By on March 4, 2017

pumping gas

As we reported last week, automobile industry groups wasted no time lobbying newly minted Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt to reopen the book on the country’s fuel efficiency targets.

That volume had previously been slammed shut by Pruitt’s predecessor, putting an end to a midterm review and cementing the Obama-era light-duty vehicle target of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Automakers would prefer not to be held to this rule, citing higher sticker prices caused by the addition of fuel-saving technology. Meanwhile, consumer and environmental groups have lobbied to keep the targets in place.

Well, according to a new report, the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard might not survive for long. Automakers, apparently, are about to see a wish come true.

First reported by Reuters, sources claim that the EPA will announce a reopening of the midterm review next week. After seeing a draft order for the restart, the source said the EPA is expected to work with the U.S. Transportation Department on the file.

The move would give almost all automakers, including the Detroit Three, a chance to see CAFE rolled back, even though the EPA previously stated that reaching 54.5 mpg was within the limits of existing technology.

Past EPA officials aren’t happy. Margo Oge, director of the EPA’s office of transportation and air quality from 1994 to 2012, told the Washington Post that its earlier decision was the right one.

“If the Trump administration were to rely on facts and sound science, they would come to the same conclusion that the EPA staff and outside experts reached: The 2025 standards are achievable and in a way that will save consumers trillions in fuel costs,” Oge said.

California seems ready to throw up legal barriers to stop any rollback of CAFE, or of its authority to set emissions rules for automakers. The state will “vigorously parti­cipate and defend ourselves,” said California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols.

California’s legal defenders include former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, hired as a legal adviser earlier this year.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

78 Comments on “EPA to Reopen Fuel Efficiency Review Next Week: Report...”


  • avatar

    Those will all be cars that are to be sold on the U.S. market then. They will only be sold in the EU (for instance) at a much higher price since they will be taxed extra. Might be not that different on other export markets. If that is what Trump wants.

  • avatar
    GeneralMalaise

    At some point, diminishing returns will apply. Autos are being priced out of the reach of a sizable portion of the potential market. Over-regulation may contribute to that.

    • 0 avatar
      npaladin2000

      And those who can’t afford autos will be forced to use mass transit. All part of the plan.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “diminishing returns will apply.”

      What are those? (/s)

      “Autos are being priced out of the reach of a sizable portion of the potential market”

      Leasing is not just for people p!ssing away money anymore, now it is prole standard!

      “Zabritski said, “People shop for vehicles largely based on monthly price, and right now, average dollar amounts for new vehicle loans are soaring.” She added, “In order to stay within their budget goals, we have seen that more consumers – even those within the prime and super-prime risk categories – are turning to leasing and used vehicles as cost-effective alternatives to buying new.”

      http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040116/auto-leasing-hits-record-high-q4.asp

    • 0 avatar
      CarDesigner

      The reason for this mileage requirement and mandatory ethanol use is WHY? Follow the money back to corn lobbyists and the eco-nazis. Unfunded mandates of dubious utility and purpose hurts consumers and drives the cost of cars out of control.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        I’ve always wondered about the mandatory addition of ethanol. Can the government require bakers to add maple flavoring to angel food cake to support maple syrup makers? Can they require carbon steel makers to add some copper to support domestic copper mines?

        California is even worse: they have a specific gasoline formulation that can be sold in the state, because it was lab-proven to burn cleaner. If there’s another formulation that’s better, it’s not allowed by law, and gasoline shortages can’t be helped by importation of cheaper to make other gasoline formulations made in other states.

        The first two are illogical; the third sounds like restraint of trade, or at least suppression of innovation.

        • 0 avatar
          Lack Thereof

          If millions of people were setting cakes on fire in dense urban public places every day, I think the government might be able to find cause under the clean air act to mandate clean-burning cakes.

          In the current year, Ethanol is only mandatory (a) in counties that fail federal air quality standards, and even then only (b) during the winter months.

          It’s just so cheap from being subsidized, that it’s one of the cheapest octane-boosting additives that refiners can buy. Naturally, they put in the maximum allowed amount, year round, in every market. You can hunt around and find independent stations that sell “ethanol-free” gas, but it’s more expensive because it has more expensive anti-knock additives.

          California’s “special formulation” isn’t all that special. They ban a couple of common, cheap gasoline additives not because of air pollution, but because they have a tendency to seep through the walls of underground storage tanks and contaminate nearby water wells. A lot of states have recently banned the same additives, so California gas isn’t exactly a special snowflake. And there are special rules allowing the importation of non-certified gas during extreme circumstances, such as natural disasters.

          • 0 avatar

            Here in NY all gas has corn, not just winter or special. I have to get three counties north of the NYC line to get “real gas”.

            ethanol just doesn’t go well with driving, be it the driver or the car.

  • avatar
    bartonlong

    The whole CAFE thing is pretty stupid anyway, we are just regulating away a huge source of badly needed revenue with no gain. Just raise the gas tax to the levels needed to actually maintain our roads (and bridges and such) and people will self select to drive what they can afford. Plus that tax is a direct user fee revenue source-don’t want to pay it? structure your life so you don’t need a car and you don’t pay it. Now all we are doing is driving up the entry cost of transportation with NO gain outside of higher transaction costs for dealerships.

    Oh, and the case can be made that higher mileage cars pollute less-this is almost axiomatic depending on how you define pollution. But we can get their with the existing emissions laws anyway without the stupid, complex and expensive CAFE regulations.

    • 0 avatar
      DAC17

      Very true. Unfortunately, politicians never have, and never will get the spine to do this. Might lose their precious “for life” jobs.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        Maybe because the US populace knows the politicians will take the gas tax money and spend it on other things. To think otherwise would be delusional.

        And then there’s the fairness issue.

    • 0 avatar
      bts

      If taxes were raised on higher grade fuel it would make sense and would be mostly taxing those with more expensive luxury cars .

    • 0 avatar
      markogts

      Fully agree. Carbon tax, and let the market find out the best solutions.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Gas tax is not a big deal if you’re solidly middle class. If you’re poor or fixed income elderly, high taxes on transportation is a nightmare, particularly when you consider the cost of fuel in every good we buy.

      Furthermore, gasoline taxes don’t work. Europe had them for decades. They didn’t invent any great transportation technology, they just got poorer. It wasn’t until the Japanese government mandated hyper-efficient vehicles that the world inherited hybrids, and the US sort of followed up what was going on in Japan.

      Further furthermore, funding highways based upon the amount of gasoline purchased is incredibly stupid. People who don’t drive still benefit massively from roads. If the fuel of choice changes, the government goes broke. Gasoline tax was a sill regime imposed during a time when the government barely had the ability to levee income taxes on the general populous.

      Despite what you’ve heard, gasoline tax is probably the dumbest tax of them all. It’s simple and it’s another source of revenue; therefore, it attracts the intellectually lazy authoritarians. That is it’s claim to fame.

      • 0 avatar
        sutherland555

        Canadian here and I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that gas taxes don’t work. Canadians pay noticeably more for gas due to a much higher federal and provincial gas tax than Americans do. That has had a direct impact on what kind of cars we buy. We generally buy more fuel efficient cars. Lots of compacts, compact CUVs and trucks (usually for businesses) with more sub-compacts as the 2nd family car. Compared to a healthy mix of mid-sized sedans,compact CUVs, compacts and trucks in the top 10 in America.

        Our gas taxes are specifically earmarked for road and infrastructure maintenance. After a couple road trips to NYC, DC and Miami in the past few years, I can safely say roads in Canada are, generally speaking, in much better shape than most roads I drove on in any of those road trips.

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    World cars don’t work universally in the US and we’re a big enough market to sustain specific models. Whenever an automaker has tried giving us the same version of a car that sells well everywhere else, one of two things has happened. Either the US model diverges from the international model to grow its market share, or it teeters on as a niche car for internationalist wobblies. The latest effort to force us all into 1.5 liter turbo Chinese compliance cars was bound to fail if we retained any freedom or economic liberty at all. Let this be the end of four cylinder luxury cars and mandatory automatics.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Tough fuel economy standards just mean more gaming of the system. The small turbos, hybrids, etc. do not even come close to achieving their EPA ratings in real world driving, because they are designed specifically for the test cycle. Or you get VW and who know who else putting some cheater code into their cars to achieve the standards during tests only. Both the gaming and the cheating are just symptoms of standards that are too tough relative to the cost of the technology necessary to achieve them honestly.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    One key part of the EPA’s “existing technology” claim is the absence of a cost-benefit analysis, required by law, but never done by the agency’s own admission.

    Another is that the existing technology is barely out of the lab and hasn’t been scaled up for mass production. that work, and the expense, would be borne by the automakers individually.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      >>One key part of the EPA’s “existing technology” claim is the absence of a cost-benefit analysis, required by law, but never done by the agency’s own admission.<<

      Exactly. I laughed out loud when I read that bureaucrat claim the EPA's rules were based on sound science.

      • 0 avatar
        CarDesigner

        There are 30,000 EPA employees, 8,000 in Washingtoon. They are obviously overstaffed and/or incompetent to screw up Flint Michigan water, 3 million gallons of toxic heavy metal mine tailings across river in 3 states, and then make [email protected] a pollutant. That was only way to ensure they will never be out of a job.
        They need to be de-funded by 50%, and broom out the career eco-nazis.

        • 0 avatar

          Never forget those mine tailings were left behind by a company that took the value but escaped the mess. Even if epa messed up the cleanup. Freedom ?

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Now, now, speedlaw. Don’t let the real facts cloud the issue.

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            The EPA ignores science when it doesn’t fit their agenda.

            The courts ruled the EPA “second hand smoke” study was genuine fake science. So the EPA ignored science and went w/ their edict anyway.

    • 0 avatar
      bts

      These fuel economy ratings could be achieved if manufacturers weren’t insistent on increasing horsepower to unnecessary levels. Four cylinder engines are making what six cylinders made a few years ago and family sedans are beating high performance sports cars.

      • 0 avatar
        carguy67

        “These fuel economy ratings could be achieved if manufacturers weren’t insistent on increasing horsepower to unnecessary levels.”

        Yeah, and, obviously, the public does not even WANT high horsepower cars.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          There’s a limit to how much the mainstream consumer wants performance. In the cheap gas era acceleration of mainstream cars improved rapidly until normal cars got to about 7.5-8 seconds to 60 and “quick-ish” mainstream cars got into the 5.5-6.0 range. Then manufacturers started focusing on priorities other than acceleration, and cars outside the shrinking performance-car realm haven’t gotten much quicker in a few years.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        My first car was a 1963 Rambler Classic 770 with an inline six that took 17.6 seconds to go 0-60. With passengers, it was quite a bit slower, and I dreaded trying to accelerate up a freeway ramp, since I was doing 20 mph less than traffic when I got to the merge.

        My current V6 2005 LeSabre takes 7.8 seconds, and it’s a much bigger car. They both had 4-speed automatics, but the Ramber had 138 HP gross and the “3800” puts out 205 HP net. The horsepower (and torque) makes a huge difference in safety.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “The 2025 standards are achievable and in a way that will save consumers trillions in fuel costs,” Oge said.”

    Let me fix that for you Miss Oge.

    “The 2025 standards are achievable and in a way that will cost consumers trillions in additional costs”

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Higher new vehicle prices eat up any gas cost savings, as we have seen in hybrids thus far. The higher new car prices are also keeping less efficient, higher polluting cars on the roads longer. But she really just wants you to ride the bus, so those issues are glossed over.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Hybrids will eventually become the defacto standard IMO, the higher development costs were paid by you. We have reached the limits of the ICE and the statists know it I believe. They push these diktats to force industry to develop a replacement -in which you will pay for the development- while appearing to be for the common man. Funny that.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      >>“The 2025 standards are achievable and in a way that will cost consumers trillions in additional costs”<<

      Isn't that part of the plan? Get the plebs out of their cars?

    • 0 avatar
      Lack Thereof

      The automakers are just worried that if prices go up, new car purchasers will go from trading in every 6 or 7 years to 7 or 8, and they won’t get to sell as many cars.

      We heard these same doomsday scenarios when the original CAFE standards were announced in the late 70’s. The automakers told the government if CAFE was passed, they wouldn’t be able to build anything bigger than a Maverick, and that the technology to do better just didn’t exist.

      The prices of new cars went up slightly to fund the R&D. Consumers started expecting their cars to last longer as a result of the higher prices. A few years later, we had an Impala that returned 24 MPG on the highway.

  • avatar
    Tandoor

    The basic problem is that gas is cheap and polluting is free. Forget CAFE and make users pay for the NOx, SOx and particulates their model of car is going to put in the atmosphere. As it is, all anyone cares about is the price of gas. I’m no fan of the EPA, but look at a picture of a US city from the 70’s or modern Beijing. We need to manage this somehow. What’s the solution then? Drive what you want and wear a mask outside? Think of all the American jobs in the gas mask industry.

    • 0 avatar
      soopadoopa

      Many of these reactionaries don’t think that global warming is a real thing. Or they figure that they’ll be dead before the global warming $hit hits the fan. But you’ve hit the nail on the head–the auto companies and big oil have been able to get away with palming the external costs of their economic activity onto the public. Polluters with a more, um, tangible waste product have been forced to pay for the clean-up or storage of the toxic by-products of their economic activities through government regulation, but because C02 is something that is invisible and global warming is something that worsens gradually, big oil and the automakers keep the profits and make us pay for their externalities. Some here whine about the more stringent CAFE standards being “not fair.” What’s not fair is these corporations dumping their external costs on us. It’s simple economics. Even something the reactionaries here recognize–I hope.

      • 0 avatar

        Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars automakers have put into emissions controls?

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          …Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars automakers have put into emissions controls?…

          Only because they have been forced to. While the early systems certainly did cause problems, you would be hard pressed to find a set of regulations that have been so effective as emission controls. The health costs alone would have been staggering had nothing been done.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            That’s a trade-off. The same people touting the health effects of cleaner air due to regulations are complaining about the 7.4 billion world population. Imagine how much more manageable world population would be if nothing had been done.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            LOL.

            the biggest swaths of that 7.4 billion population is in regions (China, India, Africa) is where practically nothing *is* being done.

            Do you think about things before you say them?

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            The West attempts good stewardship of potentially Earth-spoiling technologies but has allowed possession of same to pass into the hands of other cultures that have for millennia adopted the ways of bugs.

            Not a bright prospectus no matter what we do.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        ” It’s simple economics. Even something the reactionaries here recognize–I hope.”

        Abandon hope – look at the White House.

        That said, we “libtards” now have a reason to rein in overzealous regulators in the future – to keep the pendulum from swinging back to a paranoid, authoritarian regime.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      When was the last time that American cities looked like they did in the 70s, or Beijing does now? Those issues were already resolved by the environmental standards put in place decades ago.

      There’s a sensible middle ground between Obama’s zealots and no EPA at all.

      • 0 avatar

        It’s hard to compare today’s air quality in Beijing to that of Los Angeles in the 1960s because they didn’t measure particulate matter then. LA’s problem back then was ozone from cars, while Beijing’s persistent air quality problem until recently was particulate matter so it’s a bit of an apples and oranges proposition, but recently ozone has, at least on some days, eclipsed PM as Beijing’s worst air pollutant.

        In any case, the experts think that Beijing today is probably worse than LA ever was.

        http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-la-smog-stats-20140910-story.html

        “”Comparing California 30 years ago to China today is apples and oranges,” says Eugene Leong, an air pollution expert and former executive director of the Assn. of Bay Area Governments who has been teaching at Peking University for several years. “How bad was PM2.5 in California in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s? We don’t know. … Was it as bad as what China is experiencing now? My educated guess is probably not as bad.”

        C. Arden Pope, an economics professor at Brigham Young University and an expert in environmental science, says it’s hard to believe that average annual PM2.5 readings in Los Angeles ever approached 100. “Beijing [today] is at least twice as bad as L.A. at its worst,” he says.

        Complicating the comparison further is the fact that the biggest problem L.A. had 50 years ago was not particulate matter but ozone, attributable primarily to vehicle exhaust.

        “L.A. had severe, severe problems with ozone. Beijing has problems with ozone, but nothing like L.A. did,” says Dan Jaffe, a physical sciences professor at the University of Washington-Bothell.”

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          The regulations cited as taking affect decades ago were in the 1950s. A large percentage of homes and businesses were still using coal, and American cities had serious air quality problems. Just google Philadelphia city hall for photos in 1950. The top half of the building, the tower, and the William Penn statue were blackened, covered in soot.

          A government push to replace coal with clean-burning heating oil made US cities much cleaner by the 1960s. The planet has its own ways of cleaning the air. As long as we don’t overwhelm those natural processes, the air gets cleaner.

          We have to remember we’re bottom feeders, crawling at the bottom of an ocean of air. We can stir up the muck, but “Earth/Gaia” will clean it up. We have only to stay below the threshold of her/its natural processes. For the religious minded, replace Gaia with God, who looks after drunks, children, and the United States.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            “For the religious minded, replace Gaia with God, who looks after drunks, children, and the United States.”

            The problem is that the Christians believe that the world is a disposable stage set designed to play out their biblical fantasy, and the Muslims could care less because there aren’t enough virgins in the world to cover their requirements for a posthumous shag-fest.

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            Gaia/God sure sucks as a babysitter.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        Ah yes, another idiot who thinks “Well, it’s cleaner now, so job done! Everyone go home!”

        PROTIP: “Sensible” is not “What Dan thinks is good.”

  • avatar
    carguy67

    “California’s legal defenders include former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, hired as a legal adviser earlier this year.”

    Well, if he’s as effective as he was as AG then the automakers have nothing to worry about.

    I can’t for the life of me figure out why CA hired this guy, and I’m a Californian. I suspect he will be, in effect, more of a lobbyist than a litigator.

    • 0 avatar
      Whatnext

      Yeah everyone knows to be an effective AG you’ve gotta have at least a couple meetings with Russian spies. That makes for greatness.

      • 0 avatar

        Sessions met the Russian ambassador twice last year. Once was in a group setting at an event for foreign ambassadors attending the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, a program set up by the Obama administration. The other was in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee and took place in Session’s Senate office, in the presence of two retired U.S. Army colonels.

        If you want to spin that as meeting with Russian spies, go ahead, but it makes you look unserious.

        It’s passing strange how concerned American leftists now are about Russia. They weren’t concerned when it was Ted Kennedy making campaign deals with the Soviets and they’ve been silent about the Clinton camp’s ties to Russia.

        https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

        http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/03/peter-schweizer-trump-vs-clintons-russia-ties-guess-who-always-got-free-pass.html

  • avatar
    markogts

    It’s thirty years now that I follow the car industry and all I can say is this:

    Any new proposed rule is seen as “tecnically impossible”, “will ruin the industry” , “will make cars more expensive/slow/less fun to drive”. Then that rule comes into force, every car manufacturer complies, cars keep becoming cheaper, faster and cleaner and the show starts all over again.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I don’t believe eliminating standards is the answer. Extending the period of time to achieve the proposed standards or maybe even lowering the standard to a more attainable one. I believe the fuel tax should be raised but as others have expressed that making more revenue available to politicians and bureaucrats is not the answer. I would favor an increase in fuel tax if it was specifically for repair and replacement of roads and bridges. Maybe give an incentive to consumers to buy newer more efficient vehicles and to take older less efficient vehicles off the road but even that might have some issues. Maybe an excise tax on light vehicles of a certain size, weight, and efficiency with the revenue going directly to repair and replacement of roads and bridges. Any additional revenue raised from taxes on vehicles and fuel should go directly for roads and bridges.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      How about questioning the standards? The government has an interest in promoting the health and safety of its citizens, so emissions and crash standards are appropriate. Corporate fuel economy, though? That standard was imposed in the 1970s in response to the arab oil embargo.

      The national goal was energy independence, a political goal that could be met with a variety of options. The government chose conservation via mandatory fuel economy standards to further the goal, rather than promoting development of other energy sources. It’s the mandatory participation in one measure to achieve a political goal that’s questionable.

  • avatar

    the cable companies and internet providers got a gift. No net neutrality and the cable box ripoff may continue. The coal industry can pollute rivers again. Sessions already stopped most if not all of the police brutality investigations.

    If i Owned a car company I not worry one bit. Unless I had grandchildren

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Your great grandparents were making the same arguments, but about Ma Bell, Western Union, and the railroads. Your grandchildren will also be fearing for their grandkids. The targets of their fear will be different, but the sentiment is perennial. My uncle used to joke that when cave men discovered they could get sparks from flint, thousands of craftsmen who rubbed sticks together were thrown out of work.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    For now you wouldn’t worry but in 4 to 8 years there will be another change in the Presidency. Long term it is unknown what will happen with Government policy. It is very possible that the political left will be back in control of the Presidency and both Houses. No one knows for sure what will happen and if you did you would make a fortune because you would know what to invest in. President Trump could be impeached, could only serve 1 term, or be re-elected and serve 2 terms. The more Trump tweets the more doubt people will have about his Presidency. At this point most wish Trump would just be more Presidential and stop tweeting.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I’m sure the left would prefer he stops tweeting it’s hurting them more than they have ever been hurt. Their scared – Trump is suppose to go through their media and be interpreted by them. It’s going to be a wonderful 8 years having an individual that doesn’t hide from the people and act like a complete coward toward the media.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        What is kicking everybody but conservative outlets out of a press briefing if not cowardice? Spicer is so afraid of them that he won’t even talk to them.

        • 0 avatar
          OldManPants

          I hope he rammed a few of those smarty pants with his podium first.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Funny, I remember Obama doing the same thing, what was your excuse then?

          The only difference now vs then is that Obama was afraid of actual news being reported whereas Trump is tired of the baseless lies that are coming out.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            “Trump is tired of the baseless lies that are coming out.”

            He’d rather lie directly to the people via his own mouth/thumbs.

            Trump-Baby

  • avatar
    OldManPants

    “in 4 to 8 years there will be another change in the Presidency”

    Think it will take that long? Drumpf is a 70 year-old fat sack moving at a pretty blistering pace.

    I’m frankly impressed by the Cheney-caliber health care keeping him standing.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    You might be correct but I am giving Trump the benefit of doubt but with every tweet there is less doubt.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      A lot of people who voted for Trump, many holding their noses, don’t bother with social media. The continued testy opposition of mainstream media, and many Democrats’ histrionic refusal to accept the result of the election, is soldifying his support, while damaging Democrats’ prospects in future elections. If you’re a Democrat watching all this, you should be fearing for the future of the party.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    ..“If the Trump administration were to rely on facts and sound science….

    HaHAhaHAAAAA. Thanks for the laugh. Donald Trump’s understanding of science would have college professors teaching that there really is an Easter bunny. 54 mpg is probably too ambitious a target, but rolling back things to a level that is a gift to industry is doing America, and the world a disservice, to say the least. I look forward to the endless lawsuits to jam the works up until this imbecile gets out of office. We have absolutely no check and balance left in our government and this is just one of many casualties. I’m going to invest in companies that make water filters, gas masks, and coat hangers.

  • avatar
    TW5

    Hard to believe Obama appointees would be such dirtbags, they wouldn’t even follow the law as written by Congress. Actually, it’s not that hard to believe.

    If they don’t make a few modifications, or scrap the footprint regulations entirely, CAFE 2025 will completely alter the transportation marketplace, and we will all be forced to pay for the needless R&D.

  • avatar
    zipster

    Ronnie:

    Then why didn’t Sessions disclose the contacts to the Senate Committee when he was asked if he had any? If you want to say that it’s because he is senile, I might agree with you.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I wish that Trump would just stop all the stupid tweets and get down to business. He made a great speech Tuesday and then he undid all the positives that came from his speech. Tweeting about President Obama wiretapping him and about Arnold not being any good on the Apprentice make him look unhinged. It is hard to take him serious. As for the CAFE standards at the very least they should be given an extended deadline or the projected targets should be lowered at least for the present. There is some room for compromise.

  • avatar
    shaker

    One thing I know – Putin is getting his way.

    Russia’s manipulation of the West is in Stage II, and I fear that our continued fiddling while Rome burns…

    We need a new spirit of compromise (like with these CAFE standards) – accept some intermediate standard until the technology makes compliance affordable.

    That doesn’t mean that we have to like each other, we just have to avoid being “played” be the enemy.

  • avatar
    Jacob

    But but… we were told by the mainstream media that Obama’s legacy was set in stone. Yet, it’s crumbling like a house of cards within weeks of Trump presidency. I guess this is what happens to a legacy that was built by the means of executive orders.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    I don’t mind a little relaxing of some of the standards, but scrapping them? No. I’m more interested in getting ethanol out of the gas.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: Big companies like GM have massive bureaucratic structures. Decisions have to get funnels up various chains...
  • Arthur Dailey: As for ‘badge engineering’ what about the decades of Canadian Pontiacs which were actually...
  • Arthur Dailey: Meant wanting to ‘signal’. Truly dislike how user unfriendly this platform/site is. And in...
  • Arthur Dailey: Corey, Please read my other comment. You have a discrepancy in your decades and target markets, and...
  • Arthur Dailey: Corey, you young whippersnapper you have mixed up your decades. In the 1960s BMW was not even a blip...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber