Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • 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.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    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

    • Personally I think GM is too late to the Hybrid party and rather than spend and write off all the billions of dollars on their EVs that are actually selling well, they should have stayed the course and not followed Stupid Ford and Idiot47. GM has a 'handful of hybrids' coming - but are they the ones you want? I do not see GM actually doing well in this space as they are already too far behind.
    • On a more positive note, travel related stuff ... A historic milestone was achieved by Cunard Line within the last week.  When she was built, Queen Mary 2 (QM2) was too big to transit the Panama Canal.  The same was true for other supersized passenger ships.  In the interim, new larger locks were engineered and put into service. https://travelweekly.com.au/queen-mary-2s-first-transit-through-panama-canal-on-way-to-australia/ I saw the QM2 enter San Francisco Bay in 2007 because I was living out West.  It came in on a Sunday and I spent the weekend south of the city and near SFO.  I went there in a rented 2007 Monte Carlo costing less than $25 a day and stayed at one of the cheap chain hotels near SFO costing about $50 a night, which was ridiculously cheap even then. The ship went around South America and sailed northward up the Pacific.  As such, it's not a trip they would be making too often with the QM2. QM2 transited the Panama Canal for the first time just days ago.  She is headed to Los Angeles AND San Francisco.  To clarify the article's headline, Australia is just its next leg - this is the full world cruise.  She was last in Los Angeles in 2006 when she saluted her namesake Queen Mary and last in San Francisco in 2007 and seeing the passage under the Golden Gate Bridge was unforgettable.  These were the only visits to these ports.  With the new Panama Canal locks, her visiting the North Pacific Ocean and its major ports is much more likely to be on future world voyages. In the Panama Canal transit, the nail biter was supposedly going under the Bridge of the Americas - the one with the curved top.  I saw this YouTube with passengers cheering and motorists up above honking. I blame my parents for this!  They took us across the Atlantic a time or two too many when we were kids and this fascination began.
    • WTF kind of article is this? Piss-poor grammar and sentences. "By the time the odometer ticked past that 160,000 kilometre mark, equivalent to 160,000 kilometres, 99,000, the pack still retained over 90 percent of its original net capacity." Then it jumps to 91% remaining capacity somehow...? And when jumping to 91% capacity remaining, I don't think they did any math at all. See below for a paragraph that shouldn't be made as evidence of anything. As an engineer, this kind of "facts" should infuriate you.  "Battery health statistics can sound abstract until you translate them into the range figure you see on your dashboard. In this case, the Volkswagen ID. 3 Pro S started life with a usable pack of 77 kWh, and independent testing recorded an initial real world range of 77 k and 272 miles on a full charge. After the long term trial, the car still had 91% of its battery capacity, a figure that aligns with separate reporting that the Volkswagen ID 3 retained 91% battery capacity in a 160,000 kilometre test. In practice, that meant the car lost only around eight miles of usable range, a change small enough that you would struggle to notice in daily driving." 272 x .09 = 24.5 miles. Theoretically losing 9% would lose the owner about 25 miles of range, not 8 miles. It is now a 248-mile range EV.  This looks like some garbage AI-generated article.  Just for the record, I'm not saying that EVs don't have good battery management and degradation. I'm just saying this article was an embarrassing example to stand by.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

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