Latest news with #ArizonaStateLegislature
The Hill
06-05-2025
- Automotive
- The Hill
Coalition of GOP AGs celebrate win against California's clean-truck rule
A coalition of Republican attorneys general is claiming victory against California following the state's pledge to repeal its electric-truck mandate amid an ongoing lawsuit. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Steve Cliff, executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, agreed in a settlement on Monday to propose the elimination of multiple portions of California's Advanced Clean Fleets regulation: its rule that has aimed to accelerate the transition to zero-emissions trucks. The settlement occurred in response to a lawsuit filed by 17 attorneys general who disputed the idea that the rule would be targeting 'any fleet that operated in California regardless of where the fleet is headquartered.' 'Given California's large population and access to international ports, this rule would have had nationwide effects on the supply chain,' the attorneys general said in a statement. As part of the settlement, Cliff agreed to propose the repeal of 'the High-Priority Fleet and Drayage Fleet Requirements,' which refers to on-road vehicles that transport containers and bulk goods to and from sea-yards and rail-yards Bonta and Cliff also conceded that they would not enforce the part of the regulation that would have required 100-percent, zero-emission-vehicle sales in the trucking sector beginning with model-year 2036. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, agreed that if California finalizes the repeals, they would dismiss their lawsuit. 'This is not only a victory for the trucking industry — it is also a victory for consumers and common sense,' West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey said in a statement. 'This mandate would have crippled the trucking industry and driven up consumer pricing,' he added. Joining McCuskey in the petition were the attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming. Also supporting them were the Nebraska Trucking Association and the Arizona State Legislature. McCuskey praised his colleagues for standing 'up to California to prevent them from pushing their obsession with electric vehicle onto the rest of the country.'
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why We're Suing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—and Still Believe in Nuclear Regulation
At Deep Fission, we're taking a radically different approach to nuclear energy: smaller, safer, faster to deploy—and located a mile underground. By placing reactors deep beneath the Earth's surface, we use the natural containment of billions of tons of bedrock to dramatically improve safety and cut costs. COMMENTARY Liz Muller, CEO and co-founder of Deep Fission We believe in regulation. We also believe in common sense. That's why we've joined the states of Utah, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, the Arizona State Legislature, and fellow reactor developers Last Energy and Valar Atomics in a federal lawsuit aimed at modernizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) outdated licensing regime. This isn't about avoiding oversight. It's about unlocking the energy the country urgently needs—and removing the regulatory barriers that are stopping us from doing it. We are entering a new era of energy demand, and it's happening now. Data centers, artificial intelligence (AI), re-industrialization, and large-scale electrification are all converging to push our grid to its limits. According to recent estimates, U.S. electricity demand could rise as much in the next 15 years as it did in the previous 50. We are simply not prepared for that. Despite over a decade of serious investment in advanced nuclear, not a single advanced reactor is commercially operating in the U.S. The only new plant to come online recently—Plant Vogtle's Units 3 and 4—took 15 years and cost more than $35 billion, far more than originally projected. While it's an achievement in its own right, that pace and price point are nowhere near what we need to meet this moment. Meanwhile, today's regulatory process all but guarantees more of the same. Even with planned fee reductions, the NRC's system remains slow, expensive, and ill-suited for the new generation of safe, modular reactors designed to be simpler and faster to deploy. Let me be clear: the NRC is the gold standard for nuclear safety. We fully support its mission, and we intend to meet and exceed its standards. But when the process itself becomes the bottleneck—when it takes longer to license a safe, next-gen reactor than it does to build a factory or develop a whole new technology platform—then something's broken. And it's not just a bureaucratic problem. It's a national security problem. We're facing a choice: build the energy infrastructure this country needs—or fall behind. Here's the deeper issue: the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was written with nuance. It said that a federal license is only required for nuclear facilities that pose a risk to public health or national security. That's a reasonable threshold. But since 1956, the NRC has applied that requirement to every reactor—regardless of scale, design, or risk profile. That blanket approach no longer makes sense. At Deep Fission, our underground reactors are fundamentally different. By design, they eliminate many of the traditional risks associated with nuclear power. We're not asking for an exemption from safety—we're asking for a modern framework that recognizes technological progress and allows low-risk systems to move through the process with appropriate speed and scrutiny. Other countries are moving fast. We can too. If the U.S. wants to remain competitive—if we want to power AI, industry, and a low-carbon future—we need to get serious about deployment. That means making the hard choices, fixing the broken systems, and rethinking how we regulate in a way that preserves safety and supports innovation. We don't have another decade to wait. We filed this lawsuit because we believe in nuclear power—and because we believe the United States can still lead. We believe the original intent of the law had it right. And we believe that with a smarter, more adaptive approach to regulation, we can meet this moment with clean, safe, affordable energy that's ready to scale. Let's modernize the system. Let's build the future. — is CEO and co-founder of Deep Fission.
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The stadium swindle: The $500M heist from taxpayers to give a handout to a billionaire
Photo viaPlus The Arizona State Legislature is considering a bill that would further subsidize the 27-year-old Chase Field, which taxpayers provided more than $250 million to help build in 1998, in order to support the Arizona Diamondbacks. But why should taxpayers be asked to foot the bill once again for a venue that is public in name only? Forbes estimates the Diamondbacks to be worth $1.6 billion — after being purchased for only $238 million in 2004 — and co-owner Ken Kendrick supposedly has a net worth of more than $1 billion. Now, the team wants $500 million from taxpayers to renovate the aging stadium. The idea that the stadium is a 'public asset' that deserves taxpayer dollars is ludicrous. The stadium supports a private business, which largely caters to a wealthy class of patrons. There is no economic justification for subsidizing the profits of a billionaire owner and his upper-crust clientele. This is a wealth transfer from general taxpayers, many of whom can't afford to go to a game, to the most well-to-do members of the community. Democrats and Republicans should be joining hands in opposition to this indefensible subsidy rather than making bipartisan toasts over cocktails in the owner's suite. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Five decades of economic studies have yet to identify a stadium that justifies subsidization. Researchers have found that stadiums are simply not economic-development catalysts, because they largely just reallocate how local residents spend their money. If citizens weren't spending it at the ballpark, they would be spending it at other local businesses. Estimates of non-fiscal social benefits also show that community members tend to place a low value on having a local sports team. Nothing comes close to the hundreds of millions of dollars that the bill's advocates are seeking. This research evidence is robust, with theoretical and empirical support, which is why it is the consensus view among scholars that stadiums are inadvisable public investments. The public doesn't like stadiums, either. A 2022 poll from researchers at Arizona State University found that the public is largely opposed to venue subsidies, with 56% opposing taxes to subsidize professional sports venues, and only 26% supporting higher taxes for this purpose. If legislators really think a renovated ballpark is something that the public values, then the proposal should be put directly to voters at the ballot box. The reason it is being pushed through the Legislature is because its chief advocates know that the public does not support it. And if they go forward with the plan, they should be aware that there will likely be electoral consequences. See former Wisconsin state Sen. George Petak and the late Cobb County Commissioner Tim Lee in Georgia, who both ended their political careers after supporting unpopular ballpark subsidies for the Milwaukee Brewers and Atlanta Braves, respectively. The funding mechanism being proposed to benefit the Diamondbacks relies upon what public finance economists call 'fiscal illusion.' The tax mechanism was selected to understate the public cost. By drawing funds from the district around the stadium, it gives the appearance of a use tax, being paid for only by customers. This is not correct. What it is doing is taking tax dollars that are scheduled to be allocated to other public purposes and instead redirecting them to underwrite this special-interest project. Even though the hundreds-of-millions of dollars figures being discussed would be collected from the geographic area, the revenue has the opportunity cost of funding other public projects or simply cutting taxes to put the money back in taxpayers' pockets. If the government is devoting public dollars to a stadium project, then the public must be out that same amount of money. You cannot pull this money out of thin air; otherwise, we would fund all public projects like this. It's important to remember: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE STADIUM. I urge the Arizona Legislature to give thoughtful consideration to this policy issue. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arizona veterans outraged amid controversy over blocked stolen valor bill
The Brief There's an ongoing controversy involving a bill targeting acts of stolen valor at the Arizona State Legislature. HB 2030 aims to increase penalties for Arizonans who claim military honors they never earned, or those who alter official military documents. The bill was blocked by State Sen. Wendy Rogers. "It was the equivalent of a slap in the face," said one veteran. PHOENIX - Politicians and veterans in Arizona are speaking out amid a controversy involving a stolen valor bill that was blocked by State Senator Wendy Rogers. The backstory Per our first report on the bill, HB 2030 (also known as the "Stolen Valor Act") aims to increase penalties for Arizonans who claim military honors they never earned, or those who alter official military documents. On Jan. 15, Republican State Representative Walt Blackman (R-Dist. 7) introduced the bill, with strong support from veterans. On Feb. 11, the bill passed unanimously in the house, and was eventually sent to the State Senate's Judiciary and Elections Committee. The committee is chaired by State Sen. Rogers (R-Dist. 7), and the bill was held up for a month in the committee before it received a hearing. During the hearing, State Sen. Rogers put the bill on hold. What State Sen. Rogers Said State Sen. Roger released a statement on the matter, which reads: "After the bill was transmitted to the Senate for consideration, I asked Senate staff to reach out to Rep. Blackman's staff requesting we amend the bill to mirror federal law, so there would be no conflicts or confusion in tackling these crimes. I was informed he was not willing to compromise. I again directed Senate staff to let his staff know that I was including the bill on Wednesday's Senate Judiciary & Elections Committee agenda in case he had a change of heart. Neither Rep. Blackman nor his staff communicated that he was willing to work on an amendment. Instead, he continues a smear campaign, omitting the fact that a repeated good faith effort was made to work with him on this legislation. Sadly, it appears Rep. Blackman let a personal vendetta get in the way of honestly fighting for combat veterans." Dig deeper The bill's sponsor said Rogers, who is an Air Force veteran herself, blocked the bill for personal reasons: State Rep. Blackman's political rival, Steve Slaton, who ran against him and lost in the primary election, was endorsed by State Sen. Rogers despite allegations of stolen valor. Meanwhile, some Arizona veterans, like retired Army Master Sergeant Jack Dona, say they are outraged. What Dona Said "It was the equivalent of a slap in the face," said Dona. Dona, along with his father Orlando, spent decades serving the country. "It's just bad politics," Dona said. "It's the stuff that people are tired of, they're disgusted with." Dona said State Sen. Rogers hired him in 2024 to vet Slaton's record. "I determined that it was likely a case of stolen valor," Dona said. Slaton claimed to be Cobra helicopter pilot in Vietnam, but records show he was a mechanic. "[Slaton] lost his primary," said Dona. "I thought that was the end of it." At the hearing, Dona said more than 70 veterans showed up to support the bill, but never got to testify. "What are we saying as a society, as a people, if we cannot protect the very people who put on a uniform and write a check to the people of the United States that I promise that I will give, even up to my life, to protect the constitution and your freedom?" Dona said. What Could Come Next State Sen. Shawna Bolick (R-Dist. 2) has since invoked Arizona's striker amendment to switch her bill with HB 2030. Meanwhile, State Senate President Warren Petersen (R-Dist. 14) said he is optimistic that Rogers and Blackman will reach a deal. "As far as procedure and process, this bill will end up going in a pretty normal timeframe and speed, as far as making it to the governor's desk," said State Senate President Petersen. State Rep. Blackman said Rogers had plenty of time to discuss any amendments with him, and believes she is either not good at her legislative job or is simply lying. Blackman also said Rogers' claims that HB 2030 doesn't mirror the federal Stolen Valor law is inaccurate, and said he doesn't believe she read the bill if she is not aware of the constitutional clearance it has gone through. Blackman went on to say the bill expands on the federal law in ways that he feels will help Arizona veterans. Blackman said he believes some legislators are slow-rolling the bill, and Dona is urging fellow veterans to not let that happen. "You should get on the horn, and you should burn up the phone lines," said Dona. "E-mail them, be vocal, because that's the only thing that they understand. The only thing that they understand is we, the people, speaking out peacefully."
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Gas prices remain level as Arizona legislature aims to curb hikes from switch to summer blend
The Brief Gas prices in Arizona dropped by a penny last week, while nationwide prices increased by three cents. Arizona is still among the 10 most expensive states for gas in the U.S. An amendment to a house bill in the Arizona State Legislature proposes to change the law to allow more than one summer blend and give providers more supply options, thus lowering summer gas prices. PHOENIX - While gas prices in Arizona are among the 10 most expensive in America, overall prices are 40 cents lower than this time last year in the country. New data from AAA shows that prices in Arizona decreased by one cent per gallon last from week, while across the country the price per gallon increased by three cents. Local perspective The average price per gallon in Arizona is $3.33, while in Phoenix its $3.49, in Tucson its $3.09, in Flagstaff its $3.23 and in Yuma its $3.07. Big picture view According to the report from AAA, production has decreased to 9.2 million barrels per day while demand has dropped from 8.81 barrels per day to 8.64 bpd in the U.S. oil market last week. California, Hawaii and Washington all have an average price per gallon of over $4.00 while Mississippi has the lowest price per gallon at $2.68. Why you should care Gas prices are expected to spike in Arizona as providers in the state will soon have to switch the summer blend to comply with EPA standards. An amendment to House Bill 2300 in the Arizona State House, aims to expand the summer blend options from one type to several. The legislation would increase supply for Arizona providers and thus, lower the price from typical summer averages due to the increased competition.
