2035 California PHEV Mandate challenges

[Max Rockatansky]

The President signed the 2035 PHEV mandate revocation today:

https://nypost.com/2025/06/12/us-news/trump-ends-california-electric-car-mandate-and-unveils-plan-to-ban-windmills-one-of-the-greatest-scams/

It seems that windmill farms are a sore subject as Trump made a big deal about new projects.  The proposed Morro Bay Windmill farm was a big piece of what was planned to support the PHEV mandate.  I suspect what Trump was on about insinuates that the Morro Bay proposal is going to come under more scrutiny. 

So now we know which rights are meant when this administration starts advocating for "state's rights."

Yeah, there is a lot of contradictions afoot with these days in the Federal Government.  I was somewhat surprised that there is a push to shutter FEMA and dump disaster response fully onto states.  Seems a little strange to push for a singular national emissions standard and then dump unified command response to major disasters.

I will say though that it is pretty unfair for only one state to have so much autonomy with emissions and the ability to obtain waivers.  That autonomy to set greater than Federal emissions standards ought to be extended to all states or eliminated.  But that's just my opinion in trying to look at this from as middle of the road as I possibly can.

[Rothman]

The President signed the 2035 PHEV mandate revocation today:

https://nypost.com/2025/06/12/us-news/trump-ends-california-electric-car-mandate-and-unveils-plan-to-ban-windmills-one-of-the-greatest-scams/

It seems that windmill farms are a sore subject as Trump made a big deal about new projects.  The proposed Morro Bay Windmill farm was a big piece of what was planned to support the PHEV mandate.  I suspect what Trump was on about insinuates that the Morro Bay proposal is going to come under more scrutiny. 

So now we know which rights are meant when this administration starts advocating for "state's rights."

Yeah, there is a lot of contradictions afoot with this stuff.  I was a little surprised that there is a push to shutter FEMA and dump disaster response fully onto states.  Seems a little strange to push for a singular national emissions standard and then dump unified command response to disasters.

I will say though that it is pretty unfair for one state to have so much autonomy with emissions and the ability to obtain waivers.  That autonomy to set greater than Federal emissions standards ought to be extended to all states or eliminated.  But that's just my opinion in trying to look at this from as middle of the road as I possibly can.

Never understood why people assume the truth is in the center.

[kphoger]

That autonomy to set greater than Federal emissions standards ought to be extended to all states or eliminated.

That makes sense.

[Max Rockatansky]

The President signed the 2035 PHEV mandate revocation today:

https://nypost.com/2025/06/12/us-news/trump-ends-california-electric-car-mandate-and-unveils-plan-to-ban-windmills-one-of-the-greatest-scams/

It seems that windmill farms are a sore subject as Trump made a big deal about new projects.  The proposed Morro Bay Windmill farm was a big piece of what was planned to support the PHEV mandate.  I suspect what Trump was on about insinuates that the Morro Bay proposal is going to come under more scrutiny. 

So now we know which rights are meant when this administration starts advocating for "state's rights."

Yeah, there is a lot of contradictions afoot with this stuff.  I was a little surprised that there is a push to shutter FEMA and dump disaster response fully onto states.  Seems a little strange to push for a singular national emissions standard and then dump unified command response to disasters.

I will say though that it is pretty unfair for one state to have so much autonomy with emissions and the ability to obtain waivers.  That autonomy to set greater than Federal emissions standards ought to be extended to all states or eliminated.  But that's just my opinion in trying to look at this from as middle of the road as I possibly can.

Never understood why people assume the truth is in the center.

It certainly hasn't been decided in the center either way up to this point.  Who's to say all these waivers won't be reinstated the next time there is a Democrat Executive and House majority?  That's pretty much what happened when Biden took office after the first Trump Administration tried to revoke California's EPA waivers.  It would be slightly harder to overturn again with actual legislation being passed this time, but not impossible.

[kphoger]

Never understood why people assume the truth is in the center.

Compromise is at the heart of democracy generally, and US democracy specifically.

[pderocco]

The problem is simply that California is such a huge market that a California standard becomes a de facto national standard, and the rest of the country doesn't wish to be governed by one state.

[tawnuskgrevy]

The problem is simply that California is such a huge market that a California standard becomes a de facto national standard, and the rest of the country doesn't wish to be governed by one state.

Doesn't seem like a problem to me; if other states want to flex their muscles with regard to setting industry standards, maybe they should grow into large enough markets such that industry will pay attention to them.

I do agree that other states should be able to set their own (higher) standards if desired (much like how some states have higher minimum wage requirements than the federal standard); *restricting* that right to California seems largely arbitrary.

[Scott5114]

Never understood why people assume the truth is in the center.

Compromise is at the heart of democracy generally, and US democracy specifically.

Which means the system stops working when one side says the sky is blue and the other side says it's yellow. You can't compromise on the sky being green.

[Rothman]

Never understood why people assume the truth is in the center.

Compromise is at the heart of democracy generally, and US democracy specifically.

Compromising to do the wrong thing is still doing the wrong thing.

[kalvado]

Never understood why people assume the truth is in the center.

Compromise is at the heart of democracy generally, and US democracy specifically.

Compromising to do the wrong thing is still doing the wrong thing.

Who is to decide right or wrong though?

[Max Rockatansky]

Never understood why people assume the truth is in the center.

Compromise is at the heart of democracy generally, and US democracy specifically.

Compromising to do the wrong thing is still doing the wrong thing.

I don't see how the 2035 PHEV mandate was set up to survive any serious challenge.  The goal timeline was way too fast and way too reliant upon many things coming true like the 25GW Wind Farm at Morro Bay.  I certainly don't think it accounted for the cost pushed upon the average consumer in such a short timeframe.

Had this been 2050 maybe I would have felt different?  I don't even think 2050 per se would need to be mandated as the market was trending towards hybrids, PHEVs and full EVs anyway. 

[Rothman]

Never understood why people assume the truth is in the center.

Compromise is at the heart of democracy generally, and US democracy specifically.

Compromising to do the wrong thing is still doing the wrong thing.

I don't see how the 2035 PHEV mandate was set up to survive any serious challenge.  The goal timeline was way too fast and way too reliant upon many things coming true like the 25GW Wind Farm at Morro Bay.  I certainly don't think it accounted for the cost pushed upon the average consumer in such a short timeframe.

Had this been 2050 maybe I would have felt different?  I don't even think 2050 per se would need to be mandated as the market was trending towards PHEVs and full EVs anyway. 

Eh, whichever way it "should be" is fine.  I was just commenting that the tendency to think that the center route will achieve intended goals is more mantra than proven.

[kphoger]

Doesn't seem like a problem to me; if other states want to flex their muscles with regard to setting industry standards, maybe they should grow into large enough markets such that industry will pay attention to them.

User location checks out.

Which means the system stops working when one side says the sky is blue and the other side says it's yellow. You can't compromise on the sky being green.

No, but compromise might instead look something like "We're going to double down on saying the sky is blue, but we'll also thrown in a funding mechanism for increased availability of yellow-sky-filtering glasses for anyone who meets the income requirements".  Or whatever.

Compromising to do the wrong thing is still doing the wrong thing.

Typically, there are a lot of shades of grey between doing what's right and doing what's wrong.  Compromise means not insisting on either 100% black or 100% white, for the sake of maintaining overall civility.

Who is to decide right or wrong though?

Online forum commenters, obviously.

I don't see how the 2035 PHEV mandate was set up to survive any serious challenge. ... I certainly don't think it accounted for the cost pushed upon the average consumer in such a short timeframe.

I've never gotten the impression that any 'big wins' by the green left were ever intended to account for the cost pushed upon the average consumer.  They always feel like the intent is to lob a grenade into things and then just assume everyone will figure out how to put the pieces back together well.

[kalvado]

Never understood why people assume the truth is in the center.

Compromise is at the heart of democracy generally, and US democracy specifically.

Compromising to do the wrong thing is still doing the wrong thing.

I don't see how the 2035 PHEV mandate was set up to survive any serious challenge.  The goal timeline was way too fast and way too reliant upon many things coming true like the 25GW Wind Farm at Morro Bay.  I certainly don't think it accounted for the cost pushed upon the average consumer in such a short timeframe.

Had this been 2050 maybe I would have felt different?  I don't even think 2050 per se would need to be mandated as the market was trending towards PHEVs and full EVs anyway. 

Eh, whichever way it "should be" is fine.  I was just commenting that the tendency to think that the center route will achieve intended goals is more mantra than proven.

I don't see how the 2035 PHEV mandate was set up to survive any serious challenge. ... I certainly don't think it accounted for the cost pushed upon the average consumer in such a short timeframe.

I've never gotten the impression that any 'big wins' by the green left were ever intended to account for the cost pushed upon the average consumer.  They always feel like the intent is to lob a grenade into things and then just assume everyone will figure out how to put the pieces back together well.

Center route is often made of those who can take economic, technical, demographic realities into account along with ideological wishful thinking. It's fairly noble to push for ideals... But the average american - the one with 0. 98 testicles and 1.02 boobs - always wants to pay less taxes and collect more government services, while enjoying moral superiority. And doesn't enjoy paying bills. Sometimes these things just don't add up.

[kalvado]

Which means the system stops working when one side says the sky is blue and the other side says it's yellow. You can't compromise on the sky being green.

No, but compromise might instead look something like "We're going to double down on saying the sky is blue, but we'll also thrown in a funding mechanism for increased availability of yellow-sky-filtering glasses for anyone who meets the income requirements".  Or whatever.

Or recognizing that Joe works night shift, and usually sees either gray or black sky at night or red one for sunrise and sunset...