SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 19 2009, 02:15pm EDT
Contact:
Jessica Lass at 310-434-2300 (main), jlass@nrdc.org
California Adopts Flawed Mileage-Based Auto Insurance Regulations
New Policies Miss Opportunity to Reward Low Mileage Drivers and Reduce Pollution
SACRAMENTO, Calif.
The Natural Resources Defense Council today said that new California
"Pay As You Drive" insurance regulations will not likely save
Californians money nor significantly reduce global warming pollution.
The final regulations, which merely permit insurance companies to
verify the miles their customers drive, can be found here.
"Our
auto insurance policies are sorely behind the times," said Justin
Horner, NRDC transportation policy analyst. "No one should be fooled.
The new regulations proposed today cannot be characterized as green.
They are nowhere close to what is needed to help the environment or
reduce global warming pollution."
Pay As You Drive
(PAYD) insurance directly ties the amount you drive to the amount you
pay for auto insurance: if you drive less, you pay less. Under current
regulations, drivers usually pay as much for auto insurance whether
they drive five miles a month or five hundred. Strong PAYD rules could
reduce global warming pollution and save drivers money. However,
according to NRDC, the regulations put forward by the Department of
Insurance will not likely result in effective PAYD programs and will
have little, if any, meaningful impact on California's environment.
"Because
mileage verification in the regulations is entirely voluntary, there is
no evidence that any insurance companies will make the switch," Horner
said. "The regulations weaken driver privacy and make insurance pricing
less transparent - changes the insurance industry lobbied for - but
still offer no timeline or proposal for when, or if, drivers will see
any PAYD policies in California."
The regulations permit
verification but do not require, or even provide guidance on, effective
mileage pricing. In short, setting up mileage verification programs is
not the same as offering PAYD insurance.
Instead of
requiring insurance companies to offer PAYD insurance policies, the
final regulations merely permit insurers to offer a voluntary mileage
verification program. In return, insurers are permitted to offer
discounts to drivers to have them enter such a program and determine
their rate based on additional factors. The regulations also allow
insurance companies to require drivers, as a condition of their
participation in a mileage verification program, to install a mileage
tracking device in their vehicles.
Background on PAYD policies in California:
In
1988, voters demanded change to auto insurance in California and passed
Proposition 103, requiring the number of miles driven to be the
second-most important factor in determining insurance premiums, after
driving safety record. Advocates across California have asked the
Department of Insurance to better implement Prop 103 and require
insurance companies to more closely correlate premiums with the number
of miles their customers actually drive. NRDC advocated for mandatory
mileage tracking programs without requiring drivers to install tracking
devices, and lobbied for tight mileage bands to correlate greater
savings with the fewer number of miles driven annually.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
50+ Dems Slam Rubio Plan to Burn 500 Metric Tons of Emergency Food Aid
"This action is not only morally indefensible, but also wasteful, strategically shortsighted, and completely counter to the entirety of your work while in the Senate."
Jul 18, 2025
More than 50 congressional Democrats on Friday condemned U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's decision to withhold and destroy nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food aid for Afghanistan and Pakistan—a move that came a month after the Trump administration's State Department abolished all overseas positions at the United States Agency for International Development.
The USAID emergency food aid—which has been stored in a warehouse in Dubai for months and will expire before the end of July—is enough to feed around 1.5 million children for a week. The aid consists of high energy biscuits that are used primarily to satisfy the immediate nutritional needs of children enduring food crises. It is now set to be incinerated.
"This action is not only morally indefensible, but also wasteful, strategically shortsighted, and completely counter to the entirety of your work while in the Senate," the Democratic lawmakers wrote in a letter to Rubio.
"Given the alarming rates of food insecurity and famine in regions like Gaza and Sudan, the decision to burn lifesaving aid produced by American farmers and paid for by American tax dollars amounts to a tragic abdication of our global humanitarian responsibilities and hurts our own global interests," the letter asserts.
Secretary Rubio is planning to withhold 500 metric tons of vital food aid that could feed 1.5 million starving children… and then incinerate the food once it expires. UNACCEPTABLE!
[image or embed]
— Rep. Mark Pocan (@pocan.house.gov) July 18, 2025 at 12:55 PM
"We are also alarmed by reports indicating that internal USAID memos requesting urgent approval to move the biscuits went unanswered for months," the lawmakers said. "If accurate, this speaks to a systemic breakdown in communication and leadership that has paralyzed America's food aid delivery systems."
"The United States has long led the world in humanitarian assistance, not only as a matter of compassion but also as a cornerstone of global stability and diplomacy," the letter concludes. "Destroying aid that could save lives undermines that legacy and damages our standing in the international community. We urge you to immediately prioritize the distribution of all remaining and viable food assistance stockpiles. American leadership demands nothing less."
Rubio's decision comes a month after the secretary of state ordered the abolition of all overseas USAID positions amid the Trump administration's downsizing and elimination of the agency, one of many targeted by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, formerly led by multibillionaire Elon Musk.
As Common Dreams reported in May, 66,000 tons of food—including grains, high-energy biscuits, and vegetable oil—were already mouldering in USAID warehouses.
U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce attempted to justify Rubio's decision during a Thursday press conference.
"If something is expired, we will destroy it. It's a matter of whether or not it's safe to distribute," she said, adding that 500 metric tons amounts to "less than 1%" of all annual U.S. food aid.
"We, as an example, distribute roughly 1 million metric tons of food aid every year, which is reflective of the American people's generosity," Bruce said.
While many observers expressed surprise over the impending destruction of so much food aid, some contended that it tracks with the Trump administration's wider attitudes toward poor people.
"Republicans don't care if American children starve," said podcast host Lana Quest, "so why would they care about famine in other countries?"Keep ReadingShow Less
Facing Growing Outrage and Legal Action, Trump Admin Frees Chunk of Withheld Education Funds
"He's still illegally withholding $5.5 billion more from schools," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Congress passed it. The president signed it. Trump must release it."
Jul 18, 2025
Following widespread backlash and threats of legal action, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump announced Friday that it will free up part of the $6.8 billion worth of education funding the president has withheld from states.
Earlier this week, 24 states sued the administration after it announced it would refuse to send the money—which had already been appropriated by Congress—to states just weeks before the start of the school year, citing "ongoing programmatic review" to ensure that none of it is used to fund diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
According to The New York Times:
The withheld money includes about 14% of all federal funding for elementary and secondary education across the country. It helps pay for free or low-cost after-school programs that give students a place to go while their parents work. It also covers training to improve the effectiveness of teachers and help for children learning English.
These programs provide a critical source of childcare that allow low-income families to work. Without them, organizations like the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Club of America have said they'd need to scale back their offerings.
A report issued last week by New America noted the disproportionate impact the cuts would have on low-income students:
Students from low-income backgrounds are especially at risk of losing education resources. Districts serving high-poverty student populations (those where over 25% of children live in poverty) will lose over five times as much funding per pupil as low-poverty school districts (those where fewer than 10% of children live in poverty). The 100 school districts facing the biggest cuts on a per-pupil basis have an average child poverty rate of 24.4%, much higher than the national average of 15.3%.
The administration held up the funding for weeks, causing a building panic among educators and families. A group of 10 Republican senators even sent a letter on Wednesday urging a top Trump official to let the money flow to their states.
Then, on Friday, the administration announced that it would allow $1.4 billion worth of funding to be released to states beginning Monday, though they would still reserve the right to choke it off once again should any of it be used to violate the president's executive orders.
The administration said it will continue to withhold the remaining $5.5 billion and provided no timeline for when it might be released.
According to Education Week, schools around the country had been "banking" on that money for teacher training, English-learner services, migrant and adult education programs, and academic enrichment being delivered on its expected due date of July 1.
David Schuler, executive director of AASA, an association of school superintendents, said that while he was happy to see some of the money released, withholding the rest was still putting severe strain on schools.
"Districts should not be in this impossible position where the administration is denying funds that had already been appropriated to our public schools, by Congress," Schuler said in a statement. "The remaining funds must be released immediately—America's children are counting on it."
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) announced Friday that she would block the fast-tracking of a Trump appointee for the Department of Education until Trump releases all the funds.
"Just weeks out from the new school year, families, teachers, and school districts are suffering the consequences of President Trump's needless and illegal blockade of this funding," Murray said. "This administration won't so much as explain why the money is held up or when we can expect it to go out."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who joined Murray's efforts, welcomed the news that some of the funding had been unfrozen.
"Today we forced Trump to release $1.3 billion for more than 10,000 summer and after-school programs helping 1.4 million students," he said.
But, Sanders added, "it's not enough. He's still illegally withholding $5.5 billion more from schools. Congress passed it. The president signed it. Trump must release it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Devastating' Trump Cuts to FDA, NIH Will Result in Fewer Medications, New Analysis Warns
"The United States' effort to bring cutting-edge treatments to patients," said a group of lawmakers, "will come to a grinding halt because of the Trump administration's devastating cuts to NIH and FDA funding."
Jul 18, 2025
One former federal health official said Friday that medications with the potential to "substantially change healthcare and improve the lives of patients" are likely to be among the dozens that won't be developed if Republicans pass a proposal by the Trump administration to slash crucial health research funding.
Jeremy Berg, a former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the National Institutes of Health, was referring to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of President Donald Trump's proposal to cut funding to the NIH by 40%—budget cuts that experts have warned would kneecap the country's ability to research emerging health threats and treatments, while terminating the United States' position as a world leader in medical innovation.
"The lost drugs" resulting from the budget cuts, Berg told The New York Times, "are more likely to be the novel 'first in class' drugs."
The CBO found that even a 10% reduction in the NIH budget would stop an estimated 30 new medications from coming to market over the next three decades.
A reduction in the agency's external preclinical research "would ultimately decrease the number of new drugs coming to market by roughly 4.5%, or about two drugs per year," the CBO said, with the impact of the budget cuts growing over three decades.
The CBO also analyzed proposals that would affect the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including one that would cut staff and result in increased review times for new medications by nine months. By the second decade of the policy being in effect, said the CBO, 10 fewer drugs would be approved each decade—a 2% reduction—with 23 new medications ultimately being prevented from coming to market.
Already, the FDA's workforce has been reduced by about 15%, with 3,500 people losing their jobs or resigning.
The Times reported that the FDA has approved 25 new drugs so far in 2025; it has authorized an average of 60 new medications per year in the past.
"This unprecedented assault on our healthcare institutions by the Trump administration will cut off access to medicines that patients are waiting for, cede our global leadership in medical innovation to China, and cause wide-ranging harms to our nation's economy."
A group of Democratic lawmakers who serve as ranking members of key committees emphasized that the CBO's analysis likely vastly underestimates the impact Trump's proposed cuts would have on the NIH, as it investigated the potential impact of just a 10% budget cut rather than the full 40% cut the president has proposed.
"The proposed cuts are so enormous that CBO's own model is unable to produce an estimate," said U.S. Reps. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), along with Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).
"The United States leads the world in medical innovation because of our continued investments in research and development at the NIH," said the lawmakers. "Every $1 invested in NIH research returns $2.50 to the U.S. economy. This unprecedented assault on our healthcare institutions by the Trump administration will cut off access to medicines that patients are waiting for, cede our global leadership in medical innovation to China, and cause wide-ranging harms to our nation's economy."
"The United States' effort to bring cutting-edge treatments to patients with cancers, rare diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases," they added, "will come to a grinding halt because of the Trump administration's devastating cuts to NIH and FDA funding."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular