
The chaos muppet California needed — but too late
Presented by the Stop the Oil Shakedown Coalition.
With help from Camille von Kaenel
AT LAST: Has Elon Musk become the climate champion California wanted him to be all along?
The Tesla CEO's apparent pivot to self-interested electric vehicle policy advocate might be happening just in time to influence the Senate's direction on $7,500 electric vehicle rebates, which the House megabill gutted last week.
It's likely too late, though, to save the Clean Air Act waivers that let California enforce its stricter-than-federal clean vehicle rules. Those are sitting on President Donald Trump's desk after Congress voted last month to roll back the state's authority despite warnings that the move could be illegal.
And despite elected Democrats' seizing on Musk's sharp break with Trump as ammunition against the House bill, California climate advocates aren't following suit.
'He is certainly a chaos muppet, but whether he is the one California needs continues to be very much in question,' said Craig Segall, a former deputy executive officer at the California Air Resources Board and a policy consultant. 'He may sort of be blundering through a semi-appropriate door, but he doesn't really seem like someone people would want to keep company with.'
Musk had reportedly been trying recently to save the tax credit behind the scenes, despite having declared himself indifferent to its fate early in the campaign cycle. He denied having flipped Thursday, even after Tesla Energy, the company's solar and battery arm, began publicly opposing the bill's cuts to solar and battery tax credits last week.
'Keep the EV/solar incentives cuts in the bill, also cut all the crazy spending increases in the Big Ugly Bill so that America doesn't go bankrupt!' he said on X.
But it's California's clean-vehicle targets that famously made his company billions through the sale of credits to other automakers who needed to meet the state's zero-emission sales targets. He hasn't mentioned those publicly, despite claims by Trump that they were at the heart of their sudden split.
'I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Trump said on social media Thursday.
Regardless of his positions on electric vehicles, Musk's break from Trump world is a seemingly rational move as the company's sales have plummeted in recent months amid backlash over his role in slashing the federal workforce and supporting far-right candidates around the world.
In California, where high electric vehicle penetration has long made it a barometer of Musk sentiment, drivers have turned on Tesla. The company now represents less than 44 percent of the state's EV market, down from nearly 80 percent in 2020.
Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican consultant and EV advocate, said Musk's abrupt shift is likely to only harden Trump's resolve against EVs, which he bashed on the campaign trail.
'My guess is this spat has hardened the Trump administration's desire to punish the entire EV category,' Murphy said.
Another irony: He's alienating Trump to the point where Tesla's stock is dropping further on fears of regulatory retaliation. It fell nearly 15 percent today, with a big dip coming just after Trump's noon screed.
'The quickly deteriorating friendship and now 'major beef' between Musk and Trump is jaw dropping and a shock to the market and putting major fear for Tesla investors on what is ahead,' Dan Ives, an analyst with Wedbush Securities, said in a client note Thursday. — DK, AN
Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here!
HEATING UP: The ongoing fight pitting emissions reductions against affordability concerns is coming for SoCal residents' gas heaters.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District is set to vote Friday on a pair of rules aimed at phasing out gas space and water heaters across a five-county region — home to nearly 17 million residents — that's struggled to tackle nation-leading smog and persistent pollution.
The vote is expected to be close — and the episode could give the fossil fuel industry, business groups and Republican lawmakers a playbook for killing future climate policies.
The proposal, which would set zero-emission sales targets for manufacturers, ramping up from 30 percent of sales next year and to 90 percent by 2036, is weaker than the ban on new gas heater sales that Bay Area officials passed two years ago and will start in 2027.
But it's attracted a fierce lobbying campaign from SoCalGas and business groups, joined by former Los Angeles mayor and current gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa.
'While we can't control Donald Trump's irrational impulses, California's leaders must prioritize affordability,' he wrote in an op-ed Sunday.
Longtime observers of the agency and even agency staff say the lobbying effort and focus on the gas heater rules are unlike anything they've ever seen.
'In my years of doing this kind of work, and I've had a lot of years of experience, both here and in other parts of the country, this is unprecedented,' said Sarah Rees, South Coast's deputy executive officer of planning and rules. — AN
GRID GAMES: It's good for Sen. Josh Becker that most of his Senate colleagues seem to like him because they didn't seem thrilled about the direction of his bill to pave the way to California's participation in a West-wide energy market, SB 540, in a floor debate Wednesday night.
The bill ultimately passed 36-0. But not before several Democratic senators said they were concerned about recent changes to the bill that would give more control over the transition to a new body made up of top energy regulators, the chairs of energy committees, and the attorney general.
Sen. Tony Strickland called the bill 'very problematic,' for example; Sen. Angelique Ashby said she was concerned because her district's utility, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, has qualms about the changes; and Sen. Aisha Wahab said she would oppose the bill over concerns it cedes legislative oversight (she ended up not voting).
The lawmakers fell in line after Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire spoke in favor of the bill and Becker promised to keep amending the bill in the Assembly. — CvK
AD BATTLE: Environmental groups have a retort to oil and gas groups' seven-figure ad buy calling on state lawmakers to pledge they will not vote for policies that increase gas prices: their very own seven-figure ad buy.
The Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California, which includes dozens of public health, environment and labor groups, is airing its own TV broadcast ad, primarily in the Sacramento area. The ad calls the oil and gas industry's claims 'lies' and urges support for measures increasing fees on polluting companies to pay for climate damages. — CvK
THOSE DAMN DAMS: Assemblymember Diane Papan's bill to Trump-proof dam releases passed the Assembly largely intact Thursday, but know that it'll be amended later.
The California Chamber of Commerce, the California Farm Bureau and the Association of California Water Agencies said they'd stop fighting her AB 1146 on Thursday after she agreed to amend it to take out most of the penalties for federal officials who release water from dams under false pretenses, as the Trump administration did in January when it dumped water from two Central Valley dams and falsely claimed it would help fight the Los Angeles fires.
It's an old tale: Big legislative swings on California water issues almost always get caught up in the complexities of state and federal water law — and opposition from ag interests uber-sensitive over their most precious resource.
Papan agreed to drop the $10,000-a-day fines for federal officials in violation as well as the interim relief power for state water regulators, though she also added a provision making clear the attorney general could file for an injunction to stop the 'fraudulent' releases. The bill advanced to the Senate on a 45-15 vote. — CvK
— Lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom are set to trim state incentives aimed at reducing demand on the grid when it's strained.
— A conservation group transferred 47,000 acres in the lower Klamath Basin to the Yurok tribe in the largest 'land-back' deal in state history.
— A New York Times energy reporter takes a ride in famously car-collecting Jay Leno's 1909 electric car.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Traders Scour for ‘Elusive' Catalyst to Push S&P 500 to Record
For stock traders there's little to fear at the moment. Corporate America keeps churning out solid earnings. The chances of a recession aren't blaring. And President Donald Trump's tariff policy is expected to become more clear before long. So what's there to worry about?


Black America Web
13 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE


CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.