Jump to content
William Maley

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

Recommended Posts

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


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HELL is coming and the battle is about to begin. Who wins, 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
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...

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s okay -

 

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

 

😂

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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......

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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??

Share this post


Link to post
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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
Reply to this topic...

×   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.




  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      The EPA has officially released its assessment of the 2020 Jeep Wrangler EcoDiesel. The EcoDiesel is only available as a 4-door with an 8-speed automatic and in that configuration, the EcoDiesel manages to get 29 mpg highway, 22 mpg city, and 25 combined. That is slightly better than a 4x4 Ram 1500 with the same powertrain. The next closest model in terms of fuel efficiency is the 2-door, 4-cylinder, manual transmission, rear-wheel drive Wrangler at 24 highway mpg, 22 city mpg, and 23 combined. 
      The diesel engine is a $4,000 option though so you may not ultimately save money. Instead, Jeep believes the EcoDiesel option is best suited for those who need the gobs of torque generated by the V6 diesel when going off-road. With 260 horsepower and 442 lb.-ft of torque, the Wrangler EcoDiesel has torque in spades. To the dismay of many, the Ecodiesel does come standard with electronic stop/start.
      If diesel isn't your thing, there is the 2.0T 4-cylinder which produces 270 horsepower and 295 lb.-ft of torque or the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 which produces 285 horsepower and 260 lb.-ft of torque.  Both engines also come with stop/start or can be upgraded to the eTorque system that smooths out the torque band and either engine is available with a manual transmission or 8-speed automatic.
       

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      The EPA has officially released its assessment of the 2020 Jeep Wrangler EcoDiesel. The EcoDiesel is only available as a 4-door with an 8-speed automatic and in that configuration, the EcoDiesel manages to get 29 mpg highway, 22 mpg city, and 25 combined. That is slightly better than a 4x4 Ram 1500 with the same powertrain. The next closest model in terms of fuel efficiency is the 2-door, 4-cylinder, manual transmission, rear-wheel drive Wrangler at 24 highway mpg, 22 city mpg, and 23 combined. 
      The diesel engine is a $4,000 option though so you may not ultimately save money. Instead, Jeep believes the EcoDiesel option is best suited for those who need the gobs of torque generated by the V6 diesel when going off-road. With 260 horsepower and 442 lb.-ft of torque, the Wrangler EcoDiesel has torque in spades. To the dismay of many, the Ecodiesel does come standard with electronic stop/start.
      If diesel isn't your thing, there is the 2.0T 4-cylinder which produces 270 horsepower and 295 lb.-ft of torque or the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 which produces 285 horsepower and 260 lb.-ft of torque.  Both engines also come with stop/start or can be upgraded to the eTorque system that smooths out the torque band and either engine is available with a manual transmission or 8-speed automatic.
       
    • By Drew Dowdell
      The Ford Explorer hybrid got its EPA ratings finally. They're an improvement over the base 2.3 liter 4-cylinder delivering 27 city, 29 highway, 28 combined for the most efficient RWD model. That is an improvement of 6 mpg for city and 4 mpg combined. The AWD model comes in a bit lower at 23 city, 26 highway, and 25 combined. Unlike the Lincoln Aviator GT, the Ford Explorer Hybrid is not a plug-in model. 
      Powered by a 3.3 liter V6 plus the electrified drive train, the Explorer hybrid has a lot more power than the 4-cylinder with 318 horsepower and 322 lb-ft of torque. It comes with the same 10-speed automatic that all Explorers come with. Compared to the 2.3 liter turbo with 300 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque, we expect the Hybrid to feel faster and more refined due to the extra torque at the low end from the electric motor. 
      The Explorer Hybrid has more power and torque than its only direct competition, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid.  The Highlander does slightly better in fuel economy, but comes up 1,500 lbs short in towing capacity, though the next generation Highland Hybrid is supposed to get 34 mpg in front-wheel drive form.
      The Explorer Hybrid is available as a Limited trim model and starts at $51,780 after delivery charge, a $3,555 increase over an equivalent Limited trim. 
       

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      The Ford Explorer hybrid got its EPA ratings finally. They're an improvement over the base 2.3 liter 4-cylinder delivering 27 city, 29 highway, 28 combined for the most efficient RWD model. That is an improvement of 6 mpg for city and 4 mpg combined. The AWD model comes in a bit lower at 23 city, 26 highway, and 25 combined. Unlike the Lincoln Aviator GT, the Ford Explorer Hybrid is not a plug-in model. 
      Powered by a 3.3 liter V6 plus the electrified drive train, the Explorer hybrid has a lot more power than the 4-cylinder with 318 horsepower and 322 lb-ft of torque. It comes with the same 10-speed automatic that all Explorers come with. Compared to the 2.3 liter turbo with 300 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque, we expect the Hybrid to feel faster and more refined due to the extra torque at the low end from the electric motor. 
      The Explorer Hybrid has more power and torque than its only direct competition, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid.  The Highlander does slightly better in fuel economy, but comes up 1,500 lbs short in towing capacity, though the next generation Highland Hybrid is supposed to get 34 mpg in front-wheel drive form.
      The Explorer Hybrid is available as a Limited trim model and starts at $51,780 after delivery charge, a $3,555 increase over an equivalent Limited trim. 
       
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Trump posted multiple tweets regarding the closure of GM's Lordstown Ohio plant today.  In those tweets he says he has spoken to GM CEO Mary Barra about his displeasure over the closing of the facility.  He said he demanded swift action on either the selling of the plant or reopening it.   He further stated the Ms. Barra blamed the UAW for the closure.
       
      In a further series of tweets, Trump mentioned that GM and the UAW will be starting talks in September of this year, but that he is impatient with that timeline.  Claiming that we have one of the best economies in history, he wants to see the plant opened or sold to another car company.  While Lordstown has shuttered on reality, on paper it still needs to negotiate its closure with the UAW during contract negotiations later this year. 
       
       
      In a report last week, it appears that General Motors has something in the works for the Lordstown plant that Governor DeWine said could be a possible sale of Lordstown. 
      Some have pondered why Trump is focusing on the Lordstown facility out of all 5 GM plant closures and the answer seems to be in Ohio's status as a presidential election swing state. 
      UAW 1112 President David Green has sent multiple letters to Trump asking for his assistance to help save the facility, but at last report has not heard back from the administration.

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...