By on March 14, 2018

fuel gauge

The Trump administration’s chief environmental regulator claims the Environmental Protection Agency will not pursue stricter fuel economy mandates after 2025. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt also said California won’t call the shots for the rest of the country just because it can set its own rules on emissions.

“California is not the arbiter of these issues,” he said. Currently, California and 16 other states have pledged to maintain Obama-era emission when federal regulators decide to roll them back “but that shouldn’t and can’t dictate to the rest of the country what these levels are going to be,” according to Pruitt.

Stick that in your tailpipe, one-third of America. 

Officials from California previously said they would consider relaxing their long-term fuel economy strategy if the federal government was willing to set concrete emission targets that extend through 2030. However, in an interview with Bloomberg on Tuesday, Pruitt expressed that he had absolutely no interest in making deals.

“Being predictive about what’s going to be taking place out in 2030 is really hard,” he said. “I think it creates problems when you do that too aggressively. That’s not something we’re terribly focused on right now.”

There is some truth to that. Despite Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards growing ever stricter, automakers have had bad years where program goals were not met. However, things have been more or less on track since 2014. But that still left some automakers, especially those with lackluster truck lineups, complaining that the rules place too much of the fuel economy burden on passenger cars. In 2011, Volkswagen said “the [CAFE] proposal encourages manufacturers and customers to shift toward larger, less efficient vehicles, defeating the goal of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.”

Another truth. Over the last decade consumer interest in trucks, sport utility vehicles, and crossover has skyrocketed. Meanwhile, the sales-weighted average fuel economy for new vehicles has hovered around 25.1 mpg since 2014 and actually took a dive in the last few months as more people decided to purchase larger vehicles.

How much that has to do with California being able to regulate itself is debatable. While stiffer mandates from the Golden State would assuredly affect the national strategy of all automakers, there is also the matter of states’ rights. It’s interesting, considering Pruitt has been an outspoken advocate of small-government conservatism, that he would want to impose federal mandates. But his time at the EPA has also seen him attempt to ease regulatory action, often at the request of corporate interests.

The fuel economy mandates are no different. When President Trump took office, automakers flocked to him to request that he ease fuel economy standards for 2022-2025. Placing Pruitt as the environmental frontman was paramount to achieving that end. Known for his boldness and inability to back down, odds are good that he won’t be discouraged by what California and environmental activists have to say in response to eased regulations.

Things are quickly coming to a head, too. The EPA has until April 1st to establish whether Obama-era CAFE standards for cars and light trucks from 2022 to 2025 are attainable or should be revised. As things stand, the new car and light truck fleet will need to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. But Pruitt and Trump (especially) are likely to endorse lowered standards.

“The whole purpose of CAFE standards is to make cars more efficient that people are actually buying,” Pruitt said. “If you just come in and try to drive this to a point where the auto sector in Detroit just makes cars that people don’t want to purchase, then people are staying in older cars, and the emission levels are worse, which defeats the overall purpose of what we’re trying to achieve.”

For the record, maintaining an older vehicle is typically better for the environment than purchasing a new one — even an ultra-efficient model. However, we see what he’s getting at. The general public doesn’t take much of an interest in fuel economy when gas is affordable. But letting economy standards slip is not without hazards of its own. One only needs to look back at the oil shortages of the 1970s for an ugly reminder.

Stanley Young, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, said the state will pursue tighter emissions limits after 2025 as a way to protect public health and mitigate climate change regardless of what the federal government decides. That echoes statements made by the group’s chair, Mary Nichols, earlier this year. While she said California wasn’t entirely opposed to modifying the existing fuel limits, the EPA would have to prove its reasoning.

“Absent any such evidence, we will certainly resist any changes,” Nichols said.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

72 Comments on “It’s Gonna Be a Showdown: EPA Head Says California Won’t Drive U.S. Fuel Regulations...”


  • avatar
    incautious

    California has been the tail wagging the dog for decades. This has benefited a vast majority over the years. Since California air quality is vastly better than the sixties, maybe its time to rethink that dog.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

      Upton Sinclair, “I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935)”

    • 0 avatar
      volvo driver

      It’s like the Orange Oompa Loompa back east wants California to go for independence. I guess that’s one way for the GOPers to hang on to power.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        Compared w/ the previous occupant, the current prez is looking pretty good.

        CA is currently led by insane people. Look at what they did w/ “High speed rail” – a total lie to the people of CA, the estimates are now triple what they were sold. It is a total boondoggle and will waste tens of billions and will not be built.

        • 0 avatar
          volvo driver

          LOL get your eyes checked, gramps.

        • 0 avatar
          TwoBelugas

          I remember the measure on the ballot when I laughed at the estimate of 32 billion total, they sold it to the voters as 1/3 state, 1/3 federal, 1/3 private sector funding. So ~10 billion total from the state coffers, that was it! I was working in transportation design at the time and I thought there was no way a rail of that level can be built for the number quoted.

          https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-high-speed-rail-project-facing-more-12741787.php

          “A revised business plan issued by the California High-Speed Rail Authority said building the full San Francisco-to-Los Angeles bullet-train line is expected to cost at least $63 billion, and $98 billion under a worst-case scenario. The middle-of-the-road estimate is $77 billion, according to the draft report, which will now undergo public comment and legislative scrutiny.

          How the state will pay for the full project remains a critical question.

          The bullet train’s most recent cost estimate was $64 billion, which was already double the original $32 billion price tag that was pitched to state voters when they authorized bond money for the project nearly a decade ago.”

          From SF Chronicle, a known hotbed of right wing pro-Trump bias.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “That echoes statements made by the group’s chair, Mary Nichols, earlier this year. While she said California wasn’t entirely opposed to modifying the existing fuel limits, the EPA would have to prove its reasoning.”

    Delicious. We, one of fifty states, are alright with you, the Feds, modifying your, national policy, if you, the Feds, can provide logic we, one of fifty states, will agree with, in a Federalist system.

    Time for a Sicilian message.

    Seriously, I am truly shocked at the gaul displayed here. The Union will fall if this sort of thinking is allowed to stand.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    “The Trump administration’s chief environmental regulator claims the Environmental Protection Agency will not pursue stricter fuel economy mandates after 2025.”

    Hallelujah!

    Bring back the BIG V8s!

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      Lol, the next administration will just put them back in place.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Yes, that’s absolutely correct if the next administration is a lefty libbie greenweenie administration.

        With any luck, a like-minded administration could follow Trump. It happened after Reagan, but that guy muffed it with “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

        So, the bottom line for those who like and benefit from what Trump is doing, remains, “Enjoy it while you can.”

        Right now a lot of people benefit from Trump’s policies, people and their employees like those in Missouri, for instance, who were at the Boeing Conference with Trump and Mnuchin today.

        It’ll be on the news tonight. Stay tuned for the Phase 2 tax plan.

        • 0 avatar
          bumpy ii

          Too bad for him there are more people who don’t benefit, and are motivated to vote. It’s going to be seesaw governments of no lasting consequence for the next 20 years or so.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “It’s going to be seesaw governments of no lasting consequence for the next 20 years or so.”

            Yes, I agree.

            And that’s why it is so important for those who can to get their financial ducks in order so that they can live their lives above the fray.

            I thank my lucky stars every day that I was able to get MY financial ducks in order BEFORE this schitstorm hit.

            So I can see all sorts of other schit coming down the pike that will hit the auto industry, not because of regulations, but because this is the time that the market will shake itself out so car makers can achieve relevance, not just me-too status.

            And those “more people who don’t benefit” will be hit hardest and relegated to a life of poverty and second class citizenship in the good ole US of A, unless they grab that Bull by the horns and run with the bulls.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        MAGA 2020

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “Being predictive about what’s going to be taking place out in 2030 is really hard,” he said. “I think it creates problems when you do that too aggressively. That’s not something we’re terribly focused on right now.”

          They are too focused on November 6, 2018 to see anything beyond that date.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I agree.

            But there are times when you have to seize the moment, seize the opportunity at hand. to be able to affect change at some distant future date and time.

            I can’t speak about Nov 6, 2018, but I know that a lot of Americans of all political persuasions chose to seize THE opportunity in Nov 2016 to be able to enjoy the changes that have been brought so far.

            I was not one of them who voted to seize the Trump opportunity, but I like the changes that were made so far.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            …They are too focused on November 6, 2018 to see anything beyond that date…

            Yep. And in special election after special election that the brain dead, backward looking, Archie Bunker candidate should have should have had zero worry from the Dems were either barely won by the righty tighty or lost.

            There’s blood in those waters and its colored blue. If most people really paid attention to the atrocities being committed by the T-Rump administration they’d be up in arms. Unless the Democratic party botches things up (which is entirely possible) there should be a massive change come November. Regardless of the outcome, its good to know that states like California can accomplish what the feds might fail to do.

        • 0 avatar
          IHateCars

          “MAGA 2020”

          Yeah, maybe MAGA will happen by then….any day now….believe me.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            MAGA has already happened for millions of American citizens, including me, but everyone understands that this is a fluke, an anomaly, an abnormality for someone like Trump to come to power and come to the aid of the taxpaying workers.

            So the slogan for us remains, “Better enjoy it while you can!”

            And we are.

            All too soon it will be back to the freeloading tax&spend waste of the ‘crats.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “come to the aid of the taxpaying workers”

            I guess what billionaires do can be considered work!

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Miscellaneous evil deeds is considered work?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @28-Cars-Later – http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/594/192/596.gif

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Whatever California decides to do, Andy Cuomo will go left of it. NYS will outlaw cars if it gets Andy 45 seconds of national airtime.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Give CA back to Mexico – problem solved

      • 0 avatar
        Fred

        Don’t forget Texas, AZ & NM were all part of the deal.

      • 0 avatar
        TwoBelugas

        Mexico as an independent nation only controlled the parts south of Monterey for about 20 years. That’s like giving Korea back to the Japanese because Korea was governed by the Japanese for about 35 years.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        Yea, we don’t need that massive percentage of our GDP that California provides anyway…./s

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          How much of that is real product vs fake product?

          Theranos bilked $8 billion out of investors and Elizabeth Holmes and the former CEO were charged with fraud by the SEC, and they produced nothing.

          What does Silicon valley actually produce these days? A jitney cab service? Data for long term storage by NSA in Utah? Restaurant reviews? Platforms for private citizens to rent their cars or homes? Niche electric car which can’t turn a profit and has numerous quality issues? A dystopia where ordinary living expenses rival France circa 1789? Does any of this sh!t really matter?

          Apple at least produces products, not in this country of course, but it does produce something to it’s credit.

          Bring on Lex Luthor. I’d like Vegas to be a short jaunt from the beach.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    “The whole purpose of CAFE standards is to make cars more efficient that people are actually buying,” Pruitt said. “If you just come in and try to drive this to a point where the auto sector in Detroit just makes cars that people don’t want to purchase, then people JUST DRIVE TRUCKS AND BOF SUVs, and the emission levels are worse, which defeats the overall purpose of what we’re trying to achieve.”

    There fixed it for him.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      PrincipalDan,
      It seems many are buying cars not made in Detroit already and many of them have good FE, in fact better far FE than the Detroit monsters.

      Maybe the EPA need even more stringent FE goals.

      • 0 avatar
        TwoBelugas

        How’s the Australian auto manufacturing sector doing these days?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          2balugas,
          I think this is the 3rd time you’ve posed this question to me.

          Again, look at the stats, last yeat Australia sold 1.2 m vehicles.

          That is equivelant to the US market moving over 18 million.

          The Aussie vehicle industry is healthy.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Mary Nichols is one tough broad, but she’s just an everyday bully. She’ll crumble when stood up to.

    Do you really think she has the balls to block anything bigger than mid-size ICE cars from CA? I say let her. Fullsize pickups aren’t tremendous sellers there anyway. The loss of BMW sales alone would put California under water.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      CA is already underwater in many aspects although many there are in denial.

      Two of my blood relatives, lifelong residents there, unassed CA in favor of Ensenada, BC, Mexico, full time. And took their wealth with them. Kinda like the wealthy people from the High Tax states moving to America’s Great Southwest.

      I’m surprised that CA does absolutely nothing to ban those old vehicles belching blue and black smoke from their exhausts. Sanctuary state must also mean illegal aliens driving rolling wrecks are exempt from pollution laws, car registration and mandatory insurance laws.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        There’s definitely an exchange going on. I drive a lot from CO to CA and heading west, you see all the wealth coming at you, east bound. Large Penske, Ryder, U-Haul box-vans with $50K minivans, newer Lexus/BMW SUVs in tow.

        Heading west is just beaters fully packed, rusty bikes, BBQs, lawn furniture strapped to the roof. Do you think they even pay taxes?

        It’s sorta the same with Mexico/USA. Send us your poor, and we’ll give you cashed up US citizens.

        California is so broke they run the credit score of arrestees. Deadbeat criminals with multiple warrants are simply released/kicked back into society, no bail, just another court date and the hope they don’t show up.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          DenverMike, my grandson and his wife live in CA since they’re pretty much forced to because of their jobs.

          CA has a homelessness problem, drug problem and other problems that don’t even make it to the nightly news.

          Although I was born there, it disgusts me to see what my birthstate has become and what it stands for these days.

          Trouble is, several ex-Californians who cashed out of CA have come as far East as New Mexico with their new-found wealth and are buying up the real estate.

          Good for some. Not so good for others.

          We (the family real estate business) recently sold four houses that used to be rented out to the German military stationed here. They’re leaving by next year.

          That’s why my wife and I had to come back for an extended stay here, to sign papers, effect code upgrades, allow inspections, and the like.

          For many Americans their improved financial status makes living in Mexico, or some other Central American or South American country a pure and hedonistic pleasure.

          Live like a King in Belize!

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        CA is becoming a third world state in many ways under the Dems.

        The Dems just colluded to allow non- citizens to vote – meaning they can just use driver’s licenses which they made sure did not have non-citizen status noted when they were issued..

        CA UHaul and moving van traffic shows middle class people are fleeing the state while immigrants are making the state a rich/poor third world situation. CA has the highest poverty rate in the nation and was just rated the worst state to live in.

        And Jerry Brown thinks that and his failed High Speed Rail boondoggle are just great.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          thornmark, as someone who was born in Huntington Beach it saddens me to see this happening to CA, so I have to remind myself that CA residents deserve everything they got, because they voted for it.

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      That’s not true, California is a big buyer of everything, including big trucks and SUVs.

      In fact (recently in the news), Ford sold more F150s in California than all electric cars combined in 2017.

      That’s not even including pick-up sales from GM, RAM, Toyota or Nissan.

      Everyone likes to mention Californians buy more electric cars than anyone, but they buy even more big pick-up trucks. Along with everything else.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Not that they don’t buy big trucks, but CA is the only place the Tacoma regularly outsells the F-150. Import brands have California wrapped, Korean to German.

        • 0 avatar
          SD 328I

          That’s not true.

          Last year the F-series sold 55,000 trucks in California, the Toyota Tacoma came in at under 40,000.

          In 2016, it’ was 49,000 F-Series and 33,000 Tacomas.

          True imports sell well there, but again, so does everything else.

          Only Texas sells more F-Series than California.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Are you even listening to yourself? Tacoma sales in the same ballpark as the F-150 says nothing to you?

            If Ford/GM/FCA (and Toyota it seems) lost all California “truck” sales, it really wouldn’t harm their over all profitability. Notable increased compact and midsize cars sales in CA instead of trucks would help out.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Either way, California would be the bigger loser. There’s no way they’d follow through on lame threats, pushing their weight around.

        • 0 avatar
          SD 328I

          What? Don’t get defensive because your details are wrong.

          First you said full-size trucks don’t sell that well in California, which I proved wrong, only Texas buys more trucks than California.

          Then you said the Tacoma outsold the F-150 regularly in Cali, which is wrong, I don’t think the Tacoma ever outsold the F150 in California.

          Considering California is the 2nd largest market for full-size pickups, trust me, the Big 3 Truck builders will care.

          But it doesn’t matter what the EPA does, because the big auto manufacturers will always tailor their products to sell in California and the other 13 states they follow them.

          Even if it forces them to build a CARB and 49 State version, they will do it. California has always pushed their way because of the buying leverage they have, they will do what they want and the auto industry will do whatever it needs to sell there.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The “details” is what you’re fixated on, instead of the message. The fact you’ve shown the Tacoma comes very close, makes it pointless you dig out the year or years the Tacoma did beat the F-150 in CA sales.

            But OK, show how close the Tacoma comes to beating the F-150 in Texas, which is one of the places the Tacoma is built.

            The point is how slow the F-150 sells in CA, compared to the rest of the country, and in relation to everything else that sells well in CA.

            Meaning CA would be no big loss for “truck” makers, if CA went the route of banning sales of “trucks” basically.

            California would lose way more.

        • 0 avatar
          SD 328I

          The details are what counts, and your message is wrong anyways.

          How is the 2nd largest market in the World for F150s something manufacturers don’t care about? Only Texas buys more F150s than they do in California. That’s a fact, and something you can’t talk around.

          Like I said, California and the other 12-13 states that follow CARB can do what they want, and the manufactuers will do what they need to sell there. There is a reason why Ford is running Ecoboost motors and aluminum bodies, what GM and RAM have added aluminum, and why all of them are going with hybrid and electric technology in the future. CARB is the reason.

          There is a reason the EPA chief is fighting California, because he knows that what they do will set policy for the rest of the country, even indirectly. Since manufacturers will build cars to their spec, and force it to the rest of the country to follow suite to save costs.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        Truck are a way people have avoided the EPA mandates and why the mpg figures are less than half of what the BO EPA promulgated just before they left office.

        Historically the EPA standards have been a major reason people have moved from cars to trucks, as cars became smaller people found the size they needed in trucks.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    All of us boomers just need to DIE! Our entire political discourse seems stuck in the 1970s (not to mention the Democratic Party, whose leadership consists exclusively of aging Boomers).

    The 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, and its 1979 echo, were one-offs, the result of a unique set of circumstances: in particular the coincidence of an oil supply shock with the generally incompetent early efforts to comply with new anti-pollution regulations, which made most cars nearly undrivable and horribly inefficient. To illustrate: my Dad’s 1963 Chevrolet Biscayne, with a 6-cylinder and a 3-speed manual, easily achieved 20 mpg @ 70 mph driving between DC and Colorado on the then brand-new Interstates. That car would easily hold 6 people and all of their luggage in its cavernous trunk. My Dad’s 1966 Biscayne, with the 200 hp 283 V-8 and 3-speed manual (an even larger vehicle) achieved the same mileage under similar circumstances. Yet, the same size car with de-tuned and de-smogged engines by 1973 would be lucky to achieve more than half that fuel economy.

    Given the ever-present looming mercantilism in politicians’ minds (and the fact that domestic oil production was declining, perhaps it made sense at the time to legislate fuel economy standards. Remembering that fuel economy standards (through taxation of engine displacement) were first seen in Western Europe and Japan, two regions that had (at the time) zero domestic petroleum production.

    Today, with a more geographically diverse petroleum supply base (and with US domestic production at record levels), it does not make sense to substitute political judgment for the crowd-sourced judgment of the market. In point of fact, during the post-war period leading up to 1973 oil supply (and gasoline prices) fluctuated. It so happened that the mid-1960s was a period of high oil supply — and low prices. That’s why the “muscle car era” happened. However, the mid 1950s through early 1960 was a period of relatively high gasoline prices. Detroit did advertise fuel efficiency — and people bought it. For example, overdrive transmissions were advertised and purchased. My uncle had a 1957 Chevy wagon with overdrive. People did not buy the largest and most powerful engines available.

    So, there’s no reason that would not be true today.

    In terms of “states rights,” the US Constitution expressly grants the Congress (i.e. the Federal government) the power to regulate interstate commerce, which has long been held (for obvious reasons) to mean “in or affecting” commerce between the states. The federal government’s power to pre-empt state regulation has been recognized since the time of Robert Fulton. Likewise, the power of the Congress (or its administrative delegate) to preemptively de-regulate within the scope of its commerce power also has been recognized. The obvious point being that a patchwork of inconsistent and conflicting regulations across the country would imposed costs on producers and, ultimately, consumers.

    When environmental protection regulation was passed in 1970, California (Los Angeles) was recognized to have uniquely bad air quality as a result of emissions from motor vehicles, so it was given authority to impose more stringent emissions regulations than those imposed by the Federal government.

    So, the idea of California leveraging its limited emissions regulatory authority into authority to regulate fuel economy is just so much legal nonsense.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Agreed, and more to the point, CAFE operates better as a fail safe than as an incentive program. If California wants to encourage people to drive fuel efficient cars, they can keep raising state gasoline tax or find another way to encourage fuel efficient motoring.

      They don’t need to usurp federal authority and disrupt commerce.

    • 0 avatar

      State rights vs interstate commerce gets a bit complicated. For instance states are allowed to have their own worker safety rules even if that worker is from out of state. They all run their own insurance regulations. They can make their own traffic rules, they can create safety standards. They can set there own sales tax rules to collect it.

      In the end it will be a judge that decides, I honestly think that could go either way.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      The CA legislature may pass a bill banning IC engines in new motor vehicles. The legislature is currently led by extremists so it could pass.

  • avatar
    wtaf

    Cue all the experts on California in 3,2…. I see they’ve already arrived.

  • avatar
    Fred

    OK lets say the EPA does one thing and the gang of 16 do something else. What will the manufacturer’s do? Stop seeling gas hogs to the 16 states? Have seperate models for the two groups? I don’t know and personally I’m okay with small 4 cyl cars. Heck even my fun car is the tiny Elan. I just need to borrow your truck once in awhile. Thanks.

  • avatar
    TW5

    This isn’t really an issue of states rights because the commerce clause grants Congress expansive power over interstate commerce, including navigation (Gibbons v Ogden), to resolve disputes between states that impact the broader US economy. A break away group of states, led by CARB in California, setting their own fuel economy standards is not in the best interest of the US economy or consumers, and it defies federal authority to set fuel economy standards nationwide.

    Pruitt is also on the correct side of the argument regarding the unintended consequences of CAFE. As Bob Lutz once pointed out, CAFE standards are like trying to cure obesity by forcing tailors to make small clothes. CAFE forces everyone to shop at the big and tall store, which has relaxed regulations. This is analogous to the SUV boom, and it’s what happens when strict standards meet low fuel prices. The result is lower fuel efficiency and irrational preference for inefficient products where none previously existed.

    This was the result of CAFE 1973 and 1979. People ditched their V8 sedans and started buying trucks and SUVs. Same thing is happening now, and the 54.5 mpg target has already been revised down to 51.3 mpg, IIRC. It will continue to decline if CAFE 2025 remains in place.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    I’m for EPA to win this one.

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      The EPA are not going to win this one, CARB and the other 13 or so states that follow it have too much market leverage.

      Plus it’s likely that the current administration won’t make it a 2nd term, but even if it does, 2 or 6 years from now, the current EPA chief will be gone and probably a more Democrat leaning will be in there.

      So all this won’t matter anyways.

  • avatar
    05lgt

    CARB standards existed since about 1967. This only means that the unified standards (EPA matching CARB) didn’t last more than a few years. That hardly makes this an uncharted constitutional crises or unmanageable for the OEMs. You’d have to be Canadian not to mention that.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    >>The general public doesn’t take much of an interest in fuel economy when gas is affordable. But letting economy standards slip is not without hazards of its own. One only needs to look back at the oil shortages of the 1970s for an ugly reminder.<<

    The shortages of the 1970's were government created and the US will soon be oil independent. As for letting standards slip, that's not an accurate statement, the move is to stop standards issued at the end of an outgoing admin that will essentially double the mileage requirements, not let them slip. Those standards that were issued were and are widely seen as outrageously unrealistic.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I really think it’s about time the US seriously considers joining the global community and adopt international standards for vehicle design.

    I mean, here we have a President (I think) whining no one buys American made cars. And yet you have a US system totally bias towards smaller vehicles.

    Adopting what the rest of the world does, doesn’t mean it’s European. I see this response by many of the extreme right people who comment here, the Dump’ettes.

    Take Australia, we are apart of this system of automotive design that facilitates trade between countries and yet we can choose what we drive.

    The EU like many other Northern Hemisphere Socialist cultures ie USA/Canuckia, use protectionism as a tool to not trade, then whine when no one wants your sh!t.

    You see far right wing extremists (and left wing unionists) try looking at the centre.

    If you want to reach an FE target then price the commodity to adjust demand and make it applicable to all states and set up the law of the land to allow for this. Or, the US will continue on being almost as dysfunctional as the EU. Everyone pushing their agenda.

    Work as a team America. Man, this America Alone theme is getting boring.

    Just remove all these bullsh!t trade barriers and get on with it and stop crying like children.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • sgeffe: Or the aftermarket will come up with a way, in the form of a doohickey which plugs into the OBD II port, as...
  • sgeffe: The Malibu is about the worst, with the Equinox second. When I’m walking to/from my work lot to my office,...
  • HotPotato: Having solar on your roof makes you MORE resilient if the power goes off (if you’re smart enough to...
  • HotPotato: Translation: California is paying me a fat union retirement pension, and I’m saying thank you by...
  • AthensSlim: When I renewed last summer (‘19) there was no option to renew without also ordering a new plate for my...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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