Connect with us

The Center Square

Automakers may restrict gas, regular hybrid car sales if CA EV rule holds | California

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Kenneth Schrupp – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-16 18:00:00

(The Center Square) — Automakers in California and many other states may soon have to restrict sales of gasoline and non-plug-in hybrid vehicles this year if California’s zero-emission vehicle requirement is not overturned, industry leaders say. 

California’s Advanced Clean Cars II rule, which phases out the sale of gas-powered cars in 2035, requires that 35% of model year 2026 vehicles be either zero emission — which largely means battery-electric, though hydrogen vehicles exist —  or plug-in-hybrids that have both gas engines and battery-powered electric motors.

The ACC II mandate applies to Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington for model year 2026, and Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C. for model year 2027. 

The California New Car Dealers Association’s report on car sales in the year’s first quarter earlier comments by Toyota that the mandate is “impossible” to meet: ZEV market share fell from 22% in 2024, to 20.8% in the first quarter of 2025. 

“If CARB doesn’t pause or adjust the ACCII mandate, we are concerned automakers will restrict shipments of traditional hybrids and affordable gas-powered models to avoid massive fines,” said CNCDA President Brian Maas to The Center Square. “This is occurring in California’s heavy-duty truck marketplace, which has been devastated by similar CARB rules that took effect in January 2024.”  

In California, which has the nation’s highest gas prices and second-highest energy prices, and where the state asks EV owners to refrain from charging on hot days to limit grid stress, residents have been flocking to standard hybrid vehicles. Standard hybrid market share 37% in the past year, from 13.1% in the first quarter of 2024 to 17.9% of the market in the first quarter of 2025.

However, standard hybrids don’t count toward the state mandate, so with the 2026 model year vehicles starting to hit showrooms this spring, combined EV and plug-in hybrid sales would need to increase 68% more or less overnight to meet the state’s mandate. 

Automakers only earn credits toward their mandate by selling qualifying vehicles, or buying credits from automakers with excess credits, like Tesla. But if EV sales continue to falter and there aren’t enough credits, automakers may have to pay the state $20,000 per vehicle sold for each credit they are short — or start restricting the sale of the regular gas cars and in-demand standard hybrids. 

This means automakers may be forced to only offer pricier plug-in-hybrid and all-electric models, which Maas says will push more California buyers into other states, or to the used market, which would push prices for used cars even higher. 

“We expect these inventory shortages of traditional hybrid and gas-powered models to become more acute over time,” continued Mass. “We are also concerned that shortages of new vehicles will increase used vehicle prices and will push Californians to purchase new vehicles from neighboring states.”

This wouldn’t be the first time automakers have restricted sales in California to meet its emissions requirements. 

In 2023, Stellantis, which owns Jeep, made gasoline-powered non-hybrids available only as special order vehicles in California and other states that have adopted California Air Resources Board Standards. However, Jeep continued to maintain inventory of plug-in hybrids. 

The plug-in hybrid Jeep Wrangler starts at $50,695, while the regular gas-powered Jeep starts at $31,995. 

The Biden administration approved the ACC II “gas car ban” in December. Because California’s air regulations pre-date the EPA, the state is allowed to pass its own air regulations more stringent than the national standard, so long as the EPA grants a waiver for each rule. 

Congressional Republicans are seeking to overturn the EPA’s granting of the waiver by claiming the power of congressional review, which allows Congress to overturn regulatory actions by executive agencies with a majority vote.  

While the Senate parliamentarian quashed one effort, motions to overturn the waivers in the House could make their way back up to the Senate and to the president’s desk.

The post Automakers may restrict gas, regular hybrid car sales if CA EV rule holds | California appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com

The Center Square

IRS proposal that churches may endorse politicians from the pulpit awaits approval | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Tate Miller – (The Center Square – ) 2025-07-10 07:06:00


A proposed court order could allow churches to endorse political candidates from the pulpit again without losing their nonprofit status, challenging the 1954 Johnson Amendment that barred such endorsements. The amendment, pushed by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson, prohibits nonprofits from participating in political campaigns. A lawsuit by the National Religious Broadcasters and some churches argues the amendment violates First and Fifth Amendment rights. The joint motion states that churches speaking to congregations about electoral politics through religious services do not violate the Johnson Amendment. The National Council of Nonprofits opposes the change, fearing it could undermine campaign finance laws. The IRS has not yet commented.

(The Center Square) – If a judge approves a proposed court order, the IRS will soon allow churches to endorse candidates from the pulpit again without losing their nonprofit status.

Churches lost the right to endorse candidates after the 1954 Johnson Amendment by former President Lyndon Johnson was approved.

The Johnson Amendment prohibits nonprofits “from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office,” according to the IRS.

Johnson – at that time a senator – was “running for re-election, and he and other members of Congress pushed the amendment to stop support for their political opponents’ campaigns,” according to Time.

A recent lawsuit filed by the National Religious Broadcasters and a few churches against the IRS may change the way the amendment affects churches, however.

National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) is an association of Christian communicators that – among other things – advocates for freedom of speech.

NRB and the churches involved in the case state that the Johnson Amendment “violates their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, their Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law and equal protection under the law, and the Religious Freedom Restoration.”

Both plaintiffs and defendants jointly motioned in a proposed court order that “the Johnson Amendment does not reach speech by a house of worship to its congregation, in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith.”

If the order is approved, the IRS will recognize that “when a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate[s]’ nor ‘intervene[s]’ in a ‘political campaign.’”

“Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates,” the proposed court order said.

“Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,” the court order said.

When asked twice for comment, the IRS did not respond.

NRB General Counsel Mike Farris told The Center Square “this is all tentative until the judge approves the proposed order,” and so NRB will not yet comment.

Likewise, NRB media relations told The Center Square that “NRB is awaiting the judge’s approval of the filing prior to publicizing our comments,” and that it “will issue this formal statement once the judge grants approval.”

The National Council of Nonprofits is against the proposed order, with its president and CEO Diane Yentel stating in a release that she believes the filing will “radically [alter] campaign finance laws” and could allow political operatives to give money to their preferred candidates while also receiving tax breaks.

As it now stands, however, the order only applies to churches.

When reached, the National Council of Nonprofits referred The Center Square to its release.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Ryan Tucker told The Center Square: “We are pleased with the IRS’s decision to lift its restrictions upon church sermons as it reaffirms that the government shouldn’t be able to threaten a church with financial penalties based on a requirement that the church self-censor and surrender its constitutionally protected freedom.”

“Now and always, churches have the constitutional right to speak freely,” Tucker said.

The post IRS proposal that churches may endorse politicians from the pulpit awaits approval | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article reports on the potential lifting of the IRS restrictions on churches endorsing political candidates, providing historical context about the Johnson Amendment and presenting viewpoints from different stakeholders. While it remains largely factual and informative, the selection of voices cited and the framing subtly favor a pro-religious speech and religious liberty perspective, which is commonly associated with conservative or center-right viewpoints. The interviews and quotes predominantly come from groups advocating for fewer restrictions on churches’ political speech (National Religious Broadcasters, Alliance Defending Freedom) and cast opposition primarily in terms of regulatory overreach. The article avoids overt criticism or praise but its emphasis on constitutional rights and religious freedom aligns it slightly toward a center-right framing rather than a fully neutral or balanced tone.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Siegel: Brutal time in captivity; Trump can get hostages home | North Carolina

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Alan Wooten – (The Center Square – ) 2025-07-09 09:02:00


Chapel Hill native Keith Siegel, released from Hamas captivity after 484 days, detailed his torture and urged leaders like President Trump and Israeli PM Netanyahu to secure the return of remaining hostages and end the Israel-Hamas conflict. Since the conflict’s start on October 7, 2023, about 1,200 Israelis were killed, with ongoing hostilities causing massive civilian casualties. Of 50 hostages, around 28 are believed dead; negotiations continue. Trump’s influence helped Siegel’s release, and US-Senator Ted Budd demands release of two American hostages or consequences for Hamas. Meanwhile, North Carolina Democrats formally oppose US military aid to Israel amid accusations of apartheid and genocide.

(The Center Square) – Five months after his release from Hamas, Chapel Hill native Keith Siegel has shared details of his time in captivity and said President Donald Trump is powerful enough to get other hostages home.

The Middle East war between Hamas and Israel started Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant organization killed about 1,200 in Israel and took 251 hostage. Published reports say 57,000 have lost their lives since, the latest five Israeli Defense Forces soldiers on Monday in an explosion in northern Gaza.

The majority of fatalities, however, have been civilians caught in the crossfire. 

Twenty-eight of 50 hostages still held by Hamas are believed dead, Israeli Defense Forces says. Isreal believes 20, and possibly the remaining 22, are still alive. Negotiations are ongoing involving length of time for a ceasefire, and number of hostages both living and dead to be returned.

Trump has sought to broker deals for peace since before his inauguration, in part leading to Siegel’s release on Feb. 1 after 484 days. His wife, Aviva, was released after 51 days.

“I believe he has a lot of strength, power and ability to put pressure on those that need to be pressured, on both sides in order to get the agreement, get the deal signed, and get all of the hostages back and bring an end to the war,” Siegel told the BBC on the cusp of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visiting the White House this week.

On Tuesday, Siegel – he has dual citizenship in Israel and America – testified before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, a panel in Israel’s parliament. He described torture tactics against others and himself by Hamas, abuse and violence. It happened to men and women hostages, he said.

Siegel told the committee those alive and dead “could disappear” if not returned soon.

“I call on Netanyahu and Trump to do everything they can and bring everyone home,” he said.

U.S. Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., said Monday two American hostages must be released or Hamas should “face swift consequences.”

The United States has long been an ally of Israel in the Middle East, including being the first to recognize it as an independent state in 1948 under President Harry Truman. Back in Siegel’s native homeland last month, the North Carolina Democratic Party’s executive committee formally resolved ending American support of Israel to include all military aid, weapons shipments and military logistical support.

It boldly stated Israel is guilty of apartheid against Palestinians; genocide in Gaza; and using American weapons in “self defense” against hospitals, schools, homes, refugee camps, mosques, churches, journalists and humanitarian aid workers.

First-term Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, since the resolution was announced, has not publicly issued a press release or made a social media statement about his party’s position. Nor have any of the Democrats in the U.S. House – Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.

The other four members of the Council of State representing the North Carolina Democratic Party have also been similarly silent – Lt. Gov. Rachel Hunt, Attorney General Jeff Jackson, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, and Education Superintendent Mo Green.

The post Siegel: Brutal time in captivity; Trump can get hostages home | North Carolina appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article reports on the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel, focusing on the personal story of Keith Siegel, a former hostage, and featuring supportive comments about former President Donald Trump’s role in brokering peace deals. The coverage of Trump is framed positively, highlighting his strength and ability to negotiate, which suggests a Center-Right leaning, as this tone aligns more closely with conservative or Republican perspectives. Additionally, the article contrasts this with criticism of the North Carolina Democratic Party’s resolution against American support for Israel, characterizing their stance as extreme and noting the absence of public responses from Democratic officials, which may implicitly criticize that position. Overall, the article presents facts about the conflict and political actions but subtly endorses a pro-Israel and pro-Trump viewpoint, thereby suggesting a Center-Right bias rather than strictly neutral reporting.

Continue Reading

News from the South - North Carolina News Feed

Briner: State pension plan makes $8B, outperforms stock market | North Carolina

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-07-09 08:07:00


North Carolina’s $127 billion state pension plan generated $8 billion in investment profits in the first half of the fiscal year, surpassing expectations by $2.5 billion, according to State Treasurer Brad Briner. Despite this success, the plan has historically underperformed and faces a $16 billion annual deficit due to growing pension obligations and fewer contributors. The state’s contribution has increased from zero to 17% of employee salaries over 25 years, prompting calls to curb further increases. Recent legislation established a five-member North Carolina Investment Authority to modernize pension fund management, replacing the previous sole-investor model overseen by the treasurer.

(The Center Square) – In the first six months of this fiscal year, the North Carolina state pension plan investments made $8 billion and outperformed the stock market, the state’s treasurer said Tuesday.

“That number is we think the largest profit in the six-month history of our state pension system,” first-term Republican Brad Briner said at a meeting of state leaders. “But moreover, it is $2.5 billion more than we expected.”



Brad Briner, state treasurer of North Carolina




North Carolina’s $127 billion pension plan has “underperformed for years,” according to Briner.

The plan has been running a $16 billion annual deficit based on the gains it needed to sustain pension payments without raising state contributions to the plan, Briner said.

Gains in the pension plan investments can reduce the need to increase the state contribution which has grown from zero 25 years ago to the current 17% of employee salary, Briner said.

“We can’t keep letting it go up.” Briner said told other state leaders Tuesday.

The North Carolina Retirement System serves more than 1 million people, from teachers to state employees, local governments, firefighters, police officers and other public workers. It operates at a deficit similar to Social Security, with fewer people paying in than are eligible for benefits.

Estimated market value was $89 billion when former Treasurer Dale Folwell took office in January 2017 and $127 billion on Dec. 27, 2024, in his final days of office.

This fall, the treasurer’s office will conduct studies to determine how to possibly reduce the employer match.

“All of that is getting to what we can do on the employer match side to relieve some of the pressure on our agencies and on the state budget,” the treasurer said.

Also, the Legislature this year passed and the governor signed the Investment Modernization Act which according to Briner “fundamentally” changes the way the state manages pension fund investments.

It creates a five-member North Carolina Investment Authority, chaired by the treasurer, which includes financial professionals appointed by the governor, treasure and leaders of the legislature.

The state has been one of only three in the country to give one person – the treasurer- sole power for administering pension plan investments, Briner said.

The post Briner: State pension plan makes $8B, outperforms stock market | North Carolina appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

This article largely reports factual information about North Carolina’s state pension plan performance and related administrative changes, quoting Republican state treasurer Brad Briner extensively. While it focuses on the treasurer’s perspective—who emphasizes financial discipline and reform—there is no overt editorializing or partisan framing beyond the presentation of his statements. The positive framing of investment gains and calls to reduce state contributions align with fiscally conservative principles, suggesting a moderate right-leaning viewpoint. However, the reporting remains largely neutral and informative, primarily conveying the actions and positions of officials rather than endorsing a specific ideological stance.

Continue Reading

Trending