Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Trump Administration To Double Down On Emission Standards and Revoking California's Privileges

      Here we go once again

    Fuel efficiency guidelines and California's right to set its own vehicle emissions standards are in the crosshairs of the Trump administration again.

    Bloomberg has learned from sources that the administration will be introducing a proposal later this week that revises key parts of the Obama-era standards. This includes capping federal fuel economy requirements at 2020 level of 35 mpg fleet wide, instead of the 50 mpg requirement by 2025. There is also a provision that would revoke the Clean Air Act waiver given to California that allows it to set its own emission regulations.

    Sources go onto say that the proposal is in the final stages of a "broad interagency review" being done by the Office of Management and Budget.

    These changes were first introduced back in April and got massive pushback from various environmental groups, along with the state of California. A month later, a coalition made up of California, Washington D.C. and sixteen other states filed suit against the rollback. Automakers who pushed for the rollback began to panic as this could result in two different emission regulations they would have to meet. 

    Source: Bloomberg

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    I think it will be near impossible to revoke California's waiver, because CARB pre-dates the EPA and any other agency, and what legal authority do they have to revoke it?  Then you get into a political situation where most conservatives will advocate a smaller federal government with states having more power, this does the opposite, it is revoking a state's ability to set laws. 

    As far as the cars go themselves, if these automakers want to lobby for low standards so they can keep their profits up in the short term, you'd think the'd remember what happened in the 1970s.  Detroit didn't want to build fuel efficient, they just wanted to make big V8s to get a profit, and the door was left wide open for the Japanese to come in and clean their clocks.   China is going to go all EV, and in 10-15 years they'll have EV's that are like today's Tesla at Chevy prices  and they will flood this country unless GM, Ford, Toyota, etc beat them too it.

    • Thanks 1
    • Agree 2
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    I think it will be near impossible to revoke California's waiver, because CARB pre-dates the EPA and any other agency, and what legal authority do they have to revoke it?  Then you get into a political situation where most conservatives will advocate a smaller federal government with states having more power, this does the opposite, it is revoking a state's ability to set laws. 

    As far as the cars go themselves, if these automakers want to lobby for low standards so they can keep their profits up in the short term, you'd think the'd remember what happened in the 1970s.  Detroit didn't want to build fuel efficient, they just wanted to make big V8s to get a profit, and the door was left wide open for the Japanese to come in and clean their clocks.   China is going to go all EV, and in 10-15 years they'll have EV's that are like today's Tesla at Chevy prices  and they will flood this country unless GM, Ford, Toyota, etc beat them too it.

    Tough to say, as we love our big trucks here.....

    But we still have to offer both choices, but EVs are part of the future.

    To me it is tough to get too high on EVs, as gas burners wind down a bit- guess what bill in your house gets much, much pricier?

    Highly doubt wall street will lose sleep over it...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    I think it will be near impossible to revoke California's waiver, because CARB pre-dates the EPA and any other agency, and what legal authority do they have to revoke it?

    CARB is an entity within the CA EPA. When they were founded is immaterial, legally.
    Cadillac doesn't overrule General Motors just because it was founded years before.

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, daves87rs said:

    Tough to say, as we love our big trucks here.....

    But we still have to offer both choices, but EVs are part of the future.

    To me it is tough to get too high on EVs, as gas burners wind down a bit- guess what bill in your house gets much, much pricier?

    Highly doubt wall street will lose sleep over it...

    The Chinese are showing an EV that has a 435 mile range and 0-60 in under 4 seconds at the LA Auto show.   I don't know what this thing will cost, but once they get the cost figured out, they'll probably import those things and sell some cars.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    CARB is an entity within the CA EPA. When they were founded is immaterial, legally.
    Cadillac doesn't overrule General Motors just because it was founded years before.

    15 states which compromise 40% of the US population use California emission rules.  CARB has had that waiver for 45 years and it is still standing, Trump can try to revoke it, but 15 states will sue and it will get dragged out in court and California will win because they got granted that waiver and there is no basis to revoke it.

    California is also the world's 5th largest economy, car companies will bend over backwards to sell there.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    16 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

    It’s okay -

     

    Fuel efficiency was something invented by the Chinese to make U.S. autos less competitive.

     

    😂

    That must be a rewrite of the Japan playbook from the 70's. :P 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    The Chinese are showing an EV that has a 435 mile range and 0-60 in under 4 seconds at the LA Auto show.   I don't know what this thing will cost, but once they get the cost figured out, they'll probably import those things and sell some cars.  

    Maybe, but when wall street can't make money on oil, you know what's next.

    Cost of charging an EV could end up more than filling it up with gas.

    And there is stil the fact of how well it will hold up here as well......

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, daves87rs said:

    Maybe, but when wall street can't make money on oil, you know what's next.

    Cost of charging an EV could end up more than filling it up with gas.

    And there is stil the fact of how well it will hold up here as well......

    Wall street has been making billions off the back of hard working americans. Time to flip it on them.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    15 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    I think it will be near impossible to revoke California's waiver, because CARB pre-dates the EPA and any other agency, and what legal authority do they have to revoke it?  Then you get into a political situation where most conservatives will advocate a smaller federal government with states having more power, this does the opposite, it is revoking a state's ability to set laws. 

    As far as the cars go themselves, if these automakers want to lobby for low standards so they can keep their profits up in the short term, you'd think the'd remember what happened in the 1970s.  Detroit didn't want to build fuel efficient, they just wanted to make big V8s to get a profit, and the door was left wide open for the Japanese to come in and clean their clocks.   China is going to go all EV, and in 10-15 years they'll have EV's that are like today's Tesla at Chevy prices  and they will flood this country unless GM, Ford, Toyota, etc beat them too it.

    4

    Exactly! Where are all the "states rights" conservatives on this one? 

    This thread is by necessity going to get political.  I'm encouraging everyone here to keep a level head discuss ideas, not people.

    TL:DR - Don't make it personal

     

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Exactly! Where are all the "states rights" conservatives on this one? 

     

    IMO, they are for 'states rights' only when it applies only to furthering right wing causes...

    • Agree 3
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, daves87rs said:

    Cost of charging an EV could end up more than filling it up with gas.

     

    Highly unlikely unless we manage to find a drop-in replacement for petroleum for everything.  If we don't use oil in our cars, we'll still use it in our shampoo bottles... the price of oil won't drop so much that it will drop below the price per mile of Electric.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Exactly! Where are all the "states rights" conservatives on this one? 

    This thread is by necessity going to get political.  I'm encouraging everyone here to keep a level head discuss ideas, not people.

    TL:DR - Don't make it personal

     

    States rights conservatives use that argument when they don’t like what the Federal Government does and they want something different. 

    Politics aside, I also just read oil could go to $200-$400 per barrel in 2020.  That basically will kill gasoline car sales.  Oil hit a record high of $147 per barrel in 2008 and everything collapsed.  How will these car companies manage $300 a barrel because that means $10 a gallon gas in the USA.

    1 hour ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    IMO, they are for 'states rights' only when it applies only to furthering right wing causes...

    1,000 up votes.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Great source to follow the Clean California Emissions info: http://calcleancars.org/

    Intersting read on this same thread: https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2018-07-23/us-to-propose-revoking-calif-ability-to-set-vehicle-emissions-rules-mandate-evs-source

    Another site that does a pro/con writeup on the CARB versus EPA: https://www.dmv.org/articles/epa-emissions-standards-revision

    Who knew that the Forestry Service arm of the Government is putting in place their own standards to quiet and reduce emissions of non-road petro powered products. Specifically fire pumps and chain saws but also to be applied to other appliance type devices.

    EPA and CARB Emission Standards To Control Nonroad Exhaust Emissions of Fire Pumps and Chain Saws

    https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/02511204/02511204.htm

    Washington state is working hard to remove emission pollution and road noise. As such of course EV's are a well supported auto option with rebates and discounts. With that said Washington is a partner in supporting CARB over the Federal standards and requiring all new auto's to meet the CARB standard.

    https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Air-quality/Vehicle-emissions

    With 13 states fully implementing the CARB standard, 3 states partially implementing them with full implementation happening between 2020-2025 and being voter approved in the west coast states, I honestly do not see the feds being able to take away State Rights in governing themselves.

    If they still move forward to repeal California's CARB. I suspect it will end up in the courts and last well over 2 years by which time Trump should be out of office.

    Edited by Drew Dowdell
    Removed political name calling
    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    16 hours ago, balthazar said:

    CARB is an entity within the CA EPA. When they were founded is immaterial, legally.
    Cadillac doesn't overrule General Motors just because it was founded years before.

     

    Not relevant. 

    8 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    One state should never have power over the federal level.  It is time to knock California off its high horse.

    California doesn't have power over the Federal level, so your original premise is flawed.  If General Motors wishes to run away from the California market just like they did with the EU market, that's their choice. No one is saying any manufacturer has to sell in California. 

    Years ago, a California car was a car with extra emissions control equipment that cost slightly more. What is the problem with going back to that model?

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Carmakers don’t want to build a car 2 ways, and rely on engine control software to meet emissions, so they later lose a lawsuit for having defeat devices in their software.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, dfelt said:

    Wall street has been making billions off the back of hard working americans. Time to flip it on them.

    Know how many hard working American's have their retirement & 401K's invested in Wall Street??

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    20 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    Know how many hard working American's have their retirement & 401K's invested in Wall Street??

    Yup plenty, but that still does not mean that we cannot give Americans a break on cost of getting around. :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    •  
    •  
    •  
    Here we are... AGAIN at Cheers & Gears with the double standard... and after Drew implores us to be civil and talk about IDEAS, not PEOPLE... yet this kind of trash is allowed to go on UNCHECKED.  You have got to be kidding me!

    If they still move forward to repeal California's CARB. I suspect it will end up in the courts and last well over 2 years by which time the Orangutan should be out of office.

    Edited by ocnblu
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    I also just read oil could go to $200-$400 per barrel in 2020.

    Wow- and I just read oil could go to eleventy-billion dollars per barrel next month.

    Quote

    Oil hit a record high of $147 per barrel in 2008 and everything collapsed.

    You must be talking specifically about oil, because it was down to $30/barrel by December '08.

    Edited by balthazar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, balthazar said:

    Wow- and I just read oil could go to eleventy-billion dollars per barrel next month.

    You must be talking specifically about oil, because it was down to $30/barrel by December '08.

    Already forgetting $4 per gallon gas?  If Oil goes to $200 a barrel we'll have $6-7 gallon gas.  And good luck to FCA with their Hellcat strategy.    $147 a barrel helped to bankrupt Chrysler and GM, and it would have bankrupted Ford if they didn't mortgage everything they had to get capital in 2006.

    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.




  • Posts

    • Lyriq Chief Engineer, Jamie Brewer, recently explained to GM Authority that the team decided to prioritize rear cargo space over two separate cargo areas. Thus, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq will have a larger traditional rear storage area. In fact, according to Brewer, that enables the Lyriq to boast the “largest cargo volume in its competitive set.” That made us wonder what, exactly, is the Lyriq’s competitive set. According to Cadillac spokesperson, Katie Minter, it consists of the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace. “Lyriq is aimed at customers that are looking for a luxury SUV with outstanding styling, ride and handling and seamlessly integrated technology. In this instance, we’re looking at vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace,” Minter told GM Authority in an emailed statement. So then, Lyriq has a maximum cargo volume of 60.8 cubic feet behind the first row seats and 28.0 cubic feet behind the second row. When compared to the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-Pace, the Lyriq does offer more space in the back. 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Cargo vs. e-tron I-Pace   Cadillac Lyriq Audi e-tron Jaguar I-Pace Rear cargo volume behind second row (cu. ft.) 28.0 28.5 25.3 Rear cargo volume behind first row (cu. ft.) 60.8 56.5 51.0 Frunk cargo volume (cu. ft.) N/A 2.12 0.95 Total front & rear cargo volume (cu. ft.)* 28.0 30.62 26.25 * With second row seats upright However, both the e-tron and the I-Pace feature frunks (2.12 cubic feet in the e-tron, 0.95 cubic feet in the I-Pace respectively), allowing the e-tron to have slightly more total cargo volume (combined frunk and rear cargo area). https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/05/heres-why-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-doesnt-have-a-frunk/  
    • That's probably a better worded way to put it. It's a missed opportunity.  They're all liquid cooled at this point and I can't imagine Ford and Tesla are having battery cooling issues, at least I haven't heard of any yet and I've watched a fair amount on the Mach-E and know somebody with a pair of Teslas in Nevada.  I don't believe lack of cooling has ever been a factor in an EV catching fire. It's always something shorting and sparking with poor connection(s) somewhere.  I'd also like to learn why. They have to have a good justification, I know they're not a bunch of idiots who "didn't think of it".  I just don't want the press release answer of "we needed the space for packaging". 
    • Hummer EV (and Silverado EV) are much bigger and truckular...so they have a lot more space underneath for the dirty bits.   The Lyriq isn't a high riding 4x4, so it has to use space for the electric motor(s), power brake system, HVAC, radiator, etc under the hood...
    • Ive read that the Lyriq has a 5 link suspension system front and back.  Maybe that suspension set-up limits the space for the Lyriq?
    • Lack of a frunk in the Lyriq for me, not necessarily looks like a mistake.  I dont feel like it might be a mistake.  A lost opportunity to offer a tad more storage space is how I would classify it rather than it being aa mistake. Because I reserve my opinion to see how GM's Ultium platform is engineered and utilized.  Yes, there is free space up there in the front.  If GM engineered it for the use for powertrain bits, computing ECUs, electrical harnesses  or whatnot instead of cramming those where the batteries are and limiting cooling hardware and other stuff limiting the cooling space for batteries, then Id say a job well done for GM engineering.   Batteries, with what Ive read on them, need space and hardware to properly cool.  All others cram all kinds of stuff in that batteerry space just to have a frunk.  That is one solution that benefits the consumer for storage. But if cooling is not adequate, then it takes away from that advantage and becomes a disadvantage in another way in some form or other. If GM managed to have their batteries perform better than Ford or Tesla because they took away the consumer's advantage for a frunk, but gave the consumers a better performing battery, then the consumer has that as an advantage. Remember, batteries do catch on fire after and insufficient cooling might actual be a cause regardless how good Tesla cools their batteries....or anybody else's battery tech... Including GM's Bolt.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/22/tesla-fire-sacramento/ Maybe GM and LG have learned a lesson and maybe this is a solution?   I dont know as I dont know how GM uses the frunk space for the Lyriq.    I itching to learn more about it though.  Would be interesing to know why the Hummer EV has a frunk and the Lyrriq does not.  Is it because the Hummer has an abundance of space underneath where thee batteries go and the Lyriq is best engineered to use the frunk space instead?  
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bobo
      bobo
      (54 years old)
    2. loki
      loki
      (39 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...