal rules that had not been reviewed. However, none of California’s waivers for the state’s vehicle emission standards had been brought before Congress for review, because they were largely regarded as administrative orders.

The House of Representatives voted this month to advance the resolution to the Senate. Thirty-five Democratic lawmakers, including California Reps. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) and Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), joined with the Republican majority.

In the Senate, the 51-44 vote was split along party lines.

Experts say the Senate vote could have lasting implications for congressional procedures.

To topple California auto emission standards, Senate Republicans controversially invoked the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that allows an incoming Congress to rescind major federal rules approved near the end of a previous presidential administration. This process notably allows federal legislators to bypass a filibuster and requires only a simple majority to repeal federal rules rather than the typical 60 votes.

However, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, said federal waivers for California emission standards were not subject to the Congressional Review Act, because the federal waiver is technically not a rule; it’s an order. The Senate Parliamentarian, a non-partisan advisor to the congressional body, upheld that interpretation, ruling that the Senate couldn’t use the Congressional Review Act to repeal California’s waivers.

The Senate vote proceeded in defiance of the parliamentarian’s ruling, marking a stunning rebuke of congressional norms.

The decision by Republican senators amounted to a “nuclear option” that would set a dangerous precedent, Padilla said.

“The old adage says, ‘What goes around comes around,’” he said. “It won’t be long before Democrats are once again in the driver’s seat, in the majority once again. And when that happens, all bets would be off.”

The post Senate votes to overturn California’s landmark ban on new gas-only car sales appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

After three straight years of strong growth, sales have stabilized in California, raising questions about whether the state will fail to meet its groundbreaking mandate banning sales of gas-powered vehicles.

About a quarter — 25.3% — of all new cars registered in California in 2024 were zero emissions, just slightly more than 25% in 2023, according to new California Energy Commission data. The flat sales follow several years of rapid growth — in 2020, only one in 13 cars sold was zero-emissions. Their share of California’s market is now three times larger than four years ago.

But the slowed pace of growth in the market puts the state’s climate and air pollution goals at risk. Under California’s mandate, approved in 2022, 35% of new 2026 car models sold by automakers must be zero emissions. That leaves considerable ground to make up as some 2026 models begin rolling out later this year.

The requirement ramps up to 68% for 2030 models, and in 2035, California’s rule bans all sales of gasoline-powered cars.

David Simpson, who owns three car dealerships in Orange County, said he is not seeing increased demand for electric cars. While the initial rollout of some models, such as the GMC Hummer EV, did well at first, the demand did not continue. Sales of the Chevrolet Equinox and Blazer EVs do alright, but aren’t strong, either, he said.

“The sales are declining,” Simpson said. “We’ve filled that gap of people who want those cars — and now they have them — and we’re not seeing a big, huge demand. I don’t see households going 100% EV.”

Dave Clegern, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, which oversees the electric car mandates, said in an email that while sales of zero-emission vehicles in California are “less dramatic than in years past,” the flat sales occurred in the context of an overall plateauing of car sales last year. 

Although the rules limit what automakers can sell, Californians are not required to buy electric cars. That means if consumer demand doesn’t increase, it could be a major black eye for Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has made electric cars a cornerstone of his agenda to fight climate change and clean the air. A spokesman for Newsom declined to comment. 

The state mandate, however, has some flexibility, Clegern said. First of all, it’s a multi-year formula: Each manufacturer’s sales of 2026 zero-emission vehicles must be 35% of its total sales averaged for model years 2022 through 2024. 

Manufacturers also can buy credits from automakers that have exceeded the target — companies that only sell electric models, such as Tesla or Rivian. To enforce compliance with California’s sales requirements, state officials could impose steep penalties of $20,000 per vehicle on manufacturers that fall short of quotas.

“Manufacturers may still be in compliance even if they do not achieve these specific sales volumes,” Clegern said.

Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Association, said  automakers could seek to avoid the fines by reducing the number of gas-powered cars they send to California dealers. He said that could leave fewer options for buyers, drive up prices and push some consumers to Nevada or Arizona to find the car they want, while others will hold on to their older, more polluting vehicles. 

“We’re just not going to make the mandate as presently drafted” so automakers will have to take action, Maas said. “The most rational is to constrain inventory.”

The auto industry group Alliance for Automotive Innovation has been raising these concerns since at least December, when it published a memo entitled, “It’s gonna take a miracle: California and states with EV sales requirements.” The group warns the mandate could depress auto sales in California — as well as in other states that adopt its rules. 

Last month, John Bozzella, the group’s chief executive, called California’s rules “by any measure not achievable” after President Donald Trump signed an executive order repealing federal rules promoting electric vehicles. 

“There’s a saying in the auto business: You can’t get ahead of the customer,” Bozzella said.

The outgoing Biden administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency granted California a waiver in December that allows the state to enforce its requirements phasing out new gas-powered cars. Many experts believe the Trump administration is likely to challenge the waiver through the courts.

Experts also anticipate that Trump could eliminate the $7,500 federal tax credit for zero-emission vehicle purchases, which would increase the cost of buying some electric cars. Newsom vowed last year to continue offering the incentive through state funding, although that promise came before Los Angeles faced devastating wildfires and the state released its fragile budget earlier this year.

Californians have purchased more than 2 million electric cars, leading the nation. The number has doubled in about two years.

But electric vehicle sales, which make up the majority of zero emission cars, grew by only 1.1% in 2024, with 378,910 sold compared to 374,668 in 2023. Plug-in hybrids, once considered a potential alternative to a purely electric model, remained relatively stable. And sales of hydrogen-powered cars all but collapsed last year, with sales plummeting to a meager 600 in 2024 from 3,119 in 2023.

The slower growth comes amid overall market sluggishness, with all auto sales in California dipping slightly last year to 1,752,030.

Loren McDonald, chief analyst for the charging app Paren, said a major contributor is a shift in consumer demographics.

The state’s market has moved beyond early electric car adopters — affluent, environmentally motivated buyers willing to overlook challenges like limited charging infrastructure and higher costs — and into the mainstream.

He said these new buyers, often from middle-income households or who live in apartment buildings without easy access to charging, are far less forgiving when it comes to electric cars. Concerns about range, broken chargers and upfront costs are deal breakers.

Tesla’s market dominance has exacerbated the issue. Many left-leaning California consumers, who were once loyal to Tesla, appear to have distanced themselves because of CEO Elon Musk’s controversial public persona and alliance with Trump.

As Tesla sales have softened, dropping 11% in California last year, the decline has disproportionately affected overall EV registration data in California because of the company’s significant market share, McDonald said. 

Affordability remains a crucial hurdle, though McDonald sees signs of improvement. Automakers have ramped up production, leading to competitive pricing and aggressive lease deals—many under $400 per month.

But mainstream consumers are largely unaware that electric vehicles offer long-term savings in fuel and maintenance, McDonald said, adding that better education is needed to convince consumers to take the leap, especially as electric car prices increasingly approach parity with gas-powered vehicles.

McDonald remains optimistic about 2025. The market will benefit from new electric models priced under $50,000 and technological advancements, such as faster charging and vehicle-to-home power capabilities. 

The post California’s surge in EV sales has stalled — so what happens to its landmark mandate? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California air regulators voted to approve changes to a key climate program aimed at reducing planet-warming emissions that has a wide swath of critics and could increase gas prices statewide.

The California Air Resources Board voted to make significant updates to the low carbon fuel standard, or LCFS, which requires the state to reduce the environmental impact of gas and other transportation fuels by incentivizing producers to cut emissions.

The plan approved late Friday at the end of a 12-hour meeting will increase the state’s emission reduction targets and fund charging infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles. It also will phase out incentives for capturing methane emissions from dairy farms to turn into fuel.

Environmental groups have criticized the program for stimulating the production of biofuels, which are derived from sources including plants and animal waste, when they say the state should focus more on supporting power for electric vehicles. They argue the proposal fails to adequately address those concerns.

The oil industry, state lawmakers and others have said the agency hasn’t been transparent about how the proposed updates could increase gas prices.

Agency staff released a cost-benefit analysis last year estimating the initial proposal could have led to an increase in gas prices by 47 cents per gallon by 2025. But the staff has not repeated the analysis since later updating the proposal and the agency contends it cannot accurately predict gas prices.

“If you’re going to ask drivers to pay a lot, which is what this program proposal is going to do, I think you need to be able to make the case that it’s worth paying for,” said Danny Cullenward, a climate economist with the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. “What concerns me most about this is I think a lot of the things that are being credited do not actually help the climate.”

Gas prices could increase by as high as 85 cents per gallon by 2030 and $1.50 per gallon by 2035 under the proposal, according to an estimate from Cullenward. Cullenward said his figures and the estimates initially released by board staff are not an apples-to-apples comparison, in part because his projection uses 2023 dollars and the board staff used 2021 dollars.

State Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican representing Palmdale in Southern California, said at the meeting that his constituents cannot afford an increase in gas prices.

“On behalf of the people of the 34th Assembly district, I ask you to not approve this rulemaking and find other alternatives that won’t cost us quite that much,” he said.

The California Air Resources Board says the program will ultimately lower the cost of sustainable transportation fuels.

The agency first approved the low carbon fuel standard in 2009, the first of its kind in the nation. It is part of California’s overall plan to achieve so-called carbon neutrality by 2045, meaning the state will remove as many carbon emissions from the atmosphere as it emits. The state has passed policies in recent years to phase out the sale of new fossil-fuel powered cars, trucks, trains and lawn mowers.

“The low carbon fuel standard has already successfully created lower-cost, lower-carbon alternatives, and the benefits of the proposal vastly outweigh those costs,” Steven Cliff, the agency’s executive officer, said last month.

Suncheth Bhat, chief commercial officer for EV Realty, an electric vehicle infrastructure company, called the program “one of the most powerful, transformational policies” to speed up the transition to electric vehicles.

The vote comes a day after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom called the state Legislature into a special session to protect some of California’s environmental and other liberal policies ahead of former President Donald Trump’s second term in office.

“CARB’s justification for this version of the LCFS as a bridge for combustion fuels while we transition to zero-emissions needs to be reconsidered in light of the profoundly altered landscape we suddenly landed in this week,” Adrian Martinez, deputy managing attorney at environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, said of Trump’s election win.

The Trump administration in 2019 revoked California’s ability to enforce its own tailpipe emissions standards. President Joe Biden later restored the state’s authority, which was upheld in federal court.

Future challenges from the Trump administration could lead to long court battles, said David Pettit, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute.

“In the meantime, I think we still need something … to enhance the development of electric vehicles and the electric vehicle infrastructure,” Pettit said. “The LCFS is a way that we might be able to do that.”

The post California air regulators approve changes to climate program that could raise gas prices appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

When they list measures that are making the most difference, it lines up with policies Trump has said he’ll target.

These rollbacks will come as more lives are being lost in heat waves, record amounts of climate pollution are accumulating in the atmosphere, the United States has been hit with what may be two of its most expensive hurricanes, and nations, which will meet in Baku, Azerbaijan next week for climate negotiations, have failed to take strong action to change these realities.

Here are some of the measures.

The Inflation Reduction Act, the nation’s landmark climate law

This law is significant because it is expected to reduce U.S. emissions by about 40% by 2030, if it unfolds as planned in the coming years.

It funnels money to measures that substitute clean energy for dirty. One major way it does so is by giving credits to businessespeople who build new solar and wind farms.

But it’s not limited to that. It encourages developers of geothermal energy and businesses that separate the carbon dioxide from their smokestacks and bury it underground. It incentivizes the next generation of nuclear power. It gives a $7,500 tax credit to people who buy electric cars. People who buy their cars used can get a credit too, as long as they don’t earn too much to qualify.

Trump, by contrast, has summed up his energy policy as “drill, baby, drill” and pledged to dismantle what he calls Democrats’ “green new scam” in favor of boosting production of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, the main causes of climate change.

He vows to end subsidies for wind power that were included in the landmark 2022 climate law.

If Trump does target the climate law, there are provisions that are likely safe. One is a credit for companies in advanced manufacturing, because it is perceived as “America first and pro-U.S. business,” said David Shepheard, partner and energy expert at the global consultant Baringa. Incentives for electric vehicles are likely most at risk, he added.

In a call Wednesday morning, Scott Segal, head of a communications group at the law firm Bracewell LLP, which represents the energy industry, said the climate law is not likely to be repealed.

Dan Jasper, a senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown, said repealing parts of the climate law could backfire because most of the investments and jobs are in Republican congressional districts.

Pollution from electric power plants

The main U.S. rule aimed at reducing the climate change that comes from making electricity at power plants that burn coal is also considered vulnerable. This rule from the Environmental Protection Agency, announced in April, would force many coal-fired plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years, Shepheard said.

It was projected to reduce roughly 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2047, along with tens of thousands of tons of other harmful air pollutants.

Industry groups and Republican-controlled states have filed legal challenges to a host of EPA rules including this one and Trump’s victory means the Justice Department is unlikely to defend it.

Under a Trump presidency, it is unlikely to survive, Shepheard said.

The United States has been reducing carbon dioxide emissions primarily by replacing coal-fired power plants with clean, renewable power, said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who chairs the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tracks countries’ carbon dioxide emissions.

“I hope that we don’t lose sight of the benefits of clean energy,” he said. “It’s not just about the climate. It’s about our lives and our health.”

Limiting leaks from damaging methane, or natural gas

The Biden administration was under pressure to reduce one of the main pollutants contributing to drought, heat waves, flooding and stronger hurricanes — methane or natural gas. It leaks out of oil and gas equipment, sometimes deliberately when companies consider it too expensive to transport.

The Biden administration issued the first national rules on this.

Industry groups and Republican-leaning states have challenged the rule in court. They say the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority and set unattainable standards.

The EPA said the rules are squarely within its legal responsibilities and would protect the public.

Fuel-efficient vehicles

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued its strongest rules on tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks under the Biden administration.

While it is unclear who will head the EPA under Trump, the agency is considered likely to begin a lengthy process to repeal and replace a host of standards including the one on tailpipe emissions, which Trump falsely calls an electric vehicle “mandate.″ Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental laws as president and that number is likely to grow in a second term.

Trump has said EV manufacturing will destroy jobs in the auto industry and has falsely claimed that battery-powered cars don’t work in cold weather and aren’t able to travel long distances. Trump softened his rhetoric in recent months after Tesla CEO Elon Musk endorsed him and campaigned heavily for his election.

Even so, industry officials expect Trump to try to slow a shift to electric cars.

Drilling in Alaska refuge

Trump is almost certain to reinstate oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, continuing a partisan battle that has persisted for decades. Biden and other Democratic presidents have blocked drilling in the sprawling refuge, which is home to polar bears, caribou and other wildlife. Trump opened the area to drilling in a 2017 tax cut law enacted by congressional Republicans. No drilling has occurred in the refuge, although the U.S. Bureau of Land Management on Wednesday proposed a lease sale by the end of December that could lead to oil drilling. The sale is required under the 2017 law.

Transition to cleaner energy, transport will continue

Trump, who has cast climate change as a “hoax,” has said he will also eliminate regulations by the Biden administration to increase the energy efficiency of lightbulbs, stoves, dishwashers and shower heads.

Dan Jasper, a senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown said climate action will continue to move forward at the state and local level.

Zara Ahmed, who leads policy analysis and science strategy at Carbon Direct, agreed. While there may be an abdication of leadership at the federal level on climate, she’s optimistic that states including California will continue to lead.

Clean Air Task Force Executive Director Armond Cohen said on Wednesday that states, cities, utilities and businesses that have committed to net zero emissions will keep working toward those goals, driving record installations of wind and solar energy.

Governors of both parties are also interested in ramping up nuclear energy as a carbon-free source of electricity, Cohen said.

Trump has said he, too, is interested in developing the next generation of nuclear reactors that are smaller than traditional reactors.

Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator who was Biden’s first national climate adviser, said Trump will be unable to stop clean energy such as wind, solar and geothermal power.

“No matter what Trump may say, the shift to clean energy is unstoppable and our country is not turning back,″ McCarthy said. Advocates for clean energy are bipartisan, well-organized “and fully prepared to deliver climate solutions, boost local economies, and drive climate ambition,′ she said.

The post In new term, Trump set to go after measures that are doing the most to fight climate change appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Assemblymember Corey Jackson, a Moreno Valley Democrat, is proposing an electric vehicle opportunity zone in the area, to expand training and education programs for EV technicians and engineers.

The bill could benefit car mechanics who build and maintain the vehicles, electricians and welders who make charging stations to power them, and software developers who design programs to run the cars. The bill would also offer business loans, tax credits, and grants to EV manufacturers.

“We’re trying to mimic what California did for Tesla, to get other people in the game,” Jackson said. “And to make sure those resources are centered in lower income and middle class communities, not just Silicon Valley or large urban areas.”

The bill passed the Assembly in May and survived the Senate appropriations committee last week, but must win final approval in the Legislature by Aug. 31 to reach the governor’s desk. Startup costs would be at least $4.5 million with $1.2 million in annual expenses after that, according to the bill analysis, making it trickier to pass amid the state’s $47 billion budget deficit.

Jackson and the bill’s supporters maintain it’s a sound investment. Creating well-paid trade and technical jobs is a high priority for leaders in the Inland Empire, a region known as a warehouse center and bedroom community. Local engineering students and other university graduates often commute several hours to work in coastal counties, or leave the region entirely.

The opportunity zone “will help to keep these educated people in the region because there will be jobs for them,” Jackson said.

The biggest beneficiary, at least initially, could be a luxury EV maker.

The precise boundaries of the opportunity zone are yet to be determined, but Jackson said it would likely fall in Moreno Valley, home to Karma Automotive, which has produced 1,000 vehicles so far, at prices starting at $147,000 and reaching $500,000.

These aren’t the commuter cars that will get California to its goal of transitioning all new vehicles to zero emissions by 2035. But Karma President Marques McCammon said its vehicles serve as proof of concept for technology that can eventually be deployed by bigger automakers.

“The easiest way to de-risk new technologies is to release them into markets that have a higher tolerance for risks,” he said.

In other words, customers who can afford an upscale EV will, in effect, test drive new technology. Then other car manufacturers can scale that up to build tens of thousands of electric cars at lower prices.

“I can help my business and shareholders, and also be a support system and a learning laboratory for the broader industry,” McCammon said.

Moreno Valley Mayor Pro Tem Cheylynda Barnard, who’s also executive director of the Inland Empire Labor and Community Center, said the city is rooting for the bill.

“Moreno Valley is ripe with talent and getting this type of innovation in the city would be helpful in creating jobs and opportunities,” she said.

There’s already an automotive hybrid and EV training program at Riverside City College, where students can earn certificates or associate degrees. Jackson’s bill would extend internships and apprenticeships to more students and encourage other EV automakers to locate in the region, said Riverside Community College District Trustee Keri Then.

“While our students are completing certificates or apprenticeships or degree programs they earn while they learn, so they graduate with near zero debt for their experience,” she said.

The EV zone would support skilled trade workers, along with engineers and scientists, creating pipelines for well-paid jobs that don’t require four-year degrees, Jackson said.

“This generation wants to know what they are going to get for spending so much time and money for their education,” he said. “We want to make sure that people know that if you choose this pathway, there’s a job waiting for you. There’s a profession waiting for you.”

For McCammon, the car business is a life-long pursuit. He said he grew up playing with the golden wrench his grandfather received as a Chrysler mechanic. McCammon later earned undergraduate and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering, before working as an engineer and executive at Chrysler and other firms. He hopes to guide Inland Empire students down the same path.

“I want to see more female engineers and technicians,” McCammon said. “I want to see more Blacks and Latinos. I want another generation coming into our industry.”

Jackson’s bill notes that a Riverside County opportunity zone would be a model for other EV hubs around the state. But California will need a broader approach to meet its zero emissions goals, said Orville Thomas, CEO of the California Mobility Center, a Sacramento organization with similar goals of promoting clean technology and transportation.

“I hope we’re not just saying each county has to do their own opportunity zone,” he said. “I hope the state looks at it and says we’re going to do a statewide system that accelerates zero emissions manufacturing.”

But as a starting point Riverside County is a good site for an EV hub, with its proximity to Salton Sea lithium deposits needed for battery production, Thomas said.

Riverside County has a bit of a split personality when it comes to sustainability. It’s a center for lithium mining and other alternative energy projects such as wind and solar farms. Yet Riverside and neighboring San Bernardino County consistently rank among the worst in the nation for ozone and particulate air pollution. Establishing an EV hub won’t immediately fix that, but it could move the needle.

“When the state reaches its climate goals, then the Inland Empire is going to benefit from that,” Jackson said. “The Inland Empire… continues to be one of the fastest growing regions in the state. If we are not buying and transitioning to electric vehicles, then the state as a whole won’t.”

The post Why Riverside County? California lawmakers want to make the Inland Empire an EV manufacturing hub appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

By his Executive Order and an associated Action Plan, Biden’s administration calls for 50% of all new vehicles sold in America by 2030 to be EVs. That means an additional 50 million new EVs on the road in the next nine years, all in an effort to lower Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, namely CO2.

On December 13, 2021, the administration announced its plan to spend $7.5 billion to construct 500,000 EV charging stations throughout the US. The plan’s funding comes from the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure & Jobs Act Biden signed on November 15, 2021.

Then, on January 20, President Biden signed Executive Order 13990—Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. This EO includes a wide range of environmental policies including vehicle fuel economy standards. The scariest of those policies is a set of new regulations from the EPA called SAFE, which stands for The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021-2026:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalize updated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026.

Fun Fact: These standards, imposed on car manufacturers, set the minimum average fuel economy limit (i.e., 40 miles per gallon) for their entire fleet of vehicles. A gas-powered fleet alone cannot meet these standards. Instead, car companies must sell more EVs to increase their fleet-wide average fuel economy. One way is to hawk EVs as more fuel-efficient.

On the EPA-mandated sticker on new EVs, you’ll see a fuel economy designation called MPGe (Miles Per Gallon equivalent). It’s usually greater than 100, making unwary consumers believe the vehicle is several times more fuel-efficient than a comparable gas guzzler. However, EVs are not really several times more fuel-efficient (but that’s a topic for another day).

Americans bought or leased about 15 million new cars and light trucks in 2021 and that number is forecasted to grow to 17 million by 2030. Assuming a ramp-up in EV sales from 2.3 million in 2021 to 8.5 million in 2030 (50% of 17 million), there would be 50 million more new EVs plugged into our electrical grid. The big question, then, is where vast amounts of so-called “clean energy” come from to charge all those EVs and what will it cost consumers.

Fun Fact: The current average price of electricity that residential consumers pay is $.14 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), although it varies from $.09 to $.23 per kWh based upon local supply and demand. Imagine if the price of electricity in your area increased by 50%. Or worse, imagine there is no electricity to heat and cool your home or…charge your brand-new EV.

Most major auto manufacturers (and a few trendy new ones) are rushing to market with all-electric vehicles. However, they are not spending billions on EV development because of consumer demand. Instead, onerous CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) and EPA imposed GHG emission standards force them into the EV market. The NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) latest proposed CAFE standards directly respond to Biden’s Executive Order 13990 and call for a whopping 8% per year increase (up from the current 1.5% per year) in average fleet fuel economy from 2024 to 2026. That’s an average increase of 12 miles per gallon above the 2021 standard. Eventually, gas-powered vehicles alone won’t be able to meet these standards, making EV’s the only real alternative.

In the next few years, Biden’s administration will allocate $5.0 billion to individual states and award another $2.5 billion to selected contractors to facilitate installing 500,000 new charging stations. Simultaneously, the administration will use various regulatory means—e.g., CAFE standards, GHG standards, and EV tax credits—to put 50 million new EVs onto the road by 2030. Unfortunately, America won’t have the electricity needed to charge those EVs unless new and expanded fossil fuel-based power plants are built now.

The average EV consumes over 25 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electrical power to go 100 miles or 3,000 kWh to go 12,000 miles per year. That means an additional 150 billion kWh of electricity to charge 50 million new EVs. In 2020, total U.S. retail electricity sales to end-use customers were about 3.7 trillion kWh (3,700 billion kWh). An additional 150 billion kWh would be a 4% increase in total demand over the next nine years—just to charge new EVs!

America Electric Power Grid is already strained in many parts of the country. In 2020, our electric power generation makeup was 40% natural gas, 19% coal, 20% nuclear, 8% wind, 7% hydro, 2% solar, and 4% other fuel sources, meaning roughly 60% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels and another 27% comes from nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. The administration doesn’t plan to build new nuclear or hydroelectric plants. Fun Fact: America imports 47 billion kWh each year from Canada to meet peak demand. America’s largest natural gas-powered plants, like those in Gila Bend, Arizona, can generate 2.2 GW, and the largest coal-powered plants, like the Robert Sherer power plant in Georgia, can generate 3.5 GW of continuous electric power, at full capacity. But because electricity can’t be stored and, because the demand fluctuates dramatically with the weather and the time of day, power plants operate at only about 40% of their maximum output capacity, on average. Thus, a 2.2 GW plant operating at 40% capacity generates about 7.7 billion kWh of useable electricity in one year (2.2 GW x 40% x 8760 hours/year).

Wind and solar power will continue to grow but such power plants are not nearly large enough to provide the continuous power needed to meet the demand of 50 million additional EVs. For perspective, the capacity of America’s largest wind farm, Alta Wind Energy of California, is 1.5 gigawatts (GW) and the capacity of America’s largest solar farm, Solar Star of California, is .6 GW. Worse, they only generate electricity when the wind blows and the sun shines. Therefore, wind farms typically operate at less than 50% capacity and solar farms typically operate at only 25% of capacity A huge 1.5 GW wind farm (32,000 acres) operating at 50% capacity will generate about 6.6 billion kWh of useable electricity per year (1.5 GW x 50% x 8760 hrs./yr) and a huge .6 GW solar farm will only generate about 1.3 billion kWh per year (.6 GW x 25% x 8760).

Here’s the bottom line: There isn’t nearly enough electrical power available or in the pipeline to fuel 50 million new EVs by 2030. That would require an additional 150 billion kWh’s per year of deliverable electricity. Even the largest power plants only deliver about 8 billion kWh’s per year.

To achieve the administration’s climate change policy goals for EVs, America must build and commission about 20 large new fossil fuel-powered plants or several dozen large new wind and solar farms. That’s impossible by 2030 because large power plants take years to plan, build and bring online. Which means 2030 will either collapse the energy grid or result in a lot of cars that won’t go.

—-

Jerry Korth is a seasoned entrepreneur and inventor having founded several small high-tech businesses. He is currently working on a green energy project to convert waste motor oil into low sulphur marine diesel fuel.

Jerry Korth | Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.