DEP delays electric vehicle sales requirements for two years
Under the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation that Massachusetts adopted following California's lead in 2023, vehicle manufacturers are supposed to produce and make available for sale a gradually-increasing percentage of zero-emission vehicles starting at 35% in model year 2026, rising to 43% in model year 2027 and eventually hitting 100% in model year 2035 and beyond.
The Department of Environmental Protection said Friday that it 'will exercise enforcement discretion' for model years 2026 and 2027 and declared that 'manufacturers shall not withhold internal combustion vehicles from car and truck dealerships seeking those vehicles.' MassDEP has similarly deferred enforcement of related minimum electric truck sales requirements.
'EVs should be the most affordable and clean option for cars,' Gov. Maura Healey said. 'We're giving carmakers more runway to invest in their manufacturing and supply chains, which will help ensure customers have additional affordable electric vehicles options at dealerships in the future. Massachusetts will continue to invest in charging infrastructure to support the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.'
Delaying implementation of the ACC II regulations has been a topic of amendments filed to the spending bills that have been moving between the House and Senate recently. This week, Millbury Sen. Michael Moore withdrew his budget amendment to delay implementation for two years but highlighted what he said would be devastating economic consequences of keeping the rules in place when both demand for electric vehicles and charging infrastructure lag previous expectations.
'By enforcing this rule, manufacturers will have to artificially manipulate vehicle inventory to force more zero-emission vehicles into the state while reducing the number of gas-powered vehicles available,' Moore said. 'Looking at last year, 280,000 new vehicles were sold in Massachusetts. To artificially meet the 35% threshold, there would have to be a reduction of 198,000 gas-powered vehicles, representing a $9 billion reduction in economic activity in Massachusetts.'
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr called for a two-year delay to the ACC II regulation Thursday afternoon in a speech on a Senate budget amendment that was ultimately sunk.
'Number one, the electric grid is not ready to handle it. And number two, the demand for these vehicles has not proven to be as robust as we had hoped, and consumer uptake is not nearly where it would need to be to comply with those regulations,' he said.
Environmental advocates slammed the MassDEP decision Friday. Environmental League of Massachusetts Legislative Director David Melly said the organization is 'disappointed to see Massachusetts walk back its commitment to Advanced Clean Cars II, causing delays that will harm our communities and the environment.'
'We know that timely progress on electrification of vehicles reduces both transportation emissions and healthcare costs. Our state leaders must step up to fill the gap this policy leaves behind, including firm commitments to expanding charging infrastructure statewide and addressing vehicle pollution in overburdened areas,' he said.
Healey's office said it will 'soon announce dedicated additional grant funding for the purchase or lease of electric vehicles for publicly owned fleets, electric school buses, waste collection vehicles, and other vocational vehicles.' It also previewed an announcement related to 'enhanced future grant funding opportunities for existing programs that support medium- and heavy-duty vehicle charging, charging at multi-unit dwellings and educational campuses, charging at workplaces and for commercial fleets, and publicly accessible charging stations through the MassEVIP program.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Alabama congressman seeks Senate seat
MOBILE, Ala. (WKRG) — Alabama Congressman Barry Moore announced he is running for a U.S. Senate position. UPDATE: Mobile police identify 2 men killed in industrial incident Moore currently serves as the United States representative for Alabama's District 1 after when the state redrew its congressional districts. In his announcement Tuesday morning, Moore promised to stand with President Donald Trump. Moore previously served in the Alabama State House for eight years as the District 91 representative. During his time in the state house, Moore served as chairman of the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, as well as the vice-chair of the Small Business and Commerce Committee. If Moore were to win the election, he would be taking Tommy Tuberville's seat, as Tuberville previously announced . Atmore arrests: 6 held for immigration crimes, FBI says The Senate election will be held on Nov. 3, 2025. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
How to get Mass. to embrace YIMBYism
Massachusetts voters rightly Advertisement By contrast, ending exclusionary zoning across the state would greatly increase housing construction and Advertisement Extensive research by economists and other scholars finds that I grew up in Massachusetts — where my parents and I arrived as poor recent immigrants in 1980 — and owe much to the opportunities the state has to offer. Curbing exclusionary zoning would help ensure that more people of all backgrounds could access those opportunities. Exclusionary zoning also damages our economy as a whole by preventing people from moving to where they would be more productive. A Zoning is often viewed as a tool to protect the interests of current homeowners, many of whom support 'NIMBY' ('not in my backyard') restrictions on building. But many homeowners would Advertisement Current property owners would also benefit from having the right to use their land as they see fit. Advocates of local control of land use should embrace YIMBY zoning reform unites experts across the political spectrum. Supporters range from progressives such as There is much room for zoning-reform progress in Massachusetts. The National Zoning Atlas recently surveyed the state's zoning rules and Governor Maura Healey's Unlocking Housing Production Commission recently issued Advertisement The state should either ban exclusionary zoning outright — except in rare cases where it's needed to prevent a serious threat to public health and safety — or make it a 'per se' taking, under which property owners would automatically be entitled to compensation, thereby incentivizing state and local governments to use exclusionary zoning only in rare circumstances. In a Exclusionary zoning isn't the only factor driving up housing costs. President Trump's massive tariffs and deportations
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Engineered Confusion: The $100 Million Threat To Business Integrity
Climate misinformation is no longer confined to the margins of public discourse. It has matured into a systemic force, a strategic instrument capable of shaping regulation, market dynamics, and public trust. A 2024 joint report from the U.S. Senate Budget Committee and House Oversight Committee revealed fossil fuel–aligned actors are spending more than $100 million annually to promote misleading narratives and block climate action, even as those same actors receive $600 billion in subsidies. The strategy has evolved: from outright denial of climate science to emotionally engineered scepticism, designed to create doubt, delay, and division. How Misinformation Is Rewriting Climate Policy The disinformation ecosystem now actively shapes regulatory outcomes. In 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to roll back its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding, a basis legal and scientific ruling that underpins all U.S. federal climate regulation. Many consider this a direct result of coordinated lobbying and strategic messaging around political positions. Climate regulation was reframed as an attack on economic freedom and consumer choice, despite scientific consensus and broad public support. As Dr. Frederic Bertley, president and chief executive officer of the Center of Science & Industry (COSI), said in an interview, 'Policies are written by elected officials, usually attorneys or political scientists, not scientists. And most don't have a basic science literacy background. Sometimes, they base their decisions on information from lobbyists not experts, and the lobbyists frequently preserve legislation that allows the status quo.' Parallel efforts have targeted foundational data infrastructure. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), long trusted for climate modelling, has suffered funding cuts and the closure of key data centers. Without access to granular risk data, companies are left navigating climate volatility with impaired visibility – especially in terms of increasingly extreme weather. As Sean Buchan, intelligence c-ordinator at the Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition observes, 'The goal isn't to win a debate. It's to erode trust in institutions and paralyze decision-making. That paralysis directly harms business continuity.' Drilled Media has been instrumental in documenting the evolution of fossil fuel communication strategy. Today's misinformation doesn't deny climate science outright, it reframes the stakes. This new genre of messaging, dubbed petroganda, recasts fossil fuels as protectors of personal freedom, national sovereignty, and economic stability, while painting clean energy and climate policy as elite, costly, and controlling. But, as Buchan points out, 'There's actually new studies showing that almost all far-right parties in Europe have been using arguments, false arguments, against solar energy.' These narratives aren't grassroots; they're crafted through market research and deployed strategically to trigger emotion, deepen polarization, and block consensus on climate action. Buchan explains, 'You talk about facts, and they are seeking not emotionless truth, but emotional triggers. And then people believe the actors.' The effects are tangible as petroganda fuels local opposition to clean energy projects, inflates perceived risks in ESG investing, and enables deregulation by undermining climate governance, weakening the very institutions businesses depend on for forecasting, planning, and insurance. It also weaponizes identity, framing fossil fuels as aligned with the working class and masculinity, while painting renewables as urban and elite. This cultural divide silences companies and delays progress, while all the while AI is amplifying the threat. Generative tools produce expert-sounding disinformation at scale, embedding false narratives into dashboards, supply chains, and internal systems, making manipulation faster, cheaper, and harder to detect. What's really challenging is the level of public misunderstanding of just how many people actually do want to see climate action. A 2024 global survey revealed that 89% of people support stronger climate action, but most mistakenly believe that few others do. This misperception weakens the mandate for action, discouraging executives from pursuing bold strategies for fear of reputational backlash or political reprisal. Correcting this gap is more than a communications challenge, it's a market issue. Dr. Bertley says, 'Soundbites don't necessarily create understanding. If you meet people where they are, respect their questions, and avoid arrogance, you can move the needle. But the messaging needs to connect with what people care about.' At the same time, behavioural studies show that when people learn the majority supports action, willingness to engage, invest, and advocate increases sharply. In other words, telling the truth about public sentiment isn't just good ethics, it's smart business. When Ad Spend Fuels The Opposition Behind the scenes, the corporate advertising supply chain has become one of the most over-looked vectors for disinformation risk. Millions in programmatic ad spend are routed, often without oversight, to platforms that host climate lies, conspiracy theories, and hyper-partisan disinformation. As Harriet Kingaby, co-founder of the Conscious Advertising Network, explains, 'Advertisers are pouring money into a black box. There are so many middlemen in programmatic ad tech that brands have no idea where their ads land.' The consequences go beyond reputational risk. CAN research shows that 45% of consumers would reconsider their support for a brand funding climate misinformation, even indirectly. And while disinformation earns ad revenue through viral reach, up to 70% of legitimate climate content is demonetized due to outdated keyword blocklists, cutting off funding to credible journalism while amplifying false narratives. This is despite research showing it drives high engagement and trust. 'Brands have invested heavily in ethical supply chains for their physical goods,' Kingaby notes. 'Now they need to apply the same rigor to their digital supply chains. Otherwise, they are inadvertently underwriting the narratives that undermine their own climate strategies.' Advertising is just one high-profile example of how disinformation creates hidden liabilities. The same dynamic, where misinformation seeps into supply chains, dashboards, ESG data, or stakeholder narratives, can quietly undermine any part of a business that relies on trust, transparency, or credible information. Companies that fail to address disinformation in their supply chains, ad spend, and public messaging are increasingly going to be seen as complicit, not cautious. Buchan is blunt saying, 'Corporations need to ask not just what narratives they're using but what actors are benefiting from the lies. Follow the incentives. That's where disinformation unravels. They need to expose the actors, what financial interests are benefiting from the lie, rather than engage in a welcome-all context debate.' Effective corporate responses must go beyond fact-checking. They must integrate emotional resonance, community-centered messaging, and strategic foresight. That includes pre-emptive communications before project launches, investments in digital literacy, and public alignment with truth-based coalitions advocating for transparency and accountability in advertising and AI. Resilience today isn't just about physical assets or infrastructure, it's also about trust, credibility, and the ability to navigate an environment shaped by misinformation. In an era where misinformation actively shapes regulation, reputation, and public perception, perhaps it's time that companies start treating information integrity as infrastructure. This begins with a clear-eyed audit of digital advertising and media spend, ensuring that corporate dollars are not inadvertently funding climate disinformation. It requires demanding full transparency from ad tech partners, not just in principle, but down to the URL level. Internally, teams across communications, legal, sustainability, and marketing must be equipped to recognize and respond to manipulated narratives that could damage credibility or derail strategy. Strategic messaging must also evolve. It's no longer enough to present facts; companies need to tell stories that resonate emotionally-grounded in what matters most to people: jobs, public health, local security, and fairness. Externally, this commitment to integrity must extend to the policy environment as well. Businesses should be at the forefront of advocating for open data, algorithmic accountability, and enforceable standards around green claims. As Buchan says, 'We need to keep people who are lying accountable, and we need to create healthy incentives, rather than the current ones that promote lying.' Kingaby adds, 'It's time for the C-suite to get its hands on the steering wheel. This is a cross-functional risk, touching marketing, legal, sustainability, and finance. The opportunity is massive, but only if leaders act.' Information integrity is no longer a communications concern. It's a strategic imperative, one central to resilience, reputation, and long-term value creation. The Legal Reckoning Is Coming The legal landscape is catching up to these information risks. In July 2025, International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion that states, and by extension companies, have obligations to reduce emissions in line with human rights and climate science. These rulings, while non-binding, signal growing global alignment around legal accountability. Dr. Bertley adds, 'In general large corporations are not going to change just because of facts. It's not a science literacy issue, it's a moral and economic one. Unless there's policy and economic pressure, change is not likely to happen.' Companies in high-emitting sectors or those misaligned in word and deed may face legal scrutiny not just for what they emit, but for whether they've enabled or financed disinformation that blocks action. This dovetails with rising fiduciary awareness. Investors and regulators alike are questioning the integrity of ESG disclosures, particularly where companies claim climate leadership while unknowingly funding oppositional messaging. Information Integrity Is Competitive Advantage Disinformation is not background noise but rather a force that distorts regulation, derails projects, destabilizes markets, and weakens corporate resilience. The cost of inaction isn't just reputational: it's also legal, operational, and existential. In a volatile, high-stakes world, the ability to act on facts, rather than fight through fiction, has become a competitive advantage. In a landscape shaped by misinformation and engineered confusion, companies that invest in information integrity aren't just doing the right thing, they're protecting their future.
