By on January 13, 2017

pumping fuel

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy has decided to maintain current emissions and fuel economy standards through 2025, cementing a central pillar of the Obama administration’s green legacy.

Many automakers have been critical of Obama’s rather strict climate policies and were hopeful that President-elect Donald Trump might roll back some of the more stringent regulations. Of the policies, none is more controversial than the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mandate, which began a midterm review earlier this year.

While the EPA’s ultimate determination wasn’t due until April of 2018, choosing not to alter 2025 vehicle emission and CAFE rules effectively locks in the standard before Trump can take office. 

McCarthy explained that her decision, which institutes a legal means to maintain the fuel efficiency rules, rests entirely on the facts.

“My decision today rests on the technical record created by over eight years of research, hundreds of published reports including an independent review by the National Academy of Sciences, hundreds of stakeholder meetings, and multiple opportunities for the public and the industry to provide input,” said McCarthy in her official statement.

“At every step in the process the analysis has shown that the greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and light trucks remain affordable and effective through 2025, and will save American drivers billions of dollars at the pump while protecting our health and the environment.”

The agency believes that the standards, which requires an average fleet-wide light vehicle fuel efficiency of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, will result in consumer EPA window stickers surpassing 36 mpg for passenger cars and light-trucks. That’s more than 10 mpg higher than the fleet averages of today. The mandatory improvement in economy is also estimated to diminish U.S. oil consumption by around 2.4 million barrels a day — a 10 percent reduction of America’s total petroleum consumption.

While environmentalist groups are chuffed to hear that the adjudication won’t be undone by the next POTUS, those in the automotive industry are less pleased to see the inflexible standards remain.

“The EPA decision is disappointing,” said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which had been urging the agency to reconsider. “Our fundamental priority remains striking the right balance to continue fuel economy gains and carbon reduction without compromising consumer affordability and vital auto-sector jobs.”

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

137 Comments on “With a Week to Go in Obama Administration, EPA Sets 2025 Fuel Economy Targets in Stone...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “EPA Sets 2025 Fuel Economy Targets in Stone”

    Sandstone, most likely.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    How about we disband this organization

    • 0 avatar

      You have to have an EPA; otherwise industry will do what they can get away with. What I want to see is acknowledgement that today’s cars are over 99 1/2% cleaner than 50 years ago and not feel the need to tighten the regs every few years.

      • 0 avatar

        I don’t want to abandon clean air and water regulations, but I’d sure like to take the politics out.

        The EPA has been used, just as the IRS has, to humble political enemies.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Sounds good but it would be impossible to remove the politics. Consider climate change. Should be a pure science issue* But in order to address it (or frankly any issue of the type) you have to change business as usual. Industry will do what is best for its bottom line – history has made that clear – not what is best for the country as a whole. So regulation is the only tool to force compliance. Today’s cars are as clean, safe, and efficient as they are for one reason only – industry was forced to do so, kicking and screaming the whole time. Enter politics. Only way.

          *while one can argue what the exact effects of warmer temps will be (a fair argument; we can’t say with absolute certainty) but the link between those warmer temps and human activity is 100% proven.

          While I think I would support a modest reduction in those 2025 mileage standards, I prefer they be left alone instead of rolled back to the original standards set in the 1970s which is what T-Rump would likely do. Spare me the BS as these standards being job killers. The cars have to come from somewhere. Only those who can’t step up the engineering will suffer….seems like survival of the fittest to me.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          “The EPA has been used, just as the IRS has, to humble political enemies.”

          Please show an iota of evidence of humility in Republican leadership.

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          True that, whiskeyriver! They both need to be depoliticized.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Man I’ve always wanted a toxic chemical dump in my backyard!

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    Obummer!

  • avatar
    ajla

    “in stone”

    How so? The links in the article did not make it seem that way. Plus the NHTSA, which actually enforces CAFE, said they weren’t doing anything on the reviews until the new admin comes in. Conceivably, even if he can’t do anything about the EPA, Trump can retaliate by making CAFE violation fines non-existent.

    • 0 avatar
      slance66

      He appoints the new head of the EPA, and that person can set the tone for the agency. They must comply with their statutory mandate, but there is wide discretion given to the agencies. Certainly there is no basis at all in the Clean Air Act (despite what SCOTUS says in a 5-4 decision) to conclude that CO2 is a pollutant subject to the act. The House actually filed an Amicus brief saying they agreed it was not subject to the clean air act. So no leadership in the agency can cause them to change course on that, plus Congress can explicitly remove CO2 from their purview. Without that, the basis for CAFE starts to fail, especially give our domestic oil production capability which was much less substantial when it first went into effect.

      • 0 avatar
        carlisimo

        Didn’t the Supreme Court decision basically require the EPA to consider CO2 as a pollutant?

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          Given the rapidly mounting evidence of unprecedented human-caused global warming, including the mass die-off of the Great Barrier Reef, crumbling Greenland ice, rising ocean levels, unprecedented ice-free Arctic Ocean, warmest global temperatures on record, massive habitat shift of various species, rapidly growing acreage of desert and the resulting menace to the future global food supply – all apparently caused substantially by high levels of CO2 – by what definition would you not consider it a “pollutant”?

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        Selective enforcement of our laws has been all the rage the last 8 years. This is an Obama legacy that may have to continue.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    How can it be that a regulatory agency can set policy/regulations in the executive branch that the executive can’t change? Maybe I didn’t do so good in government class, but can’t only other branches of government make rules (that we call laws) that the President can’t overturn?

    • 0 avatar
      yamahog

      It’s tricky – the Constitution only grants Congress the power to make laws. However, Congress has passed a lot of laws that empower Federal agencies to make / update laws independently (so long as the laws fall within ‘jurisdiction’ of the agency). However, most federal agencies report to the president who has hiring / firing power over the heads of the agencies, which gives the President some power to create / influence laws.

      Drugs are a simple example:
      Congress creates the controlled substances act which maps penalties to a classification system of drugs. Illegally possessing heroin is different than illegally possessing blood pressure medication, right?

      The DEA is allowed to add or remove drugs from one list and move drugs between lists – as medications get replaced with safer drugs, the DEA has the power to make them illegal. A lot of illegal drugs today used to be legal, prescription drugs. Phenmetrazine is the most interesting example if you want to read about it.

      So Congress basically creates an agency and jurisdiction and says that the agency can do X,Y,Z in its jurisdiction. It didn’t used to be the case that doctors had to work with the DEA to write opioid prescriptions, then the DEA changed the law, and now doctors have to work with the DEA.

      So when Obama says (roughly) someone should do something about marijuana being on the same list of highly illegal drugs with heroin (fun fact, meth and cocaine are on a less severe list), he’s careful to avoid mentioning that he decides who’s in charge of the agency that makes that determination and in the case of drugs, the President can change the scheduling by executive order. Obama could legalize it federally tomorrow if he wanted.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        The DEA isn’t about to declassify cannabis to put itself out of a job. The EPA is no different.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        It gets tricky if there are international treaties on illicit/illegal drugs. The Canadian Government found out that they could not quickly legalize marijuana due to those treaties. In some respects that is no different than FTA’s. You can’t easily undo them.

        Lorenzo – there is truth to what you say especially since no one heading into power seems to care about conflicts of interest and/or ethics.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Chalky plays some real hardball doesn’t he?

    He’s worked more in the past eight weeks than he did in the past eight years. Change we can believe in.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      I shudder to think about what this is doing to his golf game.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      There used to be a time (until approximately 8 years ago) when everyone spoke respectfully of the president, regardless of their politics. They might disagree with his policy, but they didn’t resort to constant insults, especially those that are about color.

      Todd, you shudder every time the door to the basement opens, fearful your mom will force you to do your chores.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        My man you live in an alternate universe. For eight years all I heard about semi-regularly was how stupid Bush was, or did you forget the “1.20.09” bumper stickers?

        The only time I recall not hearing “Bush is an idiot” was from around 9/11 to early ’02. Not a Bush fan but hate hypocritical behavior more. Fact is its all been downhill since somewhere between the coup in 1963 and the gold window close in 1971.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          I can’t resist, are you saying Mr. Bush was a towering intellect?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Not at all, but Chalky is equally challenged by intellectual inability. Mastering a teleprompter does not denote higher intelligence. What is interesting is how such a large (>33%) segment of the population was swooned by either, just shows how delusional the human species has become.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            You write some seriously poisonous things, 28CL.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Truth is difficult to accept sometimes.

            The best I could hope for Mr. Soetoro is he wakes up next week, looks in the mirror, and has some self realization which leads to peace. This man is in great disharmony with himself, if he does not mend the conflict within he will only further damage himself. Did you know Georgie turned to painting? I don’t know why he chose to study art but if I had to guess it was because he too was in disharmony and used it to find peace and perhaps meaning.

            http://www.businessinsider.com/george-w-bushs-book-with-66-oil-paintings-2016-9?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            You appear to write from experience.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Indeed, it is a journey with many stops along the way but one must take the first step to begin.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            wat

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            “Chalky is equally challenged by intellectual inability”

            I’m racist but I don’t believe that for a moment.

            What I *do* believe is that the once-and-future murderous pressures afflicting race relations in this country guarantee an impenetrable armor of packaging for any minority candidate, preventing knowledge of and opportunity for that candidate’s true capabilities to be discovered.

            Too many vested puppeteers.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Look, I knew a lot of people at Columbia. With the exception of a couple of legacies, nobody there fit the definition of intellectual inability. Just look at what it takes to get in – the GPA, the test scores, the extra-curriculars; it’s just not possible. And Harvard Law? 10 times as hard.

            You can say a lot about our president, but ‘challenged by intellectual inability’ says a lot more about the author than the person being insulted.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            It is amazing how we praise or blame a President or Prime Minister for triumph and failure. It is equally naïve to believe one party holds the moral high ground over another party.

            When will everyone realize that the system is corrupt to the point of being unsalvageable.

            Why would any candidate spend a billion dollars trying to get elected if there isn’t “vested interests” lurking in the background?

        • 0 avatar
          thornmark

          While in office, Eisenhower was held by the media as middlebrow at best – in comparison to the alleged genius of Adlai Stevenson.

          Little know fact – Adlai flunked out of Harvard Law, academically, not due to illness as his family lied. The Dean hid Adlai’s transcript for decades in his private files – they were discovered when the Dean died. Felix Frankfurter knew that Adlai flunked out – because he knew him at Harvard. Others knew too, but they kept it a secret.

          Of course, once out of office Eisenhower’s intellect was raised considerably by historians, while Adlai was consigned to the dustbin of history.

      • 0 avatar
        86er

        “There used to be a time (until approximately 8 years ago) when everyone spoke respectfully of the president, regardless of their politics.”

        Nobody remembers history.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        Where were you during the “shrub” administration? Did you forget when you got the head injury?

      • 0 avatar
        bumpy ii

        “There used to be a time (until approximately 8 years ago) when everyone spoke respectfully of the president, regardless of their politics.”

        That idyllic era ended in 1797. The current bouts of insult and denigration are fairly tame compared to some historic examples.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “There used to be a time (until approximately 8 years ago) when everyone spoke respectfully of the president, regardless of their politics”

        Now, I’m as pinko as it gets, but even I’ll accede that speaking disrespectfully of a sitting head of state has been going on for some time. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were solidly pilloried, and more than a few cheap shots were taken at Carter and Reagan.

        I’d actually argue that, in the last 40-odd years, the only president who was spoken of mostly-respectfully was H. George Bush, and that civility, like the tide, comes and goes.

        What happened that made Obama’s tenure different wasn’t the criticism, but the level of delusion. You had to go back to Andrew Jackson to get an opposition with that level of mouth-frothing crazy.

        • 0 avatar
          86er

          Pink right down to your underwear.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I agree, the delusion has been thick of late.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          Love your command of history!
          I have read more than one recent essay comparing him and Pres-elect P####grabber.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          “What happened that made Obama’s tenure different wasn’t the criticism, but the level of delusion.”

          Agree! But all that delusion and bad advise is about to be erased, nullified and obliterated by the incoming administration.

          Those dark days of the past eight years will be relegated to the dust bin of history. No one will even remember them after the first 100 days of the new administration.

          BTW, I am an Independent and did not vote for Trump because I could not see Trump getting elected without divine intervention.

          Divine intervention happens.

          So even I can see that huge changes are in the forecast for the US, its economy and its Citizens.

          God is Greatest and it appears that God has a sense of humor as well: to wit, Trump.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Alright. Who’s the wise guy who said ‘Stoned Nazi General’ three times?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Ferdinand Schörner?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “What happened that made Obama’s tenure different wasn’t the criticism, but the level of delusion.”

            Correct.

            Obama thought that he might be able to make a difference within a corrupt system. His supports believed that too.

            Wake up everyone.

            The system is just that, a system. A rather corrupt and self-preserving one.

            The only benefit I see of a T-rump Presidency is that he is going to go into the swamp and “rotate the reptiles”. Out with the old and in with the new. Same corrupt system just new snakes. That may be enough to make the populace finally wake up and see it for what it is.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Lectured by a Canadian who has elected another fond-of-a-mirror leader is Comedy Gold!

      • 0 avatar
        jeoff

        While I think that folks *should* speak respectfully of the president–Hasn’t happened in at least 50 years. I was going to say maybe Kennedy, but some folks weren’t too happy about him being Catholic, and having more progressive views on race relations. Anybody remember how the loyal opposition treated Eisenhower?

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Honestly in the history of the US I’d say that respect towards the President from the opposite side has been the *exception*.

      • 0 avatar
        mike1dog

        To quote Monty Python, “Gales of derisive laughter.” I don’t think there’s been a president “everyone spoke respectfully of” since Eisenhower. I certainly don’t think Bush, or Nixon, or Carter or Clinton would agree with you.

      • 0 avatar
        FOG

        VoGo, did Todd edit his response? Based on the short golf comment I am missing the disrespect part. I also don’t remember people showing either of the Bushes much in the way of respect while they were in office. Your posts are usually insightful, could you explain this one better for my simple mind?

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Fog,
          I was responding to 28CL calling our president “chalky”

          Why is are the insults always some form of “boy” or about color? Does TTAC truly need to be a cesspool for secret handshake racist remarks?

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            “Does TTAC truly need to be a cesspool for secret handshake racist remarks?”

            Well, it’s hard to know how current online compilations of them are and I’d hate to use something that’s like totally last year.

            I wish we’d all just keep using “Canadians”.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I saw that the other day and laughed so hard it hurt. Since he’s about to become irrelevant I thought I’d use it (well assuming he’s not planning on re-enacting Operation Barbarossa with that tank brigade).

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “I wish we’d all just keep using “Canadians”.”

            Yeah.

            We real Canadians are just too nice to complain about it……..

            Sorry.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Vogo is often surprised, but no surprise there.

        • 0 avatar
          mike978

          It’s not be a good day for Vogo, this followed by the “Tesla is the fastest vehicle” takedown.
          Shame since some of his comments are reasonable.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Takedown? Jack published his opinion that 0-60 isn’t the standard for measuring how quick a car is. He has every right to his opinion. I’m just surprised that someone who claims to know about cars and the car industry is so undereducated on it.

          • 0 avatar
            mike978

            I note you ignore the bit about disrespect to the President starting 8 years ago. Thoroughly debunked by many from across the political spectrum. Just for once admit you were wrong and move on (and not in some scarcastic backhanded way). I believe you can do it.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Yeah, people were pretty rough on Bush. I just don’t remember racial insults, though.

            Progress?

          • 0 avatar
            mike978

            Progress in terms of you admitting your original argument/comment was wrong. Well done, you are now like the rest of us – falable.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Anyone who claims to hold a job and spends as much time here as I do is obviously riddled with fallibleness.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            ….“Canadians”…..

            That’s funny. My late mother used that as a code word for Jews.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        VoGo,

        You really don’t remember Bushitler, or cartoons of Bush as a chimp? Every Republican President since WWII has been compared to Hitler. No, disrespect for politicians has been going on for a lot longer than 8 years.

      • 0 avatar
        baggins

        “There used to be a time (until approximately 8 years ago) when everyone spoke respectfully of the president, regardless of their politics.”

        This might be dumbest statement ever made on TTAC. Maybe the entire internet.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          If you read down the comments, you’ll see i admitted that that Bush 43 drew a lot of insults. But I stuck with the point that Presidents weren’t constantly insulted with secretive racist taunts until Obama.

          If that is the dumbest statement you’ve seen on the entire internet, then congratulations on your first day of broadband.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Disrespect along racial lines is something to point out and deride but as everyone out there has pointed out, a lack of respect for someone in political office isn’t new. Lincoln getting a lead lobotomy would indicate a severe lack of respect and that was 152 years ago.

          • 0 avatar

            Well, Congratulations. We’ve reached to the lowest bowels of the internet.

            You can’t say a damn thing about Obama’s policies without being labeled a racist.

            It’s been that way for 8 years. I pity you for your shallowness.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @WhiskeyRiver – Political bashing, picking apart policies and all sorts of other attacks are fair game but if they move into “racial” territory then it definitely isn’t.

            How hard is that to comprehend?

            Oh, forgot briefly….. putinspotus got elected on a campaign based on xenophobia, racism,and sexism.

            “We’ve reached to the lowest bowels of the internet.”

            T-rump T-witter mustn’t count as internet, so you get a by on that one!

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “You can’t say a damn thing about Obama’s policies without being labeled a racist.”

            Oh shut the hell up. calling him “Chalky” is not saying anything about his policies.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            No, he’s correct. That was irredeemably moronic.

  • avatar
    srd275

    the dogma standards can and will likely be undone. What does Obama and the elitist enviro lobby think they are the rulers of the democracy???

    Even the EPA could be revoked if Congress and the Senate wanted too.

    Don’t say they “can’t”. This can and should be undone. The only reason to move it this way was to “beat” Trump administration. But like Obama dictates, this can and will be undone. If necessary cleaning house of the “regulators” who are not about so much environmental protection, but Sierra club dogma!

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “What does Obama and the elitist enviro lobby think they are the rulers of the democracy???”

      Many experts have pointed out that the “intelligentsia” were just as much a victim of T-rumps campaign as any visible minority and any immigrant.

      98% of the scientific community believes man poses a serious threat in the realm of climate change. Only 60-65% of the populace agrees.

      As a side bar, the vast majority of scientists and medical professionals believe that smoking is bad for you but 17% still do.

      Ironically the belief in climate change and the dangers of smoking increases with education and wealth.

  • avatar
    tylanner

    The movement toward unfettered and insular capitalism over the next 4 years must be paved with conscious (and maybe difficult) declarations from Republicans that remove/destroy existing standards and laws…the alternative is a less painful road cluttered with inaction and endless feigned debate.

    In many respects, the GOP has shown their hand a few weeks too early…..inconsolable partisanship begot a hasty response from the current administration.

  • avatar
    timelesstraveler

    “… and will save American drivers billions of dollars at the pump while protecting our health and the environment.”

    While costing American drivers billions of dollars at the dealership…

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      LOL, and true.
      On one level, here is an example of government intervention that sets up two things that would be incompatible if done in an unregulated market. That would be both fuel efficient vehicles and low gas prices at the same time.

  • avatar
    George B

    All the EPA carbon dioxide regulations including their fuel economy targets rest on their 2009 endangerment finding. Mountains of regulations collapse if the Trump administration successfully update the technical supporting documents based on new evidence. The prior CAFE fuel economy standards rest on legislation passed by congress and it’s my understanding that the fuel economy requirement would revert back to that law once the heads roll at the EPA.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    The EPA needs to be shut down – their job is done as the US has the cleanest water and air since before the industrial revolution, but now they have a huge band of lawyers with nothing to do but kill jobs and economic growth.

    “The EPA loves lawyers. Nearly $1.2 billion in salary flowed to more than 1,000 lawyers since 2007. In fact, more money was spent on “General Attorneys” than on chemists, general health scientists, ecologists, chemists, microbiologists, geologists, hydrologists, toxicologists, biologists, physical scientists, and health physicists combined.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2015/10/21/the-climate-change-liberation-army-and-u-s-environmental-protection-agency-epa-adventurism/#71f933d241b9

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      I am guessing you and the Forbes clan don’t live in Flint.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        The EPA has been around since the 1970s, so how has having them “on duty” helped out Flint in 2014? The EPA hasn’t actually cleaned up anything for decades – all they do is sue private sector job creators to keep those EPA lawyers busy. Flint is a sad story, but one that is built on the fact that Flint voters keep electing incompetent and/or crooked Democrats as mayor.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Stingray,
          These lies have been debunked so many times here and all over the ‘net. The bottom line is that the flunkies who were responsible for the disaster with the Flint water supply were appointed by the Republican governor.

          Nice try though.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Why did Flint need “flunkie” emergency managers to be appointed by a Republican governor? Could it be because Flint voters keep electing incompetent and/or crooked Democrats as mayor?

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            >>net. The bottom line is that the flunkies who were responsible for the disaster with the Flint water supply were appointed by the Republican governor.<<

            And the flunkies the GOP guv appointed were DEMOCRATS! Go look it up. Flint, like Detroit and soon to be Chicago have all been laid waste by Dems.

            Nice try though.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          I love when people who have probably never set foot in Michigan try to tell people what is going on here. NEWSFLASH, bucko: the Flint water situation was started while the city was being run by an un-elected “Emergency Manager.”

          edit: oh, and I see you’re already starting with the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. or maybe misdirection, or moving the goalposts.

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          flint’s troubles exist for many reasons, and do so despite well-intended epa regulations, not because of them. in the absence of those regulations, things in flint would be even worse – much much worse.

          republican politicians and the people who have supported them share more responsibility for flint’s problems than do any/all epa environmental regulations

          [born in flint. flint resident for 22 years. michigan resident for 33 years. still have family living just outside flint city limits.]

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            Wrong. THe Dems made Flint what it is. The GOP guv merely appointed another Dem to replace the previous failed Dem.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        My guess is neither of three major candidates really gave a hoot, or maybe Trump did kinda but a cost/benefit analysis of an appearance in Flint did not pay him dividends in excess of time/money (not holding my breath though).

        I think it would have really behooved Secy Clinton to have spent say a million of her billion dollar campaign on bottled water and shipped it in with her name on it.

    • 0 avatar
      Snooder

      That’s not how this works.

      That’s like saying “eh, crime is low now, let’s fire all the cops.”

  • avatar
    markogts

    How come EPA doesn’t know about Jevons’ paradox? This will lead to an increase of overall fuel consumption, it’s basic economics.

    The only think that may work is a hefty carbon tax.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      Markogts,

      You apparently don’t understand green economics – otherwise you wouldn’t be asking such silly questions. You see with green economics – all environmental regulations only lead to positive predictable outcomes.

  • avatar
    DudeMcLovin

    I question whether this agency action will truly be set in stone in 7 or more days.

    If it was a law passed by the legislature then it would have a little more teeth and be harder to overturn but since the EPA is part of the executive branch the standard can be changed.

    Conventional wisdom may say that changing this rule is unlikely but this administration is anything but conventional.

    I would have liked to see more emphasis on this possibility in the article.

    • 0 avatar
      Tstag

      I don’t think these targets are too bad. Look at it this way, JLR sell a high proportion of SUVs. As a car manufacturer they will be hardest hit by these new regs but by 2025 more than half the cars they sell will be electric or hybrid cars. If they can do it why can’t everyone else?

  • avatar
    kosmo

    Gina McCarthy: “I did this 4 months early for purely scientific reasons. Nothing political here. Move along, now!”

  • avatar
    chicklet

    Of all the things I’ve seen since election day, it’s things like this that make me support moving up inauguration day a bit.

    These guys are not ‘governing’, they’re not even ensuring their brother-in-laws have good government jobs before they leave. They’re deliberately trying to make extra work for the incoming leadership.

    This hasn’t been done since the Clintons vandalized the White House on the way out, and hasn’t been done in a way to punish the American citizens before, ever. Totalitarians rarely are gracious losers, this is just another example. Hope the new director brings a chisel and pulverizes this ‘stone’. Bah!

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I’just read some disturbing comments above.

    My belief is CAFE is forcing manufacturers the create “new” technologies rather than maximising existing technologies.

    Just have an anything goes approach to FE and gradually ratchet up fuel taxes as CAFE is unwound. This will alter buying habits, allow those who want a powerful vehicle to have one and have more funding for infrastructure, whilst improving national fleet FE.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      I am having some 80’s deju-vu when I see new vehicular products recently.

      As in the 80’s when the CAFE standards were tightening, the current state of the art of engineering and technology is clearly advancing at a rapid pace.

      This is one aspect of regulations that I like. As in the examples of the space program, the interstate highway system, the Internet, funding for general scientific research, government is, and can be, a catalyst for progress.

      Non commons, non public, 100% for profit motivated organizing of a nation and a society has some severe limitations.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “Non commons, non public, 100% for profit motivated organizing of a nation and a society has some severe limitations.”

        Well said and 100% correct.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        ttacgreg,
        By gradually ratcheting up the full price will force manufacturers to invest in technology to maximise FE.

        This technological improvement will be more affordable and reliable as the money invested in research will impact the profits by the manufacturers.

        I’m no way stating reducing the emission standards. These standards should be measured by mass of fuel burnt. Fuel pricing will then force change in buying habits (FE), which flows onto the manufacturers.

        This goes against the promotion/protection of large vehicle manufacturing in the US.

  • avatar
    Whatnext

    You could do away with the EPA mileage regs just by signing into law an increase of 2 cents in the federal gas tax every year.

  • avatar
    Michael500

    Can’t be reversed- that’s funny. It will be hard for EPA officers to enforce their regulations after they are fired. Reagan reversed the 5 MPH bumper regulations after doo-doo Jimmy Carter. Trump will reverse this before the ink dries, if he desires to.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Yeah. To the chagrin of 90% of car owners who are constantly having their bumpers hit in parking lots at 3MPH. But I guess the CEO limo crowd doesn’t worry too much about the little people and their little problems.

      By the way, it’s odd that you reference Reagan in your note about firing federal workers. Because in the history of the United States, no president has increased the federal government payroll as much as Ronald Reagan. Let that sink in for a minute.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      Nixon was president when the 5 mph bumper requirements went into effect.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Actually, the bumper standard is a pretty good model for the same cause and effect. Automakers lobbied for the reduced standard saying it would save consumers money on the car purchase and would allow the vehicles to get lighter, which would help save fuel. Well, the automakers that chose to go to Reynolds Wrap bumpers saved manufacturing costs which did not result in lower cost cars or reduce their weight – cars began to increase in weight around this time; in fact the mileage hit was starting to be offset by technology. But consumers did get vehicles that were more easily damaged and hence paid more for repairs. So the fat cats got fatter, and the average citizen paid for it. Again, if it is not mandated, you will not see it. I can’t believe it when I hear some say, the market will ensure you get what you want. No, it won’t for certain things.

  • avatar
    heavy handle

    It’s funny. The comments here remind me of a conversation I overheard in a bar recently. The gist of it was “we won the election, and yet they still make fun of me.” This came from an adult!
    Go figure. I guess he never realized that people still don’t respect his opinion, even though the US President claims to share his world view.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      ““we won the election, and yet they still make fun of me.” This came from an adult!”

      Yup, I remember overhearing similar conversations in Nov 2008. Change was coming then, as is change coming after Jan 20, 2017.

      People just have to suck it up and deal with it.

      FWIW, I truly fear the changes that P-E Trump will initiate and institute, but I also believe that these changes will benefit any American citizen who has, or wants a job.

      It’s going to take some major adjustment for those currently on the dole. Trump doesn’t scare me nearly as much as Ryan and McConnell running the Hill.

      Talk about cuts to social programs! Brace yourselves.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    It is what it is. The election is over and all we can do is wait to see what happens in the next 100 days after inauguration. In another 4 years there will be another election meanwhile all of us will go about living our lives.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Yes, but some things will not just disappear. Supreme Court justices, for example will live on for a generation or two. So a president can leave a lasting legacy – good or bad depending on your position…

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    True about the Supreme Court but most of us are still going about our lives regardless of what our political preferences are. I remember some who said they would not go to work the day President Obama was inaugurated. Those same people went to work that day. Unless we become a totalitarian government then most of us will go about our lives. I seriously doubt most will cross over to Canada and if that did happen then Canada would have to build a wall and charge Donald Trump for it. Just kidding.

    I also doubt there will be a lot of changes to the new EPA standards except the manufacturers will ask for a delay in implementation which would mostly would be granted. I don’t see the EPA going away anytime soon.

  • avatar
    jimf42

    The regulations can be reversed through the same process as they were enacted. The new administration at the EPA has to publish the new regulations (or the reversal of the old regs) in the Federal Register, giving a specified time for comments. Once that period is up, they then can make the new regs final, while responding to comments (pound sand, etc).

  • avatar
    mtmmo

    Obama’s 2025 EPA fuel economy targets are set in stone just like his Syrian red line. More than 400,000 people have been slaughtered in Syria many of them women and children. Thanks Obama. You won’t be missed. Only 4 More Days!!!!

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Let’s interject some fact into the politics today. The Obama red line in Syria was specific to chemical weapons. It threatened direct military intervention against the Assad regime if they did not remove all its chemical weapons. Tail between his legs, Assad then exported all chemical weapons from Syria.

      So it worked. Now, you can fault Obama for not doing more to prevent bloodshed in Syria, especially against civilians. IF there were easy answers here, I’m sure they would have been taken. We should keep in mind that in America, it is Congress that uniquely has the power to declare war. Congress chose instead to sit back and criticize Obama, instead of taking the lead.

      It will be interesting to see how Trump and Congress handle Syria going forward. I certainly hope they are successful in reducing civilian casualties while advancing American interests and values.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • millerluke: I wish Kia would put in a V8. When has any vehicle been made worse when eight glorious cylinders were...
  • bullnuke: They’re built in the mother country (Japan).
  • millerluke: I have a 2019 Camry with the 2.5L. It’s rated for around 7.2 L/100km, and I routinely get around...
  • slap: I started college the year this generation of GM intermediate cars came out. The previous generation had some...
  • msquare: This was indeed the spiritual successor to the Grand Am, which was dropped about the same time the Chevelle...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Timothy Cain
  • Matthew Guy
  • Ronnie Schreiber
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth