Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    California Moves Ahead To Protect Emission Rules From Rollback

      Still is vowing to work with the national government to establish a national standard

    On Friday, California regulators voted to require that automakers stick with the Obama-era emission regulations for vehicles sold in the state, no matter the efforts of the Trump administration to weaken the standards. This basically means vehicles built for through 2025 model year comply with the state’s standards and can legally be sold there. Beginning with the 2026 model year, vehicles have to meet the stricter standards if automakers want to sell vehicles in the state, along with the 12 other states and Washington D.C. that follow these regulations.

    This is the latest salvo in the fight between California and Trump administration over emission standards. Back in August, the administration unveiled a new proposal that would freeze fuel efficiency requirements at 2020 levels through 2026. This proposal earned a large amount of criticism and a lawsuit filed by a group of states led by California.

    In a statement, California Air Resources Board's Chair Mary Nichols said the state would “continue to work to keep a single national program,” but that the vote “ensures that California and 12 other states will not fall victim to the Trump administration’s rollback of vehicle standards should its proposal be finalized.”

    Source: Reuters

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Of course they did.  And really CA just needs to drag it out until 2020 and then if Trump loses they get their wish.  If Trump wins they can keep fighting, and if they can't agree on anything 2025 shows up eventually.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Trump administration would be wise to drop the lawsuits against CARB for those emissions requirements and even smarter if that administration dropped the lawsuit against CA new net neutrality rules.  I doubt they would do that but one can hope.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    He will win reelection.  California is simply showing themselves to be what they are.  Will be interesting to see how a long-needed parent eventually defuses the petulant child that is... California.

    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    He will win reelection.  California is simply showing themselves to be what they are.  Will be interesting to see how a long-needed parent eventually defuses the petulant child that is... California.

    How much does CA need so-called flyover country?  Especially given that CA is a net donor to federal coffers while most of the South are net recipients of federal dollars.  (Not sure about TX or FL.)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Fully 36 states are net recipients, only 14 put more in than take out, and they're pretty much spread across the nation.
    CA barely squeaks in under the break-even point- there's a lot of welfare programs getting tapped in CA. The Golden State gives the Gov't about $1.02 for every dollar they receive.
    The other 13: Mass, WY, OK, NJ, UT, CO, NY, Kan, OH, Neb, ILL, Minn & DE.

    Edited by balthazar
    • Thanks 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Warren Buffer I believe owns a good bit of stock in BYD....interesting. Going to try to verify this.
    • Exactly why the myth of totally free markets is just that, a myth.
    • Honestly, that's probably around when I'd buy again, too. I'm in no rush. I'd love a large EV SUV or truck, but I don't have the monies for an R1S, Lightning, Sierra EV or whenever the Scouts show up. 
    • That's every car company out there. Toyota and Honda only exist today because of the US government getting Japan back on its feet and then later the Japanese government supporting them with currency manipulation and socialized pensions and medicine. Subaru was originally Fiji Heavy Industries which built busses, trains, heavy construction machinery, and was a major supplier of airplanes. FHI is still a major aerospace company who supplies parts for the Airbus 380 and just about every model Boeing makes or has made that starts with a 7. They also make military helicopters and both military and commercial drones. Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and VW are all here today because of the Marshall Plan and later their countries' social medicine and pension programs. Mercedes makes a lot of military and construction equipment purchased by governments. BYD (and others) is where it is because the Chinese government spent loads on battery development and incentives to its citizens to by EVs. Prior to that, BYD built their industrial might on building busses and other heavy machinery for the Chinese government and local governments all over the world. GM and Ford had major defense contracts during WWII, the 2008 bailouts, the Biden EV tax credits, the Obama cash-for-clunkers incentives, and much more. However, they famously have always had to manage their own healthcare and pensions systems which are what put them at a competitive disadvantage throughout the 80's and 90's. Stellantis's ownership timeline is too convoluted to even tackle, but Chrysler was bailed out in 1979, then they bought AMC/Jeep which had been kept afloat by the military, then they were bailed out again in 2008 by both the US and Italian governments. Fiat is/was a major equipment and bus supplier in Europe. The French government has always supported Peugeot and Citroen... the list goes on.
    • Nor would BYD. The Chinese government has dumped a metric crap ton of cash into auto development.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search