California Upholds Auto Emissions Standards, Setting Up Face-Off With Trump

[K1052]

California’s clean-air agency voted on Friday to push ahead with stricter emissions standards for cars and trucks, setting up a potential legal battle with the Trump administration over the state’s plan to reduce planet-warming gases.

The vote, by the California Air Resources Board, is the boldest indication yet of California’s plan to stand up to President Trump’s agenda. Leading politicians in the state, from the governor down to many mayors, have promised to lead the resistance to Mr. Trump’s policies.

Mr. Trump, backing industry over environmental concerns, said easing emissions rules would help stimulate auto manufacturing. He vowed last week to loosen the regulations. Automakers are aggressively pursuing those changes after years of supporting stricter standards.

But California can write its own standards because of a longstanding waiver granted under the Clean Air Act, giving the state — the country’s biggest auto market — major sway over the auto industry. Twelve other states, including New York and Pennsylvania, as well as Washington, D.C., follow California’s standards, a coalition that covers more than 130 million residents and more than a third of the vehicle market in the United States.

Adopted in 2012, the standards would require automakers to nearly double the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks by 2025, to 54.5 miles per gallon, forcing automakers to speed development of highly fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrid and electric cars. Mr. Trump intends to lower that target.

Friday’s unanimous vote by the 14-member board, which affirmed the higher standards through 2025, amounted to a public rejection of Mr. Trump’s plans.

Now, the question is how — or whether — the Trump administration will handle California’s dissent. The administration could choose to revoke California’s waiver, at which point experts expect the state would sue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/...standards-setting-up-face-off-with-trump.html

It should be noted that if the Feds deny the waiver Pruitt could end up testifying in court that states should not set their own standards after about a decade of suing the Feds arguing they should and can. I don't really understand the gamble that the automakers are taking since they still have to comply with coming regulation in Europe and China which will have much of the same effect on their product lines. Plus even if they succeeded here and CA was denied a waiver for 4 or 8 years eventually you'll have a president that gives it back and woe unto the automakers who screwed CA at that point.

 

[pcgeek11]

I actually think that the state should be able to set their own standards on what is allowed inside their state, such as the CARB Standards. I also feel like the federal government should be allowed to back off of unrealistic future goals when needed.

It will be up to the automakers to decide to comply with Calif. rules or just not sell certain models in that state. Calif. has had their own "special" rules for many decades now.

 

[K1052]

Yea California (and any state that wanted to join their standards) was given a carve out in the Clean Air Act of 1970 since CARB predated it and CA wouldn't have gone for it without. I think the EPA has to meet a scientific standard of showing the CA regulations are less strict than Federal ones and thus they should not be granted a waiver, not sure how they plan to accomplish that.

 

[Thebobo]

Good for them,

 

[Moonbeam]

Good for them,

Not to worry. We Californians are the Borg. You will be assimilated.

 

[mxnerd]

I once attended a business law class in a community college. The teacher, a lawyer himself, told the class about half of laws/regulations in the U.S. were passed in California first and then gradually adopted by other states.

 

[Moonbeam]

I once attended a business law class in a community college. The teacher, a lawyer himself, told the class about half of laws/regulations in the U.S. were passed in California first and then gradually adopted by other states.

It's harder for the right to block progressive law because we Californians have in some good measure escaped allowing them enough political power to impose their retardation.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meanwhile in Trumplandia-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBQFnUgv37c

Just another aspect of Trumpsters' middle finger to the world at large.

 

[theeedude]

There is a reason why California is what it is and Trumpland is what it is.
In any case, all California has to do is announce that should the EPA suspend CARB standards, they will be immediately reimposed with no grace period when the Democrats take over in Washington again.
Cars of 2017-2020 are already largely designed. If US automakers want to take the risk of not being sell in CA in 2021, then it's their choice, plenty of their competitors would gladly take that share.

 

[Double Trouble]

To me it makes perfect sense for the federal government to set national regulations, and then individual states can add additional regs to them if they want. I guess CA needed a waiver to do it, but I don't see why the Trump administration would bother with that fight, it doesn't really change anything.

 

[Fern]

To me it makes perfect sense for the federal government to set national regulations, and then individual states can add additional regs to them if they want. I guess CA needed a waiver to do it, but I don't see why the Trump administration would bother with that fight, it doesn't really change anything.

Agreed.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Agreed.

Fern

Reasons, that's enough!

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it's maybe more about big oil than the automakers. They want to keep sales up & better gas mileage doesn't help them.

That fits better with Pruitt as head of the EPA, too.

 

[K1052]

I think it's maybe more about big oil than the automakers. They want to keep sales up & better gas mileage doesn't help them.

That fits better with Pruitt as head of the EPA, too.

Reportedly it was the automakers who asked Trump directly to re-open the fuel efficency standard decision. As I said it seems almost pointless given the odds of CA (and the dozen following states) retaining their autonomy even after a court fight and the higher EU/China standards going into effect.

 

[SNC]

I would think the the CEOs of auto would see that after 2020 there will be a D in the big house. Knowing that they will continue to advance the MPG of their fleet with the knowledge that in 2020 they will have to get back on the ball.

 

[glenn1]

Let CA do it, the standards are just a tax credit subsidy for the wealthy credit to buy electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel-cell vehicles to show off to their friends. At this point the automakers should just go the route of BMW, etc. and produce whatever cars are most profitable and just pay the gas guzzler tax and pass it along to CA consumers. The CAFE non-compliance fines are a pittance (around $7MM/year for Daimler group) so it makes no sense to allow CA to fvck over both automakers and consumers in the pursuit of unrealistically high CAFE standards like mid 50s MPG. In the end CA can pass whatever laws they want; in the end the unforgiving forces of engineering/physics and middle/working class consumer demands aren't going away.

 

[hal2kilo]

I think it's maybe more about big oil than the automakers. They want to keep sales up & better gas mileage doesn't help them.

That fits better with Pruitt as head of the EPA, too.

Bingo.

 

[ElFenix]

Let CA do it, the standards are just a tax credit subsidy for the wealthy credit to buy electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel-cell vehicles to show off to their friends. At this point the automakers should just go the route of BMW, etc. and produce whatever cars are most profitable and just pay the gas guzzler tax and pass it along to CA consumers. The CAFE non-compliance fines are a pittance (around $7MM/year for Daimler group) so it makes no sense to allow CA to fvck over both automakers and consumers in the pursuit of unrealistically high CAFE standards like mid 50s MPG. In the end CA can pass whatever laws they want; in the end the unforgiving forces of engineering/physics and middle/working class consumer demands aren't going away.

one of these things is not like the other
one of these things just doesn't belong

 

[SNC]

it makes no sense to allow CA to fvck over both automakers and consumers in the pursuit of unrealistically high CAFE standards like mid 50s MPG.

Just so I understand correctly, you would prefer that when you purchase your next car, that it gets worse gas mileage than the same model does today? Help me understand why that is? Right now I get between 27 and 28 in a huge 15 outback that is loaded most of the time. I'm hopeful that my next one in 20 gets 30+ in the same configuration, using your post as a gauge, you would rather it get 25, why?

 

[fskimospy]

Let CA do it, the standards are just a tax credit subsidy for the wealthy credit to buy electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel-cell vehicles to show off to their friends. At this point the automakers should just go the route of BMW, etc. and produce whatever cars are most profitable and just pay the gas guzzler tax and pass it along to CA consumers. The CAFE non-compliance fines are a pittance (around $7MM/year for Daimler group) so it makes no sense to allow CA to fvck over both automakers and consumers in the pursuit of unrealistically high CAFE standards like mid 50s MPG. In the end CA can pass whatever laws they want; in the end the unforgiving forces of engineering/physics and middle/working class consumer demands aren't going away.

Meh, this exact same argument has been made about CAFE standards every time they are increased and it's been wrong every time before now. At some point rational people just realize that conservatives either don't know what they are talking about or are not making honest arguments.

The best thing is that California is such a huge market and is so wealthy that it will be able to strongly influence what car manufacturers create regardless of what federal standards are, kind of making its own fed substitute. It's nice that we've gotten to a point that even if we have a fool in the White House that liberals can implement sane fuel efficiency policy without them, isn't it?

 

[cbrunny]

Let CA do it, the standards are just a tax credit subsidy for the wealthy credit to buy electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel-cell vehicles to show off to their friends. At this point the automakers should just go the route of BMW, etc. and produce whatever cars are most profitable and just pay the gas guzzler tax and pass it along to CA consumers. The CAFE non-compliance fines are a pittance (around $7MM/year for Daimler group) so it makes no sense to allow CA to fvck over both automakers and consumers in the pursuit of unrealistically high CAFE standards like mid 50s MPG. In the end CA can pass whatever laws they want; in the end the unforgiving forces of engineering/physics and middle/working class consumer demands aren't going away.

Speaking of things that aren't going away - other countries that also have emissions standards. It would be idiotic for American manufacturers to ignore what is going on in other places around the world. A surefire spell of doom. It is in the manufacturer's best interests to just stick to the existing plans - which are mirrored around the world - rather than make cheap but shitty cars until Trump is over. They'd never ever sell a car outside of USA until they caught up to the rest of the world.

 

[dainthomas]

To me it makes perfect sense for the federal government to set national regulations, and then individual states can add additional regs to them if they want. I guess CA needed a waiver to do it, but I don't see why the Trump administration would bother with that fight, it doesn't really change anything.

Because it would tick off the libtard snowflakes. That's all him and his base care about. The fact that in doing so they usually shoot themselves in the foot is completely lost on them.

 

[Maxima1]

Let CA do it, the standards are just a tax credit subsidy for the wealthy credit to buy electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel-cell vehicles to show off to their friends. At this point the automakers should just go the route of BMW, etc. and produce whatever cars are most profitable and just pay the gas guzzler tax and pass it along to CA consumers. The CAFE non-compliance fines are a pittance (around $7MM/year for Daimler group) so it makes no sense to allow CA to fvck over both automakers and consumers in the pursuit of unrealistically high CAFE standards like mid 50s MPG. In the end CA can pass whatever laws they want; in the end the unforgiving forces of engineering/physics and middle/working class consumer demands aren't going away.

It saves more over the lifetime of the vehicle to have the higher standards.

 

[Commodus]

Let CA do it, the standards are just a tax credit subsidy for the wealthy credit to buy electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel-cell vehicles to show off to their friends. At this point the automakers should just go the route of BMW, etc. and produce whatever cars are most profitable and just pay the gas guzzler tax and pass it along to CA consumers. The CAFE non-compliance fines are a pittance (around $7MM/year for Daimler group) so it makes no sense to allow CA to fvck over both automakers and consumers in the pursuit of unrealistically high CAFE standards like mid 50s MPG. In the end CA can pass whatever laws they want; in the end the unforgiving forces of engineering/physics and middle/working class consumer demands aren't going away.

I won't repeat what others have said, but rules like this are only good things. It's that MPG target that pushes companies to introduce EVs and hybrids that they otherwise wouldn't bother offering. Tesla is clearly a major influence, too, but I can't help but think that Chevy wouldn't have made the Bolt if there weren't pressure to improve its overall fuel efficiency.

That's the point of the regulation, really -- it's a push to get car companies going in the right direction when they'd otherwise toll out yet another bloated SUV that gets 15MPG. For every Tesla that's interested in pushing the boundaries of technology, there's ten that would just keep making the same cars forever if they could get away with it.

 

[glenn1]

It saves more over the lifetime of the vehicle to have the higher standards.

Then directly subsidize cars that are smaller and have lower displacement engines. CAFE is just a really ass-backwards means of achieving your stated policy goal. Plus it's not doing a damn thing to change consumer behavior. Having Congress decree a technologically unfeasible MPG standard won't make someone buy a Honda Fit rather than V8 Camaro. CAFE leads to rednecks building "coal rollers," giving them taxpayer incentives to buy small cars means they'll consider a 1.8L small sedan for reasons of economics.