The Autoonation Autoonation Autoonation has agreed to pay $ 650,000 in fines and revise its guidelines in an effort to pay a lawsuit with six counties from the Bay Area from the Bay Area, the late title transfer practices, the used automotive buyers to officially own their vehicles.

District prosecutors within the districts of Santa Clara, San Francisco, Sonoma, Los Angeles, Riverside and Ventura sued the autonation that 42 of its dealers had violated laws based on which they’d to attentive the DMV, and in addition often known as a Pink Slip, inside 30 days of the acquisition.

The alleged delays meant that buyers could officially claim the cars as their ownership in the event that they desired to resell the vehicles, refinance or offer the vehicles as a loan protection. The investigators estimate that hundreds of late transfers decreased to 2019.

According to several district prosecutor's office, the comparison conditions will not be permitted and 450,000 US dollars in civil law sanctions, $ 150,000 in investigative costs and $ 50,000 that run towards state consumer protection programs. William Monahan, judge of Santa Clara County's Supreme Court, signed the attitude that was submitted on Tuesday.

The autonation can also be obliged to “implement guidelines in order that you’ve gotten received registration and paperwork in good time, depending on the billing conditions. This includes stopping a caralo without giving access to the title. Smog check and VIN check required before a sale; have sufficient staff to process title transfers and a manager who’s commissioned to comply with; And to lift sales commissions for purchases wherein timely transmission shouldn’t be possible.

“People who buy cars with their hard -earned money rightly expect to get property on time,” said Jeff Rosen, district prosecutor of Santa Clara County.

The district prosecutor of San Francisco, Brooke Jenkins, added in an announcement: “I am pleased that these dealers have made changes that minimize the number of problems that can occur in the future.”

Originally published: February 26, 2025 at 12:14 p.m. PST

The first iteration of sales mandates with zero emission vehicles in California will come into force next yr. However, doubts have been instructed whether the goals could be achieved.

The trading group, which represents the automobile dealers of the state, says that buyers “have no possibility”, electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids on the pace required for California's annual requirements.

Relationships: Will the batteries that operate electric buses, will the zero emission mandates bring to standstill from California?

But civil servants with that California Air Resources Board -The Union-Tribune said that the responsible agency, which has ensured that an escalating percentage of sales thresholds has been reached: “We are confident that we will achieve the goals.”

How we got here here

“This is the most effective step our state can take to combat climate change.” Said newsoma on the time. “For many decades, we have allowed cars to pollute the air that breathe our children and families.”

The mandate only applies to latest automobile sales. and likewise after 2035, petrol -powered cars can still be driven in California.

The Air Resources Board, referred to as Carb in brief, followed the order of Newsom in 2022 and passed a lot of rules that contained staggered annual benchmarks for automobile manufacturers.

From the following yr, a minimum of 35% of the brand new automobile vehicles and truck sales of manufacturers have to be referred to electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, that are called ZEVS (zero emission vehicles), short 35% of the Be manufacturer. The percentages rise yearly until they reach 2035 100%.

The rules – formally called the Advanced Clean Cars II II Provisions-be kept a provision that grants the variety of plug-in hybrids sold. Every yr, not more than 20% of all plug-in sales have to be permitted to advertise sales of vehicles that don’t give emissions in any respect.

The regulation distinguishes between hybrid vehicles. Plug-in hybrids qualify Because they’ll only be driven with electricity – a minimum of for brief distances. But “traditional” hybrids without plugs cannot belong to the ZEV mandate in California.

ZEV sales grow … however the rate slows down

ZEV sales in California have increased from around 5,600 in 2010 to greater than 2.2 million on the streets and highways of the state. From January thirty first.

The California Energy Commission has made 25.1% of the brand new creator registrations within the fourth quarter of last yr.

But the adoption rate has slowed down. The number of electrical vehicles sold for all 2024 increased only 2,000 From the yr before. And have registrations nationwide left for 2 quarters.

These numbers follow with Numbers from the California New Car Dealers Association.The group's president, Brian Maas, doesn’t imagine that sales will grow sufficiently to fulfill the 35% mandate of the state for the model yr 2026.

An enormous reason why: The annual percentages apply to each automobile manufacturer; The mandate isn’t based on your complete ZEV sales and rental contracts throughout the state.

For example, in model yr 2026, a minimum of 35% of sales or rental contracts in California have to be from a manufacturer resembling Ford or GM or Toyota ZEVS. By model yr 2030, a minimum of 68% of the registrations of every automobile manufacturer ZEVS and so forth have to be.

Companies resembling Tesla, Rivian and Polestar, who only produce electric vehicles, would not have to fret that electric cars and trucks only sell. For other manufacturers, the inventory of which incorporates each petrol vehicles and ZEVs, it may very well be discouraging to realize the prescribed percentage.

Maas estimates that ZEVs only make up a tenth of the whole variety of vehicles that the majority California dealers sell or rent.

“There is no possibility that you will make it from 10 to 12% to 35% if the 2026 models arrive on lots later this year, said Maas.” I don't see how it’s going to occur. The mandate doesn’t meet the demand from consumers. “

The car manufacturers usually organize their new vehicles in September, so that the 2026 models reach exhibition rooms in about seven months.

What happens if the goal is not reached?

Carb officials say that if automobile manufacturers do not achieve the annual goals, you can wear deficits for up to three years.

In addition, manufacturers can buy credits from manufacturers who have sold more than enough ZEVs to meet the mandate. Carb employees have not yet published the price of these credits.

The rules are designed in such a way that they are supposed to work in a similar way to the cap-and trade program in California, which requires power plants, natural gas providers and large industries that spend the greenhouse gases in order to buy permits for the carbon pollution they produce.

The board of directors could also assess a fine for car manufacturers that are not adhered to Of around 20,000 US dollars per vehicle.

“We have a broad authority to implement our regulations, including fines,” said Carb spokesman David Clegus in an e -mail. “Fortunately, it never happened.”

Carb officials say that they have built up a lot of flexibility in the regulation and understand that market dynamics can change. They remain confident that the goals will be achieved and say that there are no plans to pause, adapt or eliminate the rule.

“The prices for ZEV – specifically the battery prices – proceed to drop, the range continues to rise and the infrastructure continues to develop and more models are made available yearly, which should help keep sales going,” said Clegern.

In addition, Carb predicts that the competition from international markets in China and Europe will increase the market share of ZEVS in the USA

“And historically, automobile manufacturers beat our regulatory expectations,” said Clegus. “They make the investments to compete and we assume that they are going to proceed to accomplish that.”

Maas is not nearly as sanguine. He predicts if the annual percentages cannot be met, this will probably lead to car manufacturers restricting the number of gasoline cars sent to California because the dealers are forced to sell an ever higher percentage of the ZEVs to the mandates fulfill.

“Consumers cannot find a way to purchase the vehicles (combustion engines) they need to buy,” said Maas. “You will not have dealers available. And those who have you will be more expensive … You cannot sell what a customer does not want. “

In addition to promoting sales of zero emission vehicles, the state spends billions for charging infrastructure.

Some potential ZEV buyers fear being stranded if your car has no electricity. In order to combat “range of fear”, California has planned 1.4 billion US dollars for the expansion of the state, which is the country's most extensive loading and hydrogen network. Approved by the California Energy Commission Last December, the financing will lead to almost 17,000 new light data chargers in the state.

The efforts of California may end up in danger due to a change in the white house.

President Trump on his first day of the office signed Executive command Described “unleashed American energy”, which is eliminated by the federal government's tax credit of as much as 7,500 US Freeze payments For programs for constructing charging stations.

According to Carb, about half of the greenhouse gas emissions in California come from the transport sector. The regulations for Advanced Clean Cars II promise to supply public health from benefits of a minimum of 12 billion US dollars By reducing early deaths, hospital stays and lost working days related to exposure to air pollution.

Originally published: February 14, 2025 at 8:02 a.m. PST

By Chris Isidore | CNN

New York – There's probability your automobile knows all the things about you. Where you were. How fast you drive. If only the brakes might have been operated a bit of more gently. Even the way you look, because of the cameras pointed directly at your face.

This sort of data collection has been around for years. And in some cases, the info was sold by automakers to 3rd parties, resembling insurance firms, which used the info on driving habits to extend insurance premiums for some customers.

RELATED: Who Sells Your Digital Data? California offers tools to guard online privacy

It has also been utilized by law enforcement, with essentially the most recent high-profile example being the Tesla Cybertruck that exploded outside the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas on New Year's Day. Police officers investigating the incident have thanked Tesla for quickly sharing data concerning the suspect who killed himself within the truck.

“I especially have to thank Elon Musk,” Las Vegas Sheriff Kevin McMahill said at a news conference, noting that the Tesla CEO had given authorities “a lot of additional information,” including sending videos directly of Tesla charging stations to assist them of their efforts to trace down the motive force.

But while law enforcement praises corporations for sharing driver data, others worry that almost all of the data collected could violate people's privacy. They fear that without restrictions, potential invasions of privacy will only worsen and automakers will have the opportunity to become profitable off the wealth of data they now have.

Not a number of details about a number of information

In recent years, General Motors sold data to third-party data corporations, which then sold details about drivers' driving habits to insurance firms. The company stopped sales after one New York Times The story concerning the practice in April sparked backlash, saying the corporate launched its so-called “Smart Driver” program to “promote safer driving behavior for the benefit of customers,” but customer feedback led to the discontinuation program.

However, this motion didn’t prevent the corporate from being sued by the Texas Attorney General in August, as the corporate had already sold data on greater than 14 million vehicles, including 1.8 million Texans. This lawsuit continues to be pending.

And that doesn't mean the practice of selling data has stopped, said auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid of communications company Telemetry. He said greater than 90% of recent cars can send information back to their respective manufacturers, with the one clue for drivers buried deep in vehicle manuals or within the positive print in sales contracts.

“Technically they had permission,” Abuelssamid said. “But it’s something that people should be aware of, but they aren’t.”

Some states and federal legislatures have also called for stronger controls on the gathering and sale of information. Privacy experts say that is an increasingly concerning issue because so few automobile owners realize how much information is being collected about them.

Possible advantages, but no control

He said even when automobile owners knew data was being collected, most didn't take into consideration how all the data can be used or the financial value it provided to automakers.

“Automotive companies don’t just collect data for fun,” he said. “It’s all about using the data profitably.”

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey wrote a letter to automakers a yr ago asking about their data collection, and the businesses defended their practices. They portrayed the gathering of data concerning the drivers of their cars as a lofty try to improve the vehicles and as a part of their dream of a greater world, relatively than concerned with the financial advantages they’d have derived from their efforts.

GM said the info can be used to create “our vision of a world with no accidents, no emissions and no congestion.” At the center of this vision is leveraging vehicle connectivity to supply safety and convenience to our customers.”

But while the corporate said data collection only occurs for patrons who’re “opted in,” that statement got here before The New York Times' revelations about its practices forced it to alter its policies.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that represents most major automakers apart from Tesla, has defended the practice across the industry.

“No, your car isn’t spying,” is the title of 1 memo The group prepared for the subject. “It protects you.” The data collection was not an intervention, but relatively a “,” the group emphasized in italics.

“Vehicle telematics data supports the proper functioning of a vehicle and its onboard computer systems,” the group said. “It generates information that can significantly improve safety, contribute to compliance with government safety regulations and enable a range of (optional) connectivity and personalization features for customers.” And it said the data collected could enable higher emergency response within the event of a vehicle accident.

The group wrote that automakers are following voluntarily adopted guidelines that require even greater protection than required by law for particularly sensitive data, including a vehicle's location and driver behavior information. And it was written that it will support federal laws that might make such policies into law.

But privacy advocates say there can be problems with national laws that would prevent states from adopting stricter regulations, resembling: B. State privacy regulations and bans on sharing driving data with insurance firms, as is the case in California. And they’re concerned about what can be considered “consent” from drivers.

“GM customers didn't think they would sell the data to third parties and that it would affect their insurance premiums,” Choffnes said. He said there needs to be stricter rules about “what form of consent is required and whether consumers can decide what data is sent and what is not.”

The CNN Wire
& © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery company. All rights reserved.

BRENTWOOD — Police used an armored vehicle to arrest two Brentwood teenagers suspected of carjacking, kidnapping and robbery last week.

In a press release Monday, Brentwood police said officers responded to the realm of ​​McClarren Road and Griffith Lane around 6:40 p.m. on Dec. 22 following reports of a robbery. When they arrived, police said a person told them the suspects attacked him, took his mobile phone and asked him to transfer money through a money app.

Police said they quickly gathered information and placed the 16-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl suspected within the crimes at a residence within the 700 block of Griffith Lane. Before the arrests, authorities called in an armored rescue vehicle.

Both suspects were arrested on suspicion of robbery, carjacking, kidnapping and other unknown crimes, police said.

Police said they made the choice to make use of the armored vehicle “given the seriousness of the situation and previous contacts on the ground,” adding they wanted to make sure “safe access” for officers.

Police said they subsequently called and arrested the suspects.

The victim suffered minor injuries within the attack, police said. Police said he one way or the other escaped from his automotive after the 2 teens forced him into his vehicle and drove him to a location where they might take more cash.

Both suspects were taken to the Contra Costa County Juvenile Detention Center.

Originally published: December 31, 2024 at 10:19 am PST

policy

As town of Natick considers a proposed policy to make clear town's immigration documentation policy, someone within the heated debate has reportedly turned to vandalism.

CEO Kathryn Coughlin's automotive was vandalized last week with the words “Deport illegals” spray-painted on it reported. Coughlin confirmed the vehicle was hers but declined further comment to Boston.com

Deputy Police Chief Brian Lauzon confirmed the incident had been reported and said, “We are actively conducting an investigation.”

The vandalism occurred ahead of a select committee meeting on Wednesday where members will discuss a proposal policy on immigration presented on November twentieth.

The proposed policy clarifies town's role in enforcing federal immigration regulations. The proposal has received widespread opposition and support because it was first drafted last month.

The policy wouldn’t “create a city of refuge,” but what would it not accomplish?

According to a Memo released by townIn 2022, a “group of engaged residents” began a discussion with city officials about coping with immigration issues, including using Natick's “limited resources” and the best way to protect town from liabilities related to federal immigration enforcement can.

“The Select Committee does not take any particular stance on federal immigration policies or regulations – past, present or future,” the memo said.

The proposed policy would prohibit city employees from inquiring or collecting “information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status” unless federal or state law requires it.

The policy also proposes that “no City employee shall detain any person based solely on the belief that the person is not legally present in the United States or that the person has committed an immigration violation.”

The city and its employees also wouldn’t act as immigration officials and wouldn’t “directly assist in the enforcement of federal civil immigration laws,” the proposed policy states. Acting on issued warrants, summonses, and detentions are exempt from the policy.

Coughlin declined to comment on the vandalism and said the select committee was prepared to vote on the measure next week, on Dec. 18.

A fact sheet distributed by Natick reiterates that the proposal would allow immigrants, whether documented or not, to take part in police investigations without fear as victims or witnesses, and formalizes the practice that “no city government has the legal authority to To enforce or require immigration documents/immigrant status unless required by state or federal law.”

The policy does not provide shelter or assistance to immigrants or create a sanctuary city, the fact sheet says said.

MassGOP warns against proposal

The proposal comes as both the city of Boston and Massachusetts leaders have said they will not cooperate with mass deportations expected when President-elect Donald Trump takes office. In Boston, Mayor Michelle Wu has stressed that city law prevents local resources and personnel, including police, from working with federal agents.

In Natick, the Massachusetts Republican Party warned in a statement that the policy would push illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds into the Boston suburb. Leanne Harris, MassGOP committeewoman for Middlesex and Norfolk counties, said, “Natick deserves better.”

“This proposal sets Natick down a troubling path where political behavior takes precedence over the protection of residents,” Harris' statement said. “Preventing law enforcement from fully cooperating with federal immigration authorities risks turning the city into a magnet for criminal activity. We have already seen tragic examples across the state where shelter-in-place policies have failed to protect communities.”

Another committee member said the proposal could overwhelm local resources.

“Even democratic strongholds like New York City are struggling with the refugee crisis and are rethinking their stance on asylum policy,” said Nicky Meceli. “Natick is just not equipped for this.”

California will increase rebates for electric vehicles if President-elect Donald Trump eliminates the $7,500 tax credit, Gov. Gavin Newsom says.

California had a zero-emission vehicle rebate from 2010 to 2023. It began with a direct rebate of $5,000 for battery electric vehicles, which eventually increased to $7,500.

Critics have already argued that California's budget is tight and adding more spending isn't ideal. California is nonpartisan Finance and political officer recently warned that the state budget doesn’t have the capability for brand spanking new commitments.

Q: Should California offer its own electric vehicle rebate if the federal tax credit goes away?

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: A $7,500 subsidy would cut back the fee of an electrical automotive by 15%, which may lead to a 15% increase within the number of electrical cars sold. That implies that for each $7,500 California would pay to get someone to change to electric cars, we can be paying $50,000 in subsidies to individuals who would have bought an electrical automotive anyway. Most of those buyers are wealthier than the common Californian. We should promote electric cars, but the prices outweigh the advantages here.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: While I benefited from each federal tax credits and California rebates in 2012, I don't think it is smart for a single state to try to switch demand-stimulating tax credits or to select and select amongst industry competitors who deserves help and who doesn't. I would favor that our government(s) support primary and sometimes dangerous research in university labs to advance the cutting-edge, but not pick winners or distort market demand.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: The latest fiscal outlook report from the Legislative Analyst Office finds the 2025-26 budget is roughly balanced, due partially to tax revenue growth driven by the stock rally relatively than the strength of the general economy. As a result, the budget lacks the capability to fund latest programs reminiscent of a revived federal rebate program. Even a rebate program that excludes popular Tesla vehicles, just like the one the governor is considering, could have limited impact on electric vehicle purchases.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO:Electric vehicle tax credits are an expensive and unfair strategy to reduce emissions. The profit primarily advantages wealthier residents who can afford latest cars and have access to charging stations. Taxing fuel (and carbon emissions more generally) and redistributing revenue to essentially the most vulnerable can be more efficient and revenue-neutral. Given the big budget deficit, offering a California-only rebate for electric vehicles can be particularly problematic now. To the extent that the goal is to create jobs, there isn’t any guarantee that those jobs can be local.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Subsidies impose disproportionate costs on lower-income consumers to be able to profit higher-income users. Electric vehicles needs to be feasible without requiring taxpayers to subsidize wealthy users who can afford the prices. Zero-emission vehicles are only as clean as the facility sources they’re connected to. The increase is predicted to exceed emissions from newer combustion engine vehicles. In any case, California, already facing double-digit operating deficits, is unable to soak up additional costs in the approaching years.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: The marketplace for electric vehicles is important and can remain so in the longer term. The electric vehicle tax credit is essential to maintaining competition on this market. The $7,500 discount has allowed other manufacturers to capture Tesla's market share, and eliminating the discount will allow Tesla to proceed its dominance. For this reason, Elon Musk believes that eliminating the discount can be a long-term profit for the corporate, even when it could have a negative impact on sales within the short term.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: Last time I checked, California had a budget deficit and expects to have one other deficit next yr. This deficit resulted within the state not funding programs that were significantly more necessary to the general public good than providing reimbursement for the acquisition of an electrical vehicle. I imagine it can be crucial to prioritize using taxpayer dollars by specializing in current health and public safety needs reminiscent of health care, mental health, public safety, education and homelessness.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: While I support rebates and credits for electric vehicles, I don't support them if the state budget can't afford it. California remains to be attempting to dig itself out of its $165 billion debacle starting in 2022. Adding in last month's budget outlook report released by the Legislative Analyst's Office, even the speaker of the California Legislature emphasized the necessity for fiscal restraint and warned against expanding programs or services in preparation for possible economic challenges. Now just isn’t the time to supply discounts.

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: The environment may be very necessary to Californians. As the biggest economy within the United States, we must also do our part to support the problems we imagine in, despite the ultra-conservative initiatives of the incoming administration.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: I’m an admitted hypocrite for receiving these tax credits. But since California plans to transition to electric cars by 2035, these cars can be purchased without tax credits. The larger incentive can be that the fee of those vehicles would fall. But that’s a tariff debate for an additional day. I like to recommend that the state deal with incentives to convert gas stations to electric stations, as refueling is the larger barrier.

Bob Rauch, RA Rauch & Associates

NO: California's economy has been experiencing a downturn for nearly two years. Inflation and sluggish private employment growth have led to weak consumer spending. Outside of presidency and health care, the state has not created any jobs within the last 1 1/2 years. High taxes, increased minimum wage and climate regulations, and other progressive policies have contributed to California's economic woes and left the state budget unable to accommodate latest commitments.

Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Association.

NO: California has already intervened in the electrical vehicle market starting in 2035, requiring all latest electric vehicles to be electric by then. So a government credit for electric vehicles is just overkill. And if California has money to spend—which, by the best way, it really doesn't—then why shouldn't we just put money into things that may profit everyone: relief from electricity and water rates, road repairs, or maintenance of public facilities?

Not participating this week:

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

Ray Major, economist

Originally published: December 6, 2024 at 5:13 am PST

What scares drivers

FREMONT — A one that got out of his automobile early Sunday and started throwing objects at vehicles on State Route 84 was killed when he was struck by a automobile, the California Highway Patrol said.

The deceased man's name was not immediately released pending notification of his family.

The driver of the automobile that hit the person didn't notice the incident until he drove home and checked out footage on his dashboard camera, authorities said. After seeing the footage, the motive force contacted the CHP.

The fatal collision occurred around 5:41 a.m. Sunday on westbound State Route 84, east of Paseo Padre Parkway.

According to the CHP, the person killed had stopped his Tesla within the lane closest to the middle divider and walked to the world of ​​the middle divider before reentering lane number three. According to a passing motorist, he threw objects at vehicles before being struck and killed by a Dodge Challenger, the CHP said.

The Challenger continued driving, but debris from the vehicle was recovered from the scene, CHP Officer Kylie Musselman said. Some of the debris had part numbers and the CHP was in a position to trace it to the owner.

Musselman said CHP officers also viewed video that showed the person on the road holding something in his hand before he was hit.

The CHP remains to be trying to find out why the person who was killed stopped his vehicle and was throwing objects on the roadway.

Anyone with information is asked to call the CHP Hayward office at 510-489-1500.