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

    Coalition of States File Suit Against the EPA Over Emission and Fuel Economy Changes

      It is getting a bit messy

    The past month has been quite strenuous on the relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California. Back in April, EPA chief Scott Pruitt announced they would be rolling back the fuel-efficiency regulations set towards the end of President Obama's tenure. The EPA also announced that it was considering revoking California's waiver to set their own emission standards. A few days later, we reported that the officials from the White House, California, and automakers were trying to work out a possible emissions deal to prevent a legal fight. It seems those talks went nowhere as California along with sixteen other states and the District of Columbia have filed suit challenging the rollback.

    On Tuesday, the collation led by California filed a suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the rollback. This group makes up 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.

    "The states joining today's lawsuit represent 140 million people who simply want cleaner and more efficient cars. This phalanx of states will defend the nation's clean car standards to boost gas mileage and curb toxic air pollution," said California Governor Jerry Brown in a statement.

    The suit alleges that the EPA decision to roll back the regulation lacked any scientific reason. The EPA is also accused of failing to follow its own regulations and violating the Clean Air Act.

    “This is California saying: You really want war? We’ll give you war. It’s a signal to the administration that they’re not going to get away with anything in this space,” said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign to the New York Times.

    According to Reuters, the Department of Transportation has a draft proposal of the changes that is expected to be released to the public later this month. The draft would freeze emission requirements for vehicles at 2020 levels through 2026. The draft also asserts that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 bars California from imposing their own rules, even with the waiver. This proposal has already earned the ire of the public and various members of the U.S. Senate. One Senator, Tom Carper, D-Delaware obtained a copy of the proposal and sent a scathing letter to Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao and Pruitt. 

    “Such a proposal, if finalized, would harm U.S. national and economic security, undermine efforts to combat global warming pollution, create regulatory and manufacturing uncertainty for the automobile industry and unnecessary litigation, increase the amount of gasoline consumers would have to buy, and runs counter to statements that both of you have made to Members of Congress,” wrote Carper.

    There is a lot riding on this suit as it could possibly cause the U.S. to have two different emission regulations and automakers having to meet both of them.

    "Enough is enough. We're not looking to pick a fight with the Trump administration, but when the stakes are this high for our families' health and our economic prosperity, we have a responsibility to do what is necessary to defend them,"  said Xavier Becerra, California state attorney general. 

    Yesterday, the White House announced that it will be meeting with leaders of the major automakers next week. The meeting will be talking about the planned changes to the fuel efficiency rules. It is expected that automakers will be trying to push the Trump administration and California to agree to a national standard.

    Source: New York Times, Roadshow, Reuters, (2), U.S. Senate (Carper's Letter)

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    What I don't understand is how California is the 6th largest economy in the world and they don't have coal mines and shale oil fracking, and they have high taxes, high regulation on pollution and guns, and legalized marijuna.    According to Fox News low taxes, fossil fuels and low regulation is the way to grow an economy.  🙄   Worked wonders for West Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi. 

    Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.  But California will win this lawsuit because of CARB and the fact that these rules were previously agreed to by auto makers.  And it wouldn't surprise me if California come 2030 bans sale of gasoline cars all together and then automakers have no choice but to go EV, because you can't ignore 40 million people in the richest state in the country.

    • Agree 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    well, this is what they want people in.  or they will tax the living sht out of you.  there's reason the ridiculous fuel economy standards are there.  punish you either way.  comply and drive the crackerbox or pay through the but in taxes and fines if you want a truck or something.

    Sad thing is the Ecosport is such a pile of crap with poor mpg and no power

     

     

    image.png

    Edited by regfootball
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Maybe instead of an Ecosport, seek superior alternatives.  As for California vs. Pruitt's EPA, expect CA to win in court.  The only way Pruitt wins is if ALL emissions regulations and CAFE standards are repealed by Congress, and apparently there is no appetite for doing either one.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The draft would freeze emission requirements for vehicles at 2020 levels through 2026.

    “Such a proposal, if finalized, would harm U.S. national and economic security, undermine efforts to combat global warming pollution,

     create regulatory and manufacturing uncertainty for the automobile industry and unnecessary litigation, increase the amount of gasoline consumers would have to buy, and runs counter to statements that both of you have made to Members of Congress,” wrote Carper.

    Guess we're doing all those things right now; why'd they wait to sue?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    What I don't understand is how California is the 6th largest economy in the world and they don't have coal mines and shale oil fracking, and they have high taxes, high regulation on pollution and guns, and legalized marijuna.    According to Fox News low taxes, fossil fuels and low regulation is the way to grow an economy.  🙄   Worked wonders for West Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi. 

    Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.  But California will win this lawsuit because of CARB and the fact that these rules were previously agreed to by auto makers.  And it wouldn't surprise me if California come 2030 bans sale of gasoline cars all together and then automakers have no choice but to go EV, because you can't ignore 40 million people in the richest state in the country.

    So California was always high tax, and high regulation?

    you know CA is losing population and is fiscally unsound right? Why don't you compare CA to TX or Fl nstead of picking on WV? Which has always been poor.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    California paid $405 billion in taxes to the federal government in 2015, they are what drives the federal government, only 2 other states even topped $200 million (Texas and NY).

    And besides the economic influence, CARB was around before EPA, so CARB can do what ever it wants, CA won't change their rules, and in court California will beat the EPA.

    I think we should get rid of CAFE all together and raise federal gas taxes another 25-50 cents, and put that money into the crumbling roads we have.  

    • Like 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.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • 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

  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I was in a situation where I had rented a car – a category with a trunk – and there weren’t any available.  Their running out of certain categories happens frequently nowadays.  As such, I was assigned a 2023 Chevrolet Trailblazer. This didn’t look like any of the Trailblazers I remember.  For one, it was a lot smaller.  It was also badged as AWD.  I assumed there would be a Chevy 1.5L T I-4 under the hood.  Previous Trailblazers of the New Millennium ran with a 4.1 L I-6, possibly the modernized, aluminized version of the same 250 c.i. I-6 of the last century.  A friend bought one of these in the early 2000’s.  I was once given one by a rental agency and its 4.1L I-6 was incredibly smooth, but given how quickly the fuel gauge headed west, I took it back for an exchange within a day. Before even settling into the car, I looked under the hood to find a 1.3L T 3-cylinder engine.  Three-cylinder engines have become a lot more prevalent in Europe, even in small SUV-CUV types but typically in econoboxes.  As for initial impressions, it looked like the car would be sensible to drive and operate its functions.  This tuned out to be true.  The seats are supportive and comfortable enough, together with some attractive stitching, The materials are not high grade, with the same tougher fabric which might be in the Malibu.  In fact, except for some minor differences, transitioning from a Malibu to a Trailblazer is easy.  The width of the cabin, the gauges and switches, and the urethane steering wheel and its controls are similar.  In fact, in the Trailblazer, some things are better.  The touch screen is engaged in the dash, with the center vents above it, providing for excellent dispersion of what the air conditioner was dishing out - which was very cool.  Further down, the cubby for electronic devices is flatter and larger and the outlets and switches are all linearly arranged next to each other for easy use.  Also, with the inherently higher seating position, the view is better and the shifter and console height are in a more user-friendly position. The exterior sheet metal shows good taste, and the character lines are nicely done.  The front fascia with its lighting set-up is its strong point.  Even the rear taillamps look good as they wrap the rear corners. Returning to mechanical specifications, the transmission was a geared one.  The interwebs and its owner manual revealed this.  If a new Trailblazer is AWD, the transmission is a 9-speed automatic.  If it’s a 2WD, the transmission is a CVT.    This is a very utilitarian and practical package, and it couldn’t be described as refined.  However, the engine is not grainy but its rhythmic but not hushed hum is always present.  When pushed, it just hums more audibly.  The engine does what it’s supposed to do.  With around 140 horsepower, this is not a powerplant with which to riskily pass, sprint up long grades, and think it’s a jackrabbit, despite its having a turbocharger. The transmission is a “humorous” one.  I can’t think of another word.  There’s the expression “children should be seen and not heard.”  In this Trailblazer, it’s more like “children are heard but not seen.”  As the gearbox marches through its 9 gears, the spool-ups are quick and you hear them, but the unit slushes into the next gear as if it was a CVT and you don’t even feel the shifts.  However, if throttled, you will definitely feel the shifts and, in stop and go driving at lower speeds, it can hunt within the first 3 gears and do it in a jerky way.  However, in composed linear driving, the shifts are seamless but the short intervals for each gear, complete with the “sound effects,” was humorous … at least to me. The Trailblazer is a nimble enough vehicle.  It rides fairly smoothly, but can quickly become unsettled.  Its ride quality is not as budget-like as that of the now gone Chevy Spark and Sonic, but not as pleasant as that in the Malibu or even what they were able to accomplish in the final-gen Cruze.  Wind noise is reasonably controlled, but tire and suspension related noises aren’t as effectively soaked up.  The road surface is always being communicated to the cabin, telling you this is not a premium vehicle.  In the CUV-SUV category, I’ve only driven the much larger Chevy Traverse with a 3.6 VVT V6 … and we’re talking two different worlds. With the higher seating position, front and side visibility are good.  The thick rear sail panel makes angled rear visibility challenging.  This seems to be the norm in this typology of vehicles.  This unit did not have parking or side traffic sensors, which are much needed, and a few lane changes were more challenging since I like to mix up looking over my shoulder and using the mirrors.  With the rear seat up, storage space is good … thanks to the Trailblazer’s the boxy shape, and it’s very good with the split rear seat folded forward into the cabin.  It would come in handy to move boxes or a bundle of items.  There was a slot for a rear cover over the storage area, but it was missing.  This is one of the reasons I try to avoid this typology at the rental counter.  The windows are more tinted toward the rear, but I was still not comfortable with that.  The rental agency said ‘but we sell insurance for your personal effects.’  I doubt someone has the time to replace apparel and items that have been purchased over a span of agent while traveling.  Rental agencies don’t do a good job of monitoring this item.  I’m sure that a private owner would keep the retractable cover in its place as needed. Inside, while the controls are logically placed, there is no remote hatch or fuel filler release.  However, if the vehicle is locked, the fuel door cannot be opened.  Fuel consumption can vary a lot and the instant fuel mileage readout will clue in the driver to that.  I set the drivetrain to 2WD and “eco” mode, but it still has to lug around AWD hardware.  The readout goes from unimpressive city driving fuel efficiency to very plausible mileage at steady highway cruise.  The 9-speed automatic allows the Trailblazer with AWD to cruise at 65 mph at about 1,900 rpms.  That’s why it can attain the higher fuel mileage, but it took going to 3 cylinders to attain that. It was very easy to transition to the Trailblazer from several other Chevrolet models, and especially the Malibu.  Thinking of the similarities and differences, the Trailblazer could almost be viewed as a higher sitting and less refined riding 3-cylinder Malibu turned CUV-SUV.  For a consumer at the intersection of needing the packaging this vehicle provides and its price point, the Trailblazer could make sense. - - - - - PHOTOS FORTHCOMING
    • Name: DFELT First EV - 2024 Kia EV9 Category: Vehicles Date Added: 2024-04-29 Submitter: David   DFELT First EV - 2024 Kia EV9  
    • My vacation this past week didn’t pan out as planned, had to take an abbreviated trip closer to home.  Spent the last 3 nights in Marietta, Ohio down on the Ohio River.  Took the scenic route today up Ohio Rte 7 to my childhood hometown of Steubenville and out Rte 22 to 250 around Tappan Lake to I-77 then back home to the CLE area.  Took a couple scenic drives around Appalachian Ohio back roads Fri and Sat, my CT6 performed great on windy, hilly roads for such a big car.  It’s really a great road trip car.  Averaged 27.7 mpg over almost 600 miles.   Saw some interesting cars on the trip—an orange 70 Mustang coupe and a clean black ‘71 Chevelle.  Saw many dead and dying old cars in the backwoods fields and hollers.  Near my hotel, saw this red Thunderbird, orange MGB, red 1st gen Honda Insight (haven’t seen one of those forever), and a white C8.  Also saw sternwheelers and barges on the river. Fun, restful little getaway.  
    • Have to say this I totally agree with: Leasing is the best, most affordable way to get a quality new EV — here's why (thecooldown.com)
  • 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

Change privacy settings