By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

California residents purchasing their first zero-emission vehicle will soon be eligible for an instant rebate of up to $3,500 under a new state program aimed at making electric vehicles more affordable.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 168 on July 16, creating the MyFirstEV program as part of California’s 2026-27 state budget. The initiative dedicates $135.5 million in state funding for point-of-sale rebates, which participating automakers will match dollar for dollar. State officials said the combined investment will provide $270 million in savings for first-time electric vehicle buyers.

Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.

“With our new instant rebate program for electric vehicles, we’re making it easier for families to drive clean, breathe clean, and keep more money in their pockets,” Newsom said in a statement.

Trending

New Bill Demands More Diversity Among Trustees in California Corporation

The MyFirstEV program is part of a broader $600 million investment in California’s clean transportation economy included in the state budget. The funding package also provides $150 million for the Community Air Protection Program, $19.8 million for the Clean Cars 4 All program for lower-income residents, $35 million for clean off-road equipment through the Air Quality Improvement Program, $135.5 million for the Clean Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, and $130 million for the Carl Moyer Program to replace older heavy-duty engines with cleaner alternatives.

According to the governor’s office, the transportation investments are funded through Cap-and-Invest revenue and smog-abatement fees while maintaining a balanced state budget.

California continues to expand its zero-emission transportation network. The state surpassed 2.5 million cumulative zero-emission vehicle sales earlier this year, exceeding its original goal of 1.5 million sales by 2025. Officials also reported that California has more than 200,000 public and shared electric vehicle charging plugs statewide, in addition to an estimated 800,000 home charging stations.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

Surveillance pricing—the algorithmic practice of using personal data to determine individualized costs for goods and services—is widespread in California, according to Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego). He warns that this system is actively impacting consumers across the state, and Black Californians could be specifically targeted.

Ward’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2564, the Surveillance Pricing Act, aims to prohibit businesses from using this practice. 

“Surveillance pricing is a growing phenomenon that a lot of people don’t realize is already happening,” Ward told California Black Media (CBM) at the State Capitol on June 29.

On June 22, the bill passed out of the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee with a 5-2 vote and was re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary for consideration. On May 27, the Assembly voted to advance AB 2564 with a 42-21 vote. 

Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space.

Justin Brookman, a public-interest lawyer, supports AB 2564. His organization is an official sponsor of the bill. He advocates on behalf of Consumer Reports.

“We found that people shopping for the exact same item at the exact same time, and the exact same store, were getting different prices. In some cases, up to 23% higher,” Brookman said. “So, one person looking at a jar of Skippy peanut butter, it was $2.99. Another person, same exact time, it was $3.69.”

AB 2564 is primarily opposed by a coalition of corporations and technology industry associations. They argue that the bill’s language is overly broad, outlaws common consumer-friendly discounts, and creates costly litigation risks for small businesses.

Chamber of Progress – a tech industry association that lobbies for public policies that expand digital commerce and technological advances – says that banning data-driven personalization would wipe away targeted digital coupons that families count on to prolong their budgets.

In a March 18 written letter to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, Robert Singleton, senior director of Policy and Public Affairs for California and the U.S. West at the Chamber of Progress, urged the body to oppose AB 2564.

“We share the legislature’s concern about affordability,” Singleton wrote. “The cost of living is the top issue facing American families, and we understand the impulse to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal. But this bill risks backfiring on the families it aims to help.

Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) supported and voted for the bill in the Assembly on May 27, but she still has questions about a “litigation risk” that could be costly.  

“Every business or retailer that is spending their time battling courts is spending resources, which drives the cost up for everyone,” said Wilson, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC). 

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

By Post Staff

Staff, patients’ families, and supporters held a rally recently at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in Oakland to protest the hospital’s decision to relocate specialized treatment clinics to San Francisco.

Protesters said the move is creating barriers for patients to access care and raised concerns over whether the hospital was appropriately using funds partially designated for pediatric services.

In response, hospital officials say they are concentrating resources for highly specialized procedures so patients can receive the highest quality of care.

One of the speakers at the rally, Paola Portillo, a social worker, said the hospital started transferring the clinics a year ago when UCSF Health integrated with the Children’s Hospital Oakland, located at 747 52nd St. in North Oakland.

According to Portillo, patients who need bone marrow treatments and interventional radiology are forced to travel to UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in San Francisco, which can be dangerous, she said.

“Children who go through a bone marrow transplant are immunocompromised, meaning that their immune system has been wiped out,” and having to take public transport to San Francisco exposes patients to the risk of getting a dangerous infection, she said.

Trending

Opinion: Where Are the Lights?

UCSF spokesperson Kristen Bole says the move improves the hospital’s quality of care, giving bone marrow treatment (BMT) as an example.

“Inpatient BMT is a highly complex service where patient volume, specialized infrastructure, faculty coverage and 24/7 support are essential,” she said in a statement. “Concentrating non-gene therapy inpatient BMT care at Mission Bay allows us to provide the safest and most sustainable model for patients and families.”

Hospital officials also emphasized that moving care was not a one-way street. Beginning this month, patients admitted for rehabilitative treatment have been directed to the children’s hospital in Oakland, Bole said.

Speakers at the rally also claimed UCSF has not been transparent about how it has allocated funding from 2020’s Measure C, a measure that created a half-percent sales tax that partially funded pediatric health care at the children’s hospital.

“The community fought so hard for Measure C because every child deserves access to lifesaving, pediatric, high-quality care right here in Oakland,” said Agnes Cho, a policy advisor speaking on behalf of Alameda County Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas. “The funding should go towards strengthening care for children right here in Oakland.”

Protesters also said UCSF’s $3.3 billion endowment has been misused. Last October, the University Professional & Technical Employees union published a report on the University of California’s spending, which highlighted projects such as the $4.3 billion UCSF Helen Diller Medical Center at Parnassus Heights.

“What I have a problem with is saying the kids from the East Bay have to go to San Francisco to get care, so that UC can build a fancy hospital for its richest patients in San Francisco,” said union President Dan Russell.

The UCSF spokesperson said UCSF has been investing in its Oakland campus, explaining that upgrades that are expected to be completed in 2030 at a cost of $1.6 billion.

“Oakland is central to our pediatric health system, and we are making the largest investment in the campus’ history,” the spokeswoman said. “We do not make investments of this scale in a campus, workforce or community we plan to leave behind.”

This article includes coverage from Bay City News Service and media releases.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication