Officials announce plans to spend $500 million on next-gen school buses that will be safer for students: 'Committed to continuing efforts to reduce children's exposure'
Students across California will be riding in sustainable style, thanks to 1,000 new electric school buses that the state is purchasing.
The state is spending $500 million on the new buses, which will go to more than 130 school districts in rural and low-income areas, The Washington Post reported. Also included in that funding is money for about 500 school bus charging stations.
The buses are mostly paid for by California's Cap-and-Trade Program. The program caps the allowable amount of annual carbon emissions and allows for a limited number of allowances to be purchased at auction, with each allowance equal to one metric ton of emissions.
"California is committed to continuing efforts to reduce children's exposure to toxic diesel pollution through the deployment of zero-emission school buses," California Air Resources Board chair Liane Randolph said. "State funding is especially critical as schools grapple with the rollback of federal support."
Hundreds of school districts nationwide are waiting on federal funding to cover the costs of their own electric buses. The Environmental Protection Agency previously promised $900 million in funding to cover the costs of more than 3,400 such buses, but that funding has now been frozen under the Trump Administration.
Electric school buses produce no tailpipe pollution, making them significantly better for the environment than their gas-powered counterparts. Over its lifecycle, a gas-powered bus generates up to three times as many carbon emissions as an electric option, according to Environmental Defense Fund data.
Electric buses aren't just eco-friendly and considerably better for students' health, but they're also good financial investments.
Although their up-front costs are higher than those of their gas-powered counterparts, fuel and maintenance savings can make electric buses considerably cheaper over time. Data shows that the total cost of ownership for an electric school bus, over its lifespan, can be as much as $243,000 less than a diesel bus.
Should the government be paying us to upgrade our homes?
Definitely
Depends on how much it costs
Depends on what it's for
No way
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
29 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Onconetix, Inc. Announces 1-for-85 Reverse Stock Split and Results of the Special Meeting of Stockholders
CINCINNATI, Ohio, June 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Onconetix, Inc. (NASDAQ: ONCO) ('Onconetix' or the 'Company'), a commercial-stage biotechnology company focused on the research, development, and commercialization of innovative solutions for men's health and oncology, today announced that the Company's stockholders have approved a proposal to effect a reverse split, which was voted on at the Company's 2025 special meeting of stockholders (the 'Special Meeting') held on May 30, 2025, and that its Board of Directors (the 'Board of Directors' or 'Board') approved a 1-for-85 reverse stock split of its outstanding shares of common stock, to be effective as of 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time on June 13, 2025. Results of the Special Meeting At the Special Meeting, Onconetix's stockholders approved the following proposals: an amendment to the Onconetix, Inc. Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to effect a reverse stock split of all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.00001 per share, at a ratio in the range of 1-for-10 to 1-for-150, at any time prior to the one-year anniversary date of the Special Meeting, with such ratio to be determined by the Board without further approval or authorization of the stockholders; and the adjournment of the Special Meeting, if necessary or appropriate, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the Special Meeting to approve the Reverse Stock Split Proposal. (the 'Adjournment Proposal'). Final voting results from the Special Meeting were reported in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') on June 5, 2025. In conjunction with stockholder approval of the reverse stock split, the Company's Board of Directors determined to fix a split ratio of 1-for-85 shares. The Company's common stock will begin trading on a reverse stock split-adjusted basis at the opening of the market on June 13, 2025. Following the reverse stock split, the Company's common stock will continue to trade on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol 'ONCO' under the new CUSIP number 68237Q203. The reverse stock split is intended to enable the Company to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement of $1.00 per share of common stock for continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market. At the effective time of the reverse split, every 85 issued and outstanding shares of the Company's common stock will be converted automatically into one share of the Company's common stock without any change in the par value per share. No fractional shares will be issued in connection with the reverse stock split, and fractional shares resulting from the reverse stock split will be canceled with the holders thereof receiving cash compensation. The amount of compensation will be determined by multiplying the fractional share by the closing price per share of the Company's common stock on The Nasdaq Capital Market at the close of business on the trading day prior to the effective date of the reserve stock split, or June 12, 2025. The reverse split will have no effect on the number of authorized shares of the Company's common stock, and the ownership percentage of each stockholder will remain unchanged other than as a result of fractional shares. The reverse stock split will additionally apply to the Company's common stock issuable upon exercise or conversion of the Company's equity awards, convertible preferred stock and warrants, as well as the applicable exercise price. The reverse stock split will reduce the number of outstanding shares of the Company's common stock from approximately 44.4 million to approximately 521,863. About Onconetix, Inc. Onconetix, Inc. is a commercial-stage biotechnology company focused on the research, development, and commercialization of innovative solutions for men's health and oncology. The Company owns Proclarix, an in vitro diagnostic test for prostate cancer originally developed by Proteomedix and approved for sale in the European Union under the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation. The Company also owns ENTADFI, an FDA-approved, once-daily pill that combines finasteride and tadalafil for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, a disorder of the prostate. For more information, visit Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements in this press release are forward-looking within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'forecast,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' and 'intend,' among others. These forward-looking statements (including, without limitation, statements regarding the timing and effectiveness of the anticipated reverse split and compliance with applicable Nasdaq continued listing requirements) are based on Onconetix's current expectations and actual results could differ materially. There are a number of factors that could cause actual events to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, market and other conditions; whether the Company will be able to regain and maintain compliance with Nasdaq's applicable listing criteria and the effect of a delisting from Nasdaq on the market for the Company's securities; whether a definitive agreement for the proposed transaction with Ocuvex Therapeutics, Inc. ('Ocuvex') and any related financing will be entered into; whether such transactions, or any other contemplated transaction, may be completed with different terms, in an untimely manner, or not at all; whether the Company will be able to realize the benefits of a proposed transaction with Ocuvex; Onconetix's ability to integrate the assets and commercial operations contemplated to be acquired from Ocuvex into the Company's business; risks related to Onconetix's ability to commercialize or monetize Proclarix and integrate the assets and commercial operations; risks related to the Company's present need for capital to commercially launch Proclarix and have adequate working capital; risks related to Onconetix's ability to attract, hire and retain skilled personnel necessary to commercialize and operate the Company's commercial products; the failure to obtain and maintain the necessary regulatory approvals to market and commercialize Onconetix's products; risks related to the Company's ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for its current products; and the Company's reliance on third parties, including manufacturers and logistics companies. As with any commercial-stage pharmaceutical product or any product candidate under clinical development, there are significant risks in the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of biotechnology products. Onconetix does not undertake an obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement. Investors should read the risk factors set forth in Onconetix's Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on June 2, 2025 and periodic reports filed with the SEC on or after the date thereof. All of Onconetix's forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by all such risk factors and other cautionary statements. The information set forth herein speaks only as of the date thereof. For more information: Onconetix, Inc. 201 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 620-4101
Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
Los Angeles is about to get a lot smoggier
With help from Camille von Kaenel THE DAY AFTER: It's getting hotter in Los Angeles — and we're not talking about ICE raids or wildfires. President Donald Trump on Thursday killed California's vehicle emissions rules, designed to reduce emissions and pollution in smoggy regions like SoCal, delivering on his Day 1 executive order to quickly roll back electric vehicle mandates around the country. 'We officially rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating California's electric vehicle mandate, once and for all,' Trump said at a White House ceremony before signing three resolutions nixing rules aimed at phasing out gas-powered cars and heavy-duty diesel trucks. Gov. Gavin Newsom offered a glimpse of California's next steps: Besides the obvious lawsuit (the state's 26th under Trump 2.0, for those keeping track at home), he put out an executive order to start developing new regulations — to be approved under a future Democratic administration — and start tracking which car and truck manufacturers are still following the state's ZEV sales targets. That data would be used to offer compliant companies preferential treatment, like incentives to encourage drivers to buy their vehicles. But there's very little the state can do in the near term to replace the rules aimed at weaning drivers off fossil fuels to meet lofty climate goals and reach federal pollution standards. 'It's impossible without unbelievably massive, draconian steps that are politically untenable, like no-drive days,' said Craig Segall, a former deputy executive officer at the California Air Resources Board and a policy consultant. Meanwhile, there's another threat coming. The Trump administration could attempt to sanction California for failing to meet federal air quality standards under the Clean Air Act — standards they've assured the state won't reach. As CARB Chair Liane Randolph cautioned state lawmakers during a hearing last month, it could be years before a court decision is reached, and the state will have to find alternatives or risk losing billions of federal highway dollars. That threat is especially acute for California, which has struggled for decades to reduce the nation's worst smog in the Los Angeles area and Central Valley and comply with the Clean Air Act. The American Lung Association released a report earlier this year that found California's now-dormant rules could have reduced 75 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides a day and saved residents billions in medical bills. If history holds, it may already be too late for state officials to avoid a fight with the EPA. The agency threatened sanctions against the state in 2019, during Trump's first term, just days after it revoked an earlier version of its electric vehicle rules. 'It is hard to imagine that they will not threaten sanctions,' said Ann Carlson, who led the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under then-President Joe Biden. 'The president clearly has it out for California, and Los Angeles is obviously in his sights.' EPA, when asked about the possibility of sanctions, said in a statement that it 'will continue to implement the Clean Air Act as provided in law and will continue to hope that California can get into attainment after decades of nonattainment.' The auto industry doesn't appear ready to strike a bargain with California. John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the industry's main trade group, blasted the state's rules in a statement, calling them 'harmful to auto affordability, to consumer choice, to industry competitiveness and to economic activity.' But California will have at least one car company on its side. Stellantis, which inked a deal last year to follow the EV rules even if they went away, reaffirmed its commitment Thursday. 'Stellantis continues to honor its agreement with CARB,' Stellantis spokesperson Jodi Tinson said in a statement. — AN Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! QUICK JAB: Trump also used his White House signing ceremony to take a jab at Tesla CEO Elon Musk, with whom he's been beefing since the billionaire left his administration. 'Now we know why Elon doesn't like me so much,' Trump quipped during a wide-ranging that also touched on topics like inflation and his disdain for wind turbines. Trump later said that Musk never asked him to save EV rules and that 'he got a little bit strange' over other 'smaller things.' — AN DELAYS DELAYS: California officials are delaying some of their own climate rules, too. The California Public Utilities Commission decided to give builders a little more time to wean themselves off natural gas and propane Thursday when it pushed back the date by which it would end an incentive for buildings that use both natural gas or propane and electricity. Builders can now claim a subsidy for extending an electrical line to a building that also uses natural gas or propane until June 30, 2027, instead of June 30, 2025. The CPUC had decided to end the subsidy to subtly disincentivize the mixed-fuel buildings but pushed it back Thursday because of a 'material shortage in supply chain' and 'permitting delays,' according to a summary Thursday. Also this week: CalRecycle granted packaging manufacturers an 18-month extension Wednesday to meet new requirements to label products 'compostable,' citing the risk of market disruption and customer confusion. — CvK AND THEN THERE WERE THREE: Sacramento isn't the only West Coast state capital in a cap-and-trade debate. A bipartisan group of Oregon lawmakers is considering setting up a more robust carbon market, but can't agree how to spend the money, Anne C. Mulkern reports for POLITICO's E&E News. Oregon Republicans supported using market revenues for projects that include freeway widening. But a coalition of climate, health and disadvantaged community advocates are pushing back, saying larger highways would increase driving and planet-warming emissions. A cap-and-invest program approved by the state Legislature would likely replace a smaller carbon market set up by the state's environmental agency, which started in January. The Oregon lawmakers hope to have a framework by early 2026, when they reconvene for the next legislative session. — AM, CvK RAIL REBUFF: The leader of California's high-speed rail project is not giving up on $4 billion in federal grants quietly. High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri slammed the Trump administration in a letter Thursday, calling its justification for a proposed termination of Biden-era grants 'unfounded' and 'outright misleading.' 'Hostility to public investments in high-speed rail, and to California's leadership — hostility that dates back to FRA's initial attempt to revoke federal funding to the Program in May 2019 — appears to be the real basis for the proposed determination,' Choudri wrote, referring to the Trump administration's attempt to terminate a $1 billion grant during his first term. The Federal Railroad Administration announced earlier this month that it was prepared to claw back federal funding, arguing that the project has no viable path forward. The agency, in a 315-page report, said the rail line hadn't identified $7 billion needed to finish its initial Central Valley line, and cited instability in cap-and-trade auction revenues, the project's largest funding source. Choudri rejected those claims, pointing to a Newsom proposal that would guarantee at least $1 billion annually from cap and trade through 2045 and an October FRA report that didn't find significant compliance issues with grant criteria. — AN — An Environmental Defense Fund and Cornell University report details how state insurers of last resort can drive climate resilience with mitigation discounts and grants. — The Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability's Asha Sharma opines against Newsom's proposal to reauthorize cap and trade without pollution-reducing reforms in the Fresno Bee. — United Farm Workers and Faith in the Valley have received increasing reports of ICE agents in the Central Valley.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
EPA announces unprecedented rollback on air pollution limits for power plants — health experts warn this could lead to biggest increase in pollution
The Environmental Protection Agency disclosed plans to roll back a crucial rule limiting power plant pollution, the Guardian recently reported. In April 2024, the EPA finalized a set of rules curtailing greenhouse gases emitted by coal-powered plants. The rules would "significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing coal-fired power plants and from new natural gas turbines, ensuring that all long-term coal-fired plants and base load new gas-fired plants control 90% of their carbon pollution," per an archived copy of the guidelines hosted on the agency's website. As of June 12, text on the same page had been updated, reading in part: "On June 11, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed to repeal all 'greenhouse gas' emissions standards for the power sector under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act." Citing what he called the "climate change cult," Zeldin spoke at a June 11 event disclosing the proposed rollbacks. "We choose to both protect the environment and grow the economy," Zeldin said. In an April 2024 fact sheet, the EPA provided projections for how much the new rule would lower pollution. As written, the guidance was "projected to reduce CO2 emissions in the power sector to more than 62% below 2022 levels, and more than 75% below 2005 emission levels (the historical emissions peak) by 2035," the EPA calculated. CBS News emphasized a concerning angle in their coverage of Zeldin's announcement. In an accompanying press release, the EPA acknowledged plans to "work [on and] publish a finding that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.'" As NASA reiterated in 2024, scientific data "continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth's surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth's climate." The rule Zeldin intends to repeal had the potential to hold the dirty fuel industry accountable and establish federally enforceable pollution limits. Do you worry about air pollution in your town? All the time Often Only sometimes Never Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Without oversight, corporations tend to prioritize profits over reducing pollution and limiting the industry's known adverse impact on clean air and drinking water. On June 11, over 200 health experts signed a letter addressed to Zeldin. "As health experts, we write to share our grave concern at EPA's effort to rescind dozens of pollution protections for millions, a direct contradiction to the Environmental Protection Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment and your expressed promise to ensure every American's access to clean air," it began. Rescinding the rules "would lead to the biggest pollution increases in decades and is a blatant give-away to polluters," they added. "Everyone knows that climate and clean air protections improve public health. Combined, the air pollution standards finalized by the EPA … between 2021 and 2024 will save over 200,000 lives and avoid over 100 million asthma attacks in the U.S. through 2050, and these standards will deliver more than $250 billion in net benefits each year," the letter continued. According to the Guardian, the EPA's planned rollback will include a period for public comment, and the outlet anticipated that the agency will face significant "legal challenges" over the repeal. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
