As a climate-fueled heat wave stresses California's electric grid, right-wing media are disingenuously attacking electric vehicles

  TED MACDONALD Via Media Matters

A potentially record-breaking heat wave is set to blanket much of California and the Western U.S. throughout the Labor Day weekend. In preparation for this event, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has declared a state of emergency, and grid operators in the state are urging residents to conserve power during peak hours. This also means advising residents to avoid charging electric vehicles during peak hours. 

Right-wing media are using this potentially deadly heat event to mock both electric vehicles and California’s new rule that would ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. These attacks are littered with falsehoods about both EVs and what the gas car ban intends to do. At the same time, these attempts just distract from the fact that this event could result in California logging one of the hottest temperatures ever recorded on Earth.

The main focus of reporting on this event should be climate change, which is making heat waves such as this one more frequent and more severe, with one climate scientist stating recently that “I think we can very confidently say that every heatwave occurring today has been made more intense and more likely because of climate change.” Climate-fueled extreme heat events are also straining California’s power grid. The New York Times notes that the grid situation “could be worsened if a heat wave causes residents to turn to air-conditioners for comfort en masse, driving up energy demand.”

California is not banning all gas cars — a point that has apparently been lost by some right-wing media 

On August 25, California regulators introduced a landmark rule that would ban the sale of new gas-powered cars and light trucks by 2035. The rule applies only to the sale of new gasoline cars — it does not affect the sale of used cars; it does not affect gas-powered cars bought before 2035; and it does not affect out-of-state gasoline cars driving into the state. The year 2035, of course, is more than a decade away, a time when electric vehicles are projected to make up more than half of global car sales. Additionally, The New York Times reports that major auto companies are already “receptive” to the rule. Many of these companies intend to be mostly or fully electric by 2035.

These facts have not stopped right-wing media from lying about the car rule, or forgetting to include some key information about the rule when discussing the new gas-powered car ban in relation to California’s upcoming heat wave. For example, a Foxnews.com headline from August 31 reads “GOP leader slams CA power operator for discouraging EV charging during heat wave after vote to ban gas cars.” Additionally, a Wall Street Journal editorial from the same day reads “No Fun in the California Sun: The state says don’t charge the EVs it will soon force you to buy.” California is not forcing people to buy electric cars, just instituting a ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars. This falsehood was also suggested by Rob Schmitt on the August 31 edition of Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt Tonight, when he stated, “Today the state of California sent out a powerful message begging residents for their compliance with a very hot Labor Day weekend ahead: Please keep your thermostat at 78 degrees and don't charge your electric car in the evening. That from the same state that's forcing you to buy an electric car.”

One tweet from the conservative Hodgetwins has over 50,000 likes and implies that California is completely banning all gas-powered cars by 2035:

Meanwhile, Fox News personality Larry Elder also tweeted misleading information about the car rule:

Fox News has also jumped in on this discourse. The network has been banging the drums against the California plan since it first came out; Laura Ingraham devoted her opening monologue to it on August 24, and on August 30, Tucker Carlson used the first 17 minutes of his show to bash the car rule and connect it to California’s grid issues. 

This misleading chyron ran on the September 1 edition of The Faulkner Focus:

Again: California is not banning all gas cars, and the ban on new gas cars will take place 13 years from now.

On the September 1 edition of Outnumbered, Fox Business anchor Cheryl Casone implied that all gas cars are being banned in the state, stating, “It looks like California's going to need to pump the brakes on their electric vehicle plan. Just days after the Golden State regulators banned the sale of gas cars by 2035, a heat wave is now straining California’s power grid and forcing the Dem-led city to urge residents to not charge their electric vehicles from 4-9 p.m.”

On the September 1 edition of America’s Newsroom, climate contrarian guest Michael Shellenberger broadly stated, “It was quite ironic that six days after the state voted to ban internal combustion engines, the state grid operator warned that people should not be charging their cars because of a risk of blackouts.”

California is neither banning people from charging EVs nor urging them not to do it at all; it is only asking them not to charge EVs during peak hours

This last Shellenberger statement brings up a larger point about California’s power grid message: The state is not banning people from charging their electric vehicles; it’s only urging them not to do it during peak demand hours:

In a news release, the California ISO said it expects that it will issue calls for voluntary conservation of electricity through Flex alerts over the long weekend.

"During a Flex Alert, consumers are urged to reduce energy use from 4-9 p.m. when the system is most stressed because demand for electricity remains high and there is less solar energy available," the release said.

California made the same request last year, and data shows that most EV owners don’t need to charge their EVs during peak hours:

Most electric car drivers top off their battery regularly rather than charging it from empty to full. Therefore, many cars are equipped with charging timers and only require a few hours of charging each day, so Californians can easily avoid charging vehicles during peak hours.

Some of the right-wing media discussion ignores this fact. A Daily Wire headline reads “California Asks Residents To Avoid Charging Electric Vehicles Due To Blackout Risk Days After Unveiling New Gas Car Ban.” 

Some Twitter takes from conservative media personalities also contain this falsehood:

Right-wing media are continuing their long-running crusade of attacking electric vehicles and ignoring the climate crisis

Fox News in particular has a long-running campaign against electric vehicles and ignores the evidence that the vehicle market appears favorable to EVs in the next few years. (It could also save consumers trillions of dollars.) The example above shows that Fox personalities seem to want their viewers to believe that the ban on new gas-powered cars in California is taking place tomorrow; they’re ignoring the fact that it’s still over a decade away, by which time the country will inevitably have added more clean power capacity to the grid. 

Fox is also ignoring how climate change is exacerbating extreme heat events and causing major stresses on the electrical grid. A good example of this comes from the September 1 edition of Fox Business’ Varney & Co. Speaking about the upcoming California heat wave, The Federalist’s Ben Domenech blamed the “green agenda” for potential stress on the energy grid, and not the main culprit, which is climate-fueled extreme weather events. (Domenech also claimed nuclear power should be considered more, without noting that California recently just voted to extend the life of its last-remaining nuclear plant.)

A summer of extreme climate-fueled events shows the climate crisis is at our doorstep. Right-wing media refuse to acknowledge this reality, instead preferring to repeat pro-fossil fuel messages — i.e., the ones that got us into this climate mess in the first place.

As States Are Closing Abortion Clinics At A Record Pace, California Is Taking The Opposite Approach

BY TARA CULP-RESSLER/Think Progress

Over the past three years, a record number of abortion clinics have closed their doors. The rush of closures is largely because states are launching a coordinated attack against clinics, imposing harsh new regulations that often force them to shut down. But at least one state is working to reverse the trend.

California — which has emerged as somewhat of a progressive leader when it comes to reproductive rights legislation — is advancing a proposal that would allow abortion clinics to adhere to the same standards as primary care clinics. That’s a sharp divergence from the type of abortion clinic restrictions that are spreading across the country, which typically require clinics to makeunnecessary upgrades to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical facilities.

Women’s health experts, including the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, say there’s no good reason to require abortion clinics to update their facilities to fall in line with surgical standards. In the abstract, it’s easy for abortion opponents to make the case that these are necessary updates to ensure that patients are safe. But in reality, these type of state laws often require clinics to build bigger parking lots, install new air filtration systems, and widen their hallways — and when abortion clinics can’t afford those expenses, they’re forced to close their doors.

Abortion has typically been segregated from the rest of reproductive health care and held to a higher standard than other types of medical practice, simply because of the political opposition to the procedure. California state lawmaker Richard Pan (D) hopes his legislation will remove that unfair dynamic.

“This bill will repeal unequal and burdensome building requirements on clinics that provide abortions,” Pan explained at a hearing at the end of August. “This bill creates parity, that’s all… We are not lowering standards. We are basically applying the same standards across the board.”

The California Senate approved Pan’s measure on Monday, and it now returns to the Assembly for a final vote.

It’s not the first time that California lawmakers have recently worked to protect access to abortion care instead of attacking it. At the end of last month, California lawmakers voted to allow more types of medical professionals, like nurse practitioners, to perform early abortions. That represents an important method of expanding access to the procedure, since over half of the state’s counties currently lack an abortion provider. That piece of legislation is currently awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s (D) signature.

Thanks To Obamacare, Major Insurers Have To Give Back $36 Million To California Small Businesses

By Sy Mukherjee/Think Progress

On Tuesday, Golden State small businesses and their employees got some great news: two of the state’s largest insurers will have to give them over $36 million in insurance rebates because of an Obamacare consumer protection.

The health law forces insurers to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they charge on paying for actual medical services, rather than administrative overhead or profits. That means more money for ordinary consumers — and less for profitable insurance companies.

The so-called “80/20 rule” put $1.5 billion back into Americans’ pockets in 2011 alone. The average rebate was $151 per family across all insurance markets, and in states where insurers blatantly gouged prices, average rebates topped a whopping $500 per family.

Now, the benefits for Californians with small business health plans are beginning to materialize. Blue Shield of California will be forced to pay back $24.5 million in rebates. Anthem Blue Cross will have to pay back another $12 million.

While cheering the latest numbers as a victory for California small businesses and their employees, consumer advocates argue that the insurance industry should try harder to proactively lower costs for companies and individuals.

“Health insurers should work to cut upfront premiums rather than reimburse consumers afterward,” said Jon Fox, consumer advocate at the California Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. “Millions of dollars in rebates are a clear sign that health insurers are overcharging consumers.”

Large insurers like Anthem Blue Cross have tried their best to circumvent Obamacare protections like the 80/20 rule by threatening outlandish premium rate hikes. The health law requires state insurance regulators to review any premium hike request above 10 percent, but it leaves the decision of whether or not reject those rates with the states. Although 37 states can negotiate or reject insurers’ rates, some large-population states — including California — can’t.

Still, any rate hikes imposed by insurers will be held accountable to the 80/20 rule. Financial gimmicks may give insurers a short turn profit — but it’s one they’ll have to give right back to consumers.

Insurance companies aren’t the only ones who aren’t huge fans of this consumer protection. Last September, the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Health Subcommittee passed H.R. 1206, which would have repealed the 80/20 rule and amounted to a massive premium hike for over 13 million Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)estimated that the bill would also increase the federal deficit by $531 million in the next four years.

Fox Business attacks measure that would repeal News Corp’s massive tax loophole

By Eric W. Dolan The Fox Business Network ran a negative report on a California ballot initiative that its parent company, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, has spent over a million dollars to defeat, according to New York Times.

As part of an ongoing report entitled "The War on Business," Fox business correspondent Adam Shapiro repeatedly stated that Proposition 24, also known as the Tax Fairness Act, could drive small businesses out of California.

His five hour report took place at a furniture manufacturing facility in Gardena, California where he interviewed owner Ben Nielsen, who was also interviewed by the group "No on 24."

If passed, Proposition 24 would repeal $1.7 billion in corporate tax breaks passed in late 2008.

Those supporting the repeal of the corporate tax breaks claim it is draining state revenue while those in favor of the tax breaks say it allows employers to expand their business.

Fox interviewed no one supporting Proposition 24, according to the Times report.

"The state government estimates that if [the legislation] went into effect, the short run cost would be $700 million in reduced tax collections," Charles Swenson, professor at the Marshall School of Business, told the Daily Trojan. "However, in the long run, it would attract more businesses to California, creating more jobs and expanding the tax base."

"By 2014, after the breaks take hold, corporations would only account for 9.4 percent of tax collections," counters David A. Sanchez, President of the California Teacher Association. "To say this would hurt businesses is misleading, because 98 percent of California’s businesses — especially small businesses — would get virtually no benefit from the tax breaks. These tax breaks unfairly benefit less than 2 percent of California’s businesses, and they are the state’s wealthiest multistate and multinational corporations."

The proposition comes during an election season where California faces a $19 billion budget deficit.

Tracy Byrnes, an anchor for the Fox Business report, said that the proposition "was setting up businesses to be destroyed, quite frankly."

News Corporation, Fox Business Network's parent company, has donated nearly $1.3 million to groups opposing the proposition.

News Corporation is one of ten corporations that have donated over a million dollars to defeat Proposition 24. The other corporations are the Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS, General Electric, NBC, Cisco, Genentech and Qualcomm.

The report by Fox Business did not disclose News Corporation's donations or include interviews of supporters of the proposition, such as the California Teacher Association.

Kevin Magee, executive vice president at Fox Business, told the New York Times he did not know of his parent company's donation, but claims if he had known of it beforehand, he would have made sure it was disclosed.

"There's a trust between you and your audience, no matter what the medium is," Kevin Z. Smith, former president of the Society of Professional Journalists told the New York Times. "Not disclosing conflicts, to me, severely undermines your credibility."

California Judge: Prop. 8 Is Unconstitutional, Has No ‘Rational Basis’ For Singling Out Same-Sex Couples

By Igor Volsky Moments ago, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8, passed by California voters in November 2008, which prohibited same-sex couples from marrying in the sate. Walker found that the Prop 8 undermined both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, arguing that “[e]ach challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation: ”

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite- sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Last night, anticipating Judge Walker’s decision, lawyers for the Proposition 8 defense team asked Walker to “for a stay of his ruling if the outcome is to declare the law unconstitutional.” Walker issued an emergency stay of the judgment and will decide later if an indefinite stay is in order.

The ruling is now expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Update Reaction from Newt Gingrich: "Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society."

Update Reaction from CAP President and CEO John Podesta, who is also co-chair of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which helped launch Perry v. Schwarzenegger: "Judge Walker’s decision reaffirms the Constitution’s command that all Americans must receive ‘equal protection of the laws.’ Prop 8 is incompatible with our Constitution and a long line of precedent rejecting laws that single out a certain class of Americans for disfavored legal status. Today’s decision does nothing more than restore the Constitution’s promise to millions of American couples. Because Constitutional precedent so clearly rejects Prop 8, I have every confidence that this decision will be upheld on appeal."

Update Reaction from Freedom To Marry: "Today's federal ruling strikes down a cruel and unfair constitutional amendment that should never have become law and affirms that the freedom to marry belongs to every American. As the first court to strike down race restrictions on marriage said in 1948, "the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." There is no gay exception in the Constitution to personal choice and the right to marry, and there is no good reason to continue excluding same-sex couples from marriage."