Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Electric Vehicles

California Is Quietly Trump-Proofing Its EV Rules

Meanwhile, automakers and policymakers alike are looking to it for inspiration.

•
A California handshake.
california stellantis epa
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Even as the Environmental Protection Agency was preparing to release federal tailpipe emissions rules that will steer more U.S. drivers into electric vehicles, California was working in the background to harden its own, more stringent emissions standards.

On Tuesday, the state announced an agreement with Stellantis, the automaking conglomerate that contains the Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram brands to comply with more restrictive tailpipe emissions rules through 2026. California also said Stellantis would go along with its electrification mandates through 2030 — regardless of whether either is struck down by federal regulators or the courts.

The agreement is part of California’s effort to preserve its ability to set emissions standards and mandate electrification even with a hostile White House and judicial branch. By trying to get enough of the industry to agree to its rules voluntarily and not join any effort that may arise to throw them out, it hopes either to preserve its rule-making ability or, in the worst case scenario, leverage the industry’s desire for predictability to keep the rules themselves intact.

David Clegern, public information officer at the California Air Resources Board, told me there was no connection between Tuesday’s agreement and today’s EPA announcement. The deal “gives Stellantis flexibility in how they meet California's existing greenhouse gas emissions vehicle requirements," he said. In exchange, the state gets an even deeper emissions cut than it would otherwise — some 10 million extra tons of foregone greenhouse gas emissions.

Stellantis also agreed “not to oppose California’s authority under the Clean Air Act for its greenhouse gas emissions and zero-emissions vehicle standards,” the California Air Resources Board said in its announcement of the agreement.

California has long had the ability to set its own emissions standards thanks to the structure of the Clean Air Act and a waiver from the EPA. California got some automakers to agree to a version of Obama-era tailpipe emissions rules in the summer of 2019 that the Trump administration had planned on scrapping, after which Trump officials revoked California’s ability to set emissions rules. California finalized its agreement with the automakers the following year, then regained its authority to set emissions rules in 2022.

The principle behind the Stellantis deal is similar to those earlier agreements, Clegern said. Stellantis had been on the outside looking in on California’s deals with automakers, and late last year initiated an administrative process to try to get them thrown out. (It was unsuccessful.) Now, the company has agreed not only to implement emissions and electrification rules, but also to invest in electrification in the state by spending $4 million on charging infrastructure in California and $6 million in states that also adopt California’s emissions rules.

Meanwhile, the EPA is working on a new waiver process for California’s electrification standards, which would need to be completed before the end of this year to both avoid interference from a potential incoming Republican administration and to make sure it applies on the schedule the state has set out, Kathy Harris, clean vehicles director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. The rules, known as the Advanced Clean Car Standard II regulations, start with the 2026 model year and apply through 2035 and mandate that all new car sales in the state be electric by the middle of the 2030s.

About a dozen other states so far have adopted the ACC II standards, including Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon.

Many commenters on the EPA car emission proposal set out the California rules as a model for what the agency should do. “Vehicle manufacturers also commented that they had extensive collaboration with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) during the development of CARB’s recently finalized Advanced Clean Car II (ACC II) standards,” according to the final rule, “and industry broadly recommended that EPA adopt the ACC II program in lieu of our proposed standards.”

In the end, the EPA rules follow a different model than the California standards, Harris said. Crucially, the EPA isn’t mandating electrification. In remarks at a White House even on Wednesday, EPA administrator Michael Regan emphasized that they were instead technology neutral and performance based, meaning that they leave it up to the automakers to figure out how to comply.

David Reichmuth, the senior engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ clean transportation program, told me that, compared to California's, the EPA rules “are distinct in what they regulate and how they regulate vehicles,” he told me. Nevertheless, “they are pulling in the same direction in trying to reduce emissions from transportation and air pollution from vehicles.”

California’s ability to set its own emissions rules is not just likely to be questioned by a Republican administration should Donald Trump win in 2025, it also could be at risk in the courts. Ohio and other states with Republican attorneys general sued the EPA in 2022 over the existence of the California waiver in a case that was heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last fall. The ruling is still pending.

Blue
🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

A Giant Data Center Offers a Permitting Reform Test Case

What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?

Project Jupiter.
Heatmap Illustration/Project Jupiter, Library of Congress

One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?

Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Trump Administration Is Still Messing with Offshore Wind Farms

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. New England (and Maryland) – The Trump administration is still messing with offshore wind farms, even while trying to pass a permitting reform deal. Examining the court filings reveals why they may feel empowered to do it — and I’m not sure how this ends.

  • Last Friday, in a legal case brought by anti-wind activists, the Justice Department submitted a motion in federal court to send the construction and operations plan for Orsted’s Revolution Wind project in New England back to the Interior Department for more analysis. On Wednesday, the DOJ entered a similar motion in another case challenging the construction and operations plan for U.S. Wind’s MarWin project off the coast of Maryland in a lawsuit brought by the state’s coastal community of Ocean City.
  • Trump’s actions led some to question whether the president was sabotaging the deal, and others to claim the media coverage itself was an attempt to kill it. Going further, supporters of the bipartisan bill claimed the DOJ's motions were precisely why the bill should become law, implying it would guard offshore wind farms against this sort of maneuver.
  • However, for the bill’s backers, it’s worth considering why the Trump administration believes it has the legal authority to do this. It’s also time to ask whether the bill would actually protect these wind farms against this tactic.
  • To answer those questions, you have to rewind. On May 1, 2025, the Interior Department withdrew a Biden solicitor’s opinion instructing the agency to “strike a rational balance” between wind power and fishing interests. This revocation document is technically not in effect at the moment; one year later, a federal court ruled the opinion was potentially illegal as a part of a preliminary injunction on five anti-renewables actions requested by solar and wind trade groups. The Trump administration is contesting that ruling, and the administration has filed a notice of appeal.
  • In August, despite that opinion being in doubt, a federal judge granted Trump permission under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to remand the construction and operations plan for the now-defunct Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm in the waters of New Jersey. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb specifically wrote that Atlantic Shores failed to demonstrate the federal government had limitations under OSCLA on revisiting these plans and that the injunction from the litigation on appeal “did not prohibit all reevaluation of agency action.”
  • In the recent Revolution and MarWin filings, Trump’s Justice Department argues the construction and operations plans should be remanded under OSCLA without being vacated. The DOJ motions include claims that previous decision documents did not adequately explain impacts to commercial fishing and other industries that use OSCLA waters. It’s not clear if the administration will win these motions.
  • The bipartisan permitting bill would bar the Interior Department and other federal agencies from taking “any new action that would revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, or alter a federal authorization or permit in effect on or after September 16, 2026,” or “any other action to interfere with or prevent the construction or operation at full capacity of a project that has secured all necessary federal authorizations and permits.” The restriction exempts cases where “the agency is required to take such action by order of a court.” As I wrote in our lengthy piece explaining the bill, this provision has a damages component that allows companies impacted by violations to pursue financial compensation.
  • Here’s the billion-dollar question I expect we won’t have answered unless the bill language is enacted and then litigated: Would the court order exception apply to rulings that grant these motions? Or would the developers be able to sue for damages?

2. Columbia County, N.Y. – New York’s renewable energy permitting office has rejected an upstate solar farm on farmland as a House Democrat representing the area joined hands with the Trump administration in publicly railing against the project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

Climate Races to Watch This November

These seven elections could change state energy policy.

Watching voting.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

No matter how well Democrats do in the House and Senate in November, it’s unlikely to mean anything new on climate policy in Washington, D.C., for as long as Donald Trump remains in the White House.

That is not true when it comes to the other elections this year.

Several states are on the verge of a possible Democratic trifecta, meaning unified control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion. It’s a position that could enable such states to either top off existing climate and energy policies passed in the last decade or to make the first real run at climate legislation in recent history.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue