By on June 1, 2018

fuel gauge vintage

The Trump administration has enacted phase two of its plan to revise Obama-era rules designed to cut pollution from vehicle emissions. In a proposal sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its intention to rescind the California waiver that separates it from the federal standards the state uses to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

Since allowing California to set its own emission standards would effective split the country’s auto market, the EPA has been clear that its ideal solution would be to cut a deal with the Golden State. Agency head Scott Pruitt previously said California “shouldn’t and can’t dictate [fueling regulations] to the rest of the country,” but acted in a manner that suggested a compromised could be reached.

This was followed by a lawsuit filed by 17 U.S. states, along with the California governor’s office, California attorney general, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), alleging that the EPA had “acted arbitrarily and capriciously” in its decision to roll back the previous administration’s decision. While the odds are good that the Trump administration wasn’t ever interested in bending to California’s more stringent pollution policies, this was likely the point of no return — squashing any hope for meaningful negotiations.

In fact, post lawsuit, it seemed all scheduled discussions between the EPA and CARB were placed on the back burner. Still, the meetings that had occurred weren’t exactly productive.

Last month, Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board, met with officials from the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to adjust the administration’s position. The EPA, Transportation Department, and White House issued subsequent press releases calling the conversations productive, noting they were “fully supportive of an open dialogue that proceeds in an expedited manner.”

Nichols was not inclined to agree. “Sounds like a great meeting based on the WH press release. Too bad it’s not the one we attended,” she tweeted on May 24th.

With negotiations in the gutter, California and other allied states figured a lawsuit was the best way to block the EPA’s proposed changes. “This phalanx of states will defend the nation’s clean car standards to boost gas mileage and curb toxic air pollution,” explained California Governor Jerry Brown.

As for the waiver, the EPA-backed revocation is contained in a joint proposal with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and will undergo a review by the White House before it is released for public comment. While no official decision has been made, upholding the California waiver seems an unlikely event.

According to Bloomberg, the NHTSA proposes stalling vehicle fuel economy standards at 2020 levels through 2026. In an earlier draft, this meant holding efficiency requirements at a 37-mile-per-gallon average for light-duty vehicles, instead of gradually increasing them to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 — as per the previously established mandate. The NHTSA also suggests ending California’s self-governance on fueling in a manner that’s different than the EPA. It makes the claim that the 1975 law creating the first corporate average fuel economy standards supersede any waiver that allows states to enact their own rules.

Whether you’re in favor of maintaining the Obama-era rules or the Trump administration’s rollback, the waiver isn’t the ideal solution. Automakers have repeatedly stated that they are in favor of a national standard, regardless of what it is. Bill Ford, executive chairman at Ford Motor Co., and CEO Jim Hackett even went as far as saying their companies weren’t in favor of the rollback at all. This was echoed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), which has Ford as a member, over the past two months.

However, earlier this year, automakers and automotive lobbies like the AAM pressured Washington into easing vehicle efficiency standards. So, the public image of many automotive firms may not be representative of their true intent. Let’s also remind ourselves that Ford plans to abandon its most efficient models to focus primarily on truck sales.

While it’s in every manufacturer’s best interest to remain on the cutting edge of automotive technology and provide competitive, efficient vehicles, the industry hit efficiency shortfalls in 2016 and noted it could use come flexibility on the matter. Likewise, consumers aren’t purchasing hyper-efficient models at the same rate as when gas prices were higher.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world’s developed nations seem to be pursing very aggressive fueling policies that would effectively force widespread electrification in the coming decades. Whether or not California has its say, all automakers with a global footprint will have to take this factor into account.

Frankly, this entire issue has become a total mess. Further complicating things is the EPA’s 44-member Science Advisory Board, which voted on Thursday to review the rollback proposal. The group has expressed concerns that the Environmental Protection Agency has lapsed in its duties under the Trump administration and allowed itself to be influenced by corporate-backed studies and lazy research. It has suggested the fuel proposal, among others, may not have been sufficiently justified.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

90 Comments on “This is a Mess: EPA Begins Quest to End California’s Fuel Waiver...”


  • avatar
    Proud2BUnion

    The photo accompanying this story appears to be a shot of a 1967 full-size Ford instrument panel.
    I like those cars !

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      It seems that particular speedometer was used in multiple brands, across a couple of decades. Go to an auto show and you’ll see them everywhere!

      Btw: Looks just like the speedometer in my ’77 LTD.

      • 0 avatar
        Sub-600

        The high beam switch was probably on the floor too.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Ford’s warning light for brights was always labeled “HI-BEAM” (if there wasn’t a smaller telltale somewhere else on the panel), just like the early equivalent of the “i” in a circle saying “hey, doofus, there’s something happening, look at your IP!” was labeled “CHECK GAGES” in some cars!

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        I could tell that the cluster was likely out of a Ford, just from the looks of the speedometer, and the fuel gauge on empty (as happened when the ignition was turned off on FoMoCo and Chrysler products; GM gas gauges, at least from the ‘70s and ‘80s, didn’t return to “E”). I suppose there was some sort of electrical sending unit on the former two, and GM’s was mechanical in nature.

        I just couldn’t place a year on this, as I was a little more of a GM fan in my younger days, but enough of my relatives had Fords, including my late great-aunt, who drove a 1977 LTD coupe; my God, the doors on that thing were gigantic! No wonder that the door trim around the door-pulls and/or pull-straps of Malaise-Era Detroit iron would always be loosened after a few years, especially on the largest yachts like the LTDs, Marks, etc.! (Though as I was writing this, I remembered that the door-pull on my Mom’s 1980 Cutlass Sedan, essentially the redesigned-for-1980 notchback equivalent of the base Cutlass Salon (which, on the Supreme-equivalent LS and above, had a pull-strap on each front door), was a little loose by the time my parents got rid of it, while the 1983 Regal Custom Sedan which replaced it (and which was somewhat better quality overall inside, not to mention that it had a separate pull-strap on each front door), didn’t have the problem.)

  • avatar
    IBx1

    “Let’s also remind ourselves that Ford plans to abandon its most efficient models to focus primarily on truck sales.”

    Because the footprint-based standards are biased towards light trucks and penalize sedans that aren’t expensive hybrids.

    • 0 avatar
      TwoBelugas

      This.

      Has Matt Poksy heard of what CAFE 2025 actually aims to do?

      “Frankly, this entire issue has become a total mess”

      Where was Matt to say this in late 2016 when EPA rammed the new rules through with no regards to the previously agreed upon mid phase review?

      • 0 avatar
        fIEtser

        The midterm review completed in January 2017 didn’t result in new standards, it just didn’t relax the standards that were already on the books.

    • 0 avatar
      Ion

      Exactly! With the standards in place Ford would have an ace in the hole having all their R&D go towards the less stringent “trucks”. The other makes will have to spend money on the dying “car” segment. The focus active will most certainly be classified as a truck and the Mustang will get trickle down F150 tech.

      • 0 avatar
        TwoBelugas

        You mean it may mot be profitable to sell 15k subcompacts that get 55mpg combined?

        California says: tough luck poor people! Now get in the trains where bums shoot heroin and take dumps.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “…Because the footprint-based standards are biased towards light trucks and penalize sedans…”

      Light trucks, especially pickups are designed with brick aero, high riding, and geared to haul up to 50% of their weight and tow up to 300% of their weight, and you expect sedan mpg?

      If you want to talk about taking away light trucks, only having micro cars, OK, but let’s not get stupid.

      • 0 avatar
        TwoBelugas

        A Honda HR-V Is a “light truck”. I don’t think it has a 1500 payload and 9000 lb payload rating

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          I did say “up to” so your mileage may vary. The HRVs/CRVs/etc are more in the “people mover” end of the “truck” spectrum, and yeah the numbers I threw out were purdy rough, but the over all point is if the vehicles are to be allowed, certain allowances need to be respected.

          Otherwise it’s downright silly to expect just a single standard for all types of vehicles.

          Mostly let’s not let this turn into a European style of clusterfuk.

  • avatar
    ttacgreg

    Trump . . . . . .

  • avatar
    stingray65

    All California needs to do is move a few million of its illegal immigrants to a few key states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and register them to vote for the D party in 2020, and then President Fauxcahontas Warren can jack CAFE up to 100mpg or ban fossil fuel entirely for the whole country to enjoy.

    • 0 avatar
      Sub-600

      Lieawatha and the Bern in 2020!

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Illegal immigrants don’t vote, except in the fevered dreams of right-wing news commentators.

      Many of Puerto Ricans who GTFOd after the hurricane, though, can and will vote.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those commentators can’t tell the difference between an American who speaks spanish and “an illegal”…. That’s probably the origin of this myth.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        …Illegal immigrants don’t vote, except in the fevered dreams of right-wing news commentators…Many of Puerto Ricans who GTFOd after the hurricane, though, can and will vote….

        This. All those Puerto Ricans that are now in Florida are appalled at the paper towel spiking President and his self appointed score of 11 at helping the people who were displaced after Hurricane Maria are going to vote in Florida…and hopefully turn that state solid blue in November. T-Rump lost an opportunity there for sure.

        Scott Pruitt – even if you are happy with his slash and burn of environmental protection – typifies the exact “Swamp Dwelling” creature that Dinosaur Trump promised to eliminate. His disrespect for taxpayer money and integrity are only surpassed by his disregard for solid science and “his” agency’s mission.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Actually, credible estimates put illegal immigrant voting in the hundreds of thousands to millions. Given the closeness of the election in many states, a few thousand illegals voting D may have given Hillary a few states she wouldn’t have otherwise won (e.g. Virginia, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada). That is why the D’s are fighting voter ID laws as they would lose millions of votes if ID was required and the illegals couldn’t vote.

        https://www.dailywire.com/news/12760/flashback-wapo-publishes-study-claims-millions-john-nolte

        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/

        http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/11/mexican-woman-in-texas-sentenced-to-8-years-in-prison-for-voter-fraud.html

        • 0 avatar
          probert

          sad – so sad

        • 0 avatar

          Uh, no. I can tell you based on first hand experience with the voting mechanisms here in NY, and working with the immigrant population, legal and illegal, NO ONE goes near the Govt. They just don’t. This is just fevered imagination from one man…”Lots of people are saying…” is the giveaway line it’s totally false. He has to reconcile his loss of the popular vote….

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Except that when placed under scrutiny, there has been zero confirmed sources of real voter fraud where “illegals” voted. The real voter fraud is the manipulation by Russia in the election which has been proven to be a fact. That is not saying Trump was directly involved – that has yet to be proven and may never be – but Russia played a far bigger part than anything else.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Which proven Russian manipulation do you mean?
            1) The few thousand dollars of Facebook ads placed by the Russians that were both for and against both major candidates?
            2) the Russian contributions to the Clinton Foundation?
            3) the fake Russian dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign?

          • 0 avatar
            Sub-600

            The Mueller Probe is the 21st Century “Al Capone’s Vault”, there’s just nothing there. Try sleeping with your hands on top of the covers, you’re losing touch with reality.

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            exactly wrong

        • 0 avatar
          fIEtser

          All three of the sources say “NON-CITIZENS”, though the DailyWire does try to twist that to mean “illegals” like you have. Not all non-citizens are undocumented and as speedlaw further explained, they’re likely to avoid having to interact with government, especially by voting.

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          “Actually, credible estimates put illegal immigrant voting in the hundreds of thousands to millions.”

          stingray, this comment is utterly ridiculous. The last thing illegal immigrants want to do is vote, because they live in daily fear of the system noticing and deporting them. In case you haven’t noticed, there’s been a lot of that going around lately.

          Furthermore, your echo chamber of news sources, the Washington Times and Fox News couldn’t find a fact if it hit them at 80 mph on the Interstate.

          As a matter of fact, the real voter fraud in America is the massive campaign of suppression against legitimate voters being spearheaded by Kris Kobach, Scott Walker and various other red-state officials. Much more credible estimates have indicated that in Wisconsin, for example, where the current president won by less than 23,000 votes, hundreds of thousands of voters were stripped from their citizenship voting right. This not only included legitimate citizens of Hispanic and African-American descent, but also college students. In some other states, suppressed voters included groups of active duty soldiers away defending their country, challenged as “non-residents.” All these groups shared only one feature: the statistical likelihood they would vote for a Democrat.

          This Wisconsin legislation, not incidentally, was rammed through by a state administration that had just bought an overhaul of the state Constitution that rigged the state Supreme Court to avoid hearing corruption charges against the governor.

          Short version: You need to get out more.

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          Tim Healey, as a longtime B&Ber, I’m embarrassed at the fiction-spouting trolls who’ve been allowed to hijack the discussion lower down in this thread. I hope you are, too.

  • avatar
    R Henry

    An interesting scenario.

    The EPA, which regulates activity not enumerated to the Federal Government by the US Constitution, is in opposition to a State, which generally is empowered to regulate activity not enumerated to the Federal Government.

    While the Left has historically supported overreach by the EPA, in the name of the Environment, the Left is now fighting EPA over reach. Again we are reminded that in politics, the stated objective is just the tip of the iceberg…in the end, it’s really all about POWER.

  • avatar
    caljn

    Lyin’ Donnie Tiny Hands and the repulsive, tacky, corrupt, backward, incompetent people around him cannot leave the scene soon enough.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    >Lying’ Donnie Tiny Hands and the repulsive, tacky, corrupt, backward, incompetent people around him <

    When you use terms like this, I am more inclined to listen to what you have to say, and to give it serious consideration. Well done.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    >Meanwhile, the rest of the world’s developed nations seem to be pursing very aggressive fueling policies that would effectively force widespread electrification in the coming decades.<

    I'm curious what some of those policies might be.

  • avatar
    Charliej

    Pretty soon American cars will not be able to be sold anywhere but the US. Trump wants more exports but will not get them with cars that do not meet other countries rules.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Exports? Which IMPORT brands can meet the 54/40 CAFE/EPA average mpg rule? Even in their home countries?

      Not even with micro diesels, smog exempt. You wanna talk about STUPID?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Charliej,
      No US car meets overseas standards, but there are a few free countries like Australia, the EU (grey imports), Korea, Japan, etc that allow their import.

      I think you’ll find it’s the US that doesn’t allow imports in that don’t meet US standards.

  • avatar
    pdog_phatpat

    The crying continues in this thread. I can hear the babies whining and balling now. “WE DIDNT GET OUR WAY! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH”

  • avatar
    Tree Trunk

    Even if we ignore the pollution problem with lower MPG requirements this is going to hurt US manufactures in the long term.

    Worldwide the focus is on efficient and alternative energy cars, that is where they need to focus not on a shortsighted policy that will soon be overturned be it by the courts or voters.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Bingo! You are the winner.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      Are we a net exporter or importer of cars? If you’re worried about our manufacturers, this is relevant when it comes to authoritarians dictating vehicles that don’t suit our needs and desires for the good of other markets. It’s amazing what passes for a winner here.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        In the 70s and 80s American vehicles has no export potential because of one primary factor – they were too big and consumed too much fuel to be considered for most countries. Those countries where fuel was really cheap – the middle east for example – did support some US imports until the other aspects of Malaise products reared their head.

        Fast forward to today. The reliability and quality issues are mostly gone, but if you offer only out sized vehicles – looking at you Ford, the market will not exist outside of the US. No different than in the past. Fuel hungry vehicles are not going to be big sellers in most parts of the world. Just like in the 1970s.

        I’m not dictating what you should buy, just as nobody here can dictate what the average European is going to buy. Not to tough to understand. He who fails to learn from history….

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          too. The editor is not working

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          Fails to learn from history? The only segment that US automakers make money in is the one protected by a tariff and synonymous with wastefulness. Think about it. All you’re going to do is finish off the formerly-big-3. We could have accomplished the same thing much more cheaply a decade ago.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    The only thing that makes sense is to have global standards that developed nations can agree on. These standards should have input from the engineers that design automotive and truck power trains. Even Sergio has said that it is harder and more expensive for the manufacturers to comply with the multitude of different efficiency, pollution, and safety standards around the globe. Much easier and cost efficient to have one set of standards.

    Reverting to name calling and blaming Democrats or Republicans is not going to accomplish anything. Sitting down at the table and having a meaningful discussion with setting attainable standards that will not bankrupt the manufacturers nor will make new vehicles so expensive that most will not be able to afford them. Even if newer vehicles become more efficient, cleaner, and safer it will take decades for those results to be realized as there are many older vehicles still on the road. These older vehicles need to be considered as well along with the average life of a vehicle.

    Global standards would actually help US produced vehicles be more globally competitive.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      I don’t care what people drive in other countries. Choice is king. Vehicles targeted at users are better than ones dictated by people stupid enough to think they know better than markets.

    • 0 avatar
      Sub-600

      “Global standards”? Hey, comrade, I don’t want some guy who doesn’t know what a car is, sitting in a mud hut somewhere, eating a bowl of stewed monkey brains, deciding what I drive. Chairman Obama is gone, nobody cares what the global “community” wants, try to pay attention. The ironic thing is, whenever I hear the term “global standard”, I know a standard has been lowered.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Jeff,
      There are two standards that are used globally.

      The UNECE standard, which is used by most nations and the US FMVSS standard which is used only in the US and recognised by the Canuckians.

      As for the bickering. We’ll the US is polarised at the moment with a group of Ultra Nationalists scared of the world and the rest.

      The up and coming elections in the US later this year will be interesting. In all honesty, I hope Trump gets trounced and bounced.

      Even a Democrat is better than having the Ultra Nationalists in power. Look at any country that has adopted Ultra Nationalism as it’s mantra. They succeed for a little while, then they fall on their ass, or the country is driven into poverty that much the citizens can’t stave of the oppression from the Ultra Nationalists.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Oh, when I state “Trump” gets trounced and bounce, I’m talking about the gutless Republicans who should be defending America, instead of this moron at the helm who is going to destroy a the greatest nation that has ever been.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Oh no won’t be able to bully the rest of the country anymore? Secede! I’ll get the popcorn popping.

    The Ring of Fire is calling.

    Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

    • 0 avatar
      vehic1

      28-Cars-Later: “bully the rest of the country”? Like someone who got 46% of the vote and came in second is trying to do to the rest of the country right now? Got it.
      Yeah, the nerve of those younger, more numerous voters – believing they’re in the majority, simply because they are!

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Geez give it a rest, shouldn’t you still be indignant about Bernie being defrauded or are incalculable felonies “ok” when its all for the greater evil?

        On a more serious note, the Ring of Fire is calling old boy and you might just end up a refugee yet. Probably a good idea to get down off that high horse and join reality beforehand.

        “The earthquake situation in California is actually more dire than people who aren’t seismologists like myself may realize. Although many Californians can recount experiencing an earthquake, most have never personally experienced a strong one. For major events, with magnitudes of 7 or greater, California is actually in an earthquake drought. Multiple segments of the expansive San Andreas Fault system are now sufficiently stressed to produce large and damaging events.”

        theconversation.com/californias-other-drought-a-major-earthquake-is-overdue-90517

        @Sub-600

        Nice post. I dare them to try, one of two things would happen. Either the secession is allowed to go through because its time to demo the United States OR they try to secede and zee Feds hit them with shock and awe. What I wouldn’t part with for Pay Per View of such a thing.

        “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

        FDR

      • 0 avatar
        pdog_phatpat

        Enjoy your water rations.

    • 0 avatar
      Sub-600

      Secede? Californians love to tout their “world’s 5th largest economy”, seemingly every chance they get. Take Uncle Sam’s largesse, contracts, and jobs out of the picture and what’s left? An incredible loss of income and necessary expenditures that didn’t exist before. Unfortunately, la-la land isn’t going anywhere soon. Governor Moonbeam and his supplicants put me in mind of an old Native American saying: “Big wind blows from empty cave”.

      • 0 avatar
        Michael500

        That CA economy figure does NOT include $500 BILLION in pension liability.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        “Take Uncle Sam’s largesse, contracts, and jobs out of the picture and what’s left? An incredible loss of income and necessary expenditures that didn’t exist before.”

        Huh? California is a net donor to the federal coffers. Are you thinking of Arizona?

        • 0 avatar
          Sub-600

          Net donor, lol. California won’t be in a position to donate anything after secession. Get ready to pony up for defense, disaster relief, a broke university system, broke state police, emergency services, and no VA hospitals. Border security won’t be an issue since you don’t want it anyway. I’m sure your newest voting block, MS-13, will volunteer to pick up the duties once performed by the National Guard. The Mexican Coast Guard might keep an eye on your docks, for a price. On the plus side, vacant military installations and federal buildings can be used to house your beloved illegals, for whom you’ll be solely responsible for. I’m sure I missed a thousand things, go ahead, secede.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            MS-13. You can thank T-Rump for legitimizing MS-13. He took a rather obscure group and put them on a national stage. Nice work there…

          • 0 avatar
            fIEtser

            Technically, no state is a net donor due to the massive deficit the Feds are running. However, California is near the bottom of the list for money received vs. money sent to Washington. Furthermore, the State already funds all of those items that you’re concerned about.

  • avatar
    vehic1

    TwoBelugas: Wow, a supposed concern for the welfare of the poor – from a trump backer; will wonders never cease!
    The bottom line – with his tariff actions and regulatory change attempts, the industry may have to flop around with each change of administrations. Electrification one minute, horses and buggies next, around and around – although the rest of the world doesn’t seem to be reversing at all.
    Who knows? – maybe we in the US will all be dressed like the Amish, not usin’ no Devil ee-lectricity, wearing Chinese MAGA caps to th’ next barn-raisin’.

    • 0 avatar
      TwoBelugas

      I grew up poor, went to a decent school and earn a decent living today. I drove and still drive affordable cars. Most of my co-workers drive affordable cars. My school was 70% minorities and we got along fine.

      In the 90s my whole family liked the Clintons for the most part. That was back when Hilary actually called the worst of gang members “super-predators” and Bill threatened to deport illegal immigrants(See State of the Union, 1995).

      If you can’t understand why many Trump supporters truly care about the poorest segments of the US population, it’s on you.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      The people that are trying to stop Trump are desperate because the best social program is a job, and Trump is creating an atmosphere where they flourish. Unlike the Democrats, Trump hates dependence instead of poor people. He’ll put the Democrats’ victims to work, and the next thing you know they’ll start caring about how their taxes are wasted.

  • avatar
    Michael500

    Kalifornia socialists should not be allowed to dictate fuel standards. These morons want everyone to drive EVs- while we have power brown-outs now. Great idea to add thousands of EVs to a power grid that can’t handle it. People, do not trust the CA leftists with your car design, immigration enforcement or gas taxes. Pah-lease.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    I support a national standard.
    It is a starting point.

    Beyond this political CAFE battle would be great to see some cooperation and compromise on a global scale. Agreement on a standard for safety and emissions between EU, China, and U.S.A. would be fantastic.

    • 0 avatar
      fIEtser

      There already is a national standard, but the EPA is proposing to jettison it and create a new standard that they know would be unacceptable to CARB.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I support a global standard as well. As for full size American pickups they are already meeting stricter standards and will continue to do so, Global standards would make US vehicles much more competitive in a global market and in the long run would save the manufacturers money. Having said that just having politicians agree on the standards is not enough there needs to be input from the engineers that design vehicles. Certain vehicles like large pickups could still still be targeted for certain markets.

  • avatar

    Has the EPA, and Trump for that matter, ever thought that cars which meet the highest emission standards are easier to sell on foreign markets? Probably not.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Why would that matter? The current US standards are higher than in the rest of the world.

    • 0 avatar
      don1967

      No, Trump doesn’t understand a thing about business. All he’s ever accomplished in life is make billions of dollars and get elected President of the United States.

      We can’t all be a voyager.

      • 0 avatar
        philipwitak

        re: “No, Trump doesn’t understand a thing about business. All he’s ever accomplished in life is make billions of dollars and get elected President of the United States.”

        yeah, sure he did – using daddy’s millions and the assistance of putin’s russian bots.

        multiple bankruptcies too. quite a list of ‘accomplishments.’

        he’s a lier. he’s a cheat. and an ignorant, arrogant azzhole with no redeemable qualities whatsoever. just ask melania.

        • 0 avatar
          Tele Vision

          An LSE professor, I think he/she was, found that had Trump put his inheritance in the S&P 500 he’d be worth a solid $8B. Instead he’s destroyed families of employees by fighting them in court over monies owed for work done. He unleashes a phalanx of lawyers and bankrupts a contractor who is owed money – using the courts as his plaything – and he ain’t worth half of what he says he is. Liar. ManBaby. Narcissist. Childish. This is the guy for whom most of you voted?!

          • 0 avatar
            Sub-600

            @Tele Vision, that’s quite weak. Might I suggest a creative writing course? While I’m here, I’m assuming you’re a regular viewer, why does Joy Reid’s neck look like a package of hot dogs?

          • 0 avatar
            pdog_phatpat

            Yep, proudly voted for the man. Not just me though, quite a few others did as well ;) You sound incredibly butthurt about it. Oh well, the people that voted for the man are doing very well, and none of the lies you and your kind spew will change that. :)

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            “You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.”

            – Harry S. Truman

            The Clintons and BO are by Truman’s def – crooks. Their book deals and speeches were essentially bribes or payola. The Netflix deal for the BOs same deal – $60 million for “Net Neutrality” which was a boon for the Netflix and all the big internet companies that support Dems.

            BO was/is the biggest narcissist ever – the Europeans knew that and gave him the first Nobel for Nothing. BO paid the Iranians to accept a terrible deal – so bad the Dems wouldn’t even vote for it. Trump – in contrast – is an actual leader who really doesn’t care what the state media or phony “allies”say about him. Remember these so-called “allies” helped the BO regime spy on him.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    If some of the US standards are higher then why not make them global standards and for some of the global standards if they are higher than US standards then include them. Why not include better standards for vehicle roof strength in a rollover? It seems that everyone has a stake in safer, cleaner, and more efficient vehicles. Manufacturers want a uniform set of standards globally that is attainable and that will spread the costs over all their units while keeping their products affordable. The consumer wants a safer, cleaner, and more efficient vehicle that is not prohibitive in price. Having standards that can be changed at the whim of a President and then changed again once another President takes office or having standards determined just by a Governmental Agency without input from the industry and its engineers is not a solution. Whatever standards are agreed upon will not please everyone but at least uniform standards would eliminate the uncertainty of what the standards will be. Hard to budget for ever changing and uncertain standards.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Pretty soon Democrats in California will have a new cable news outlet, MS13NBC. “Morning Jose” will be good, I can’t wait to see Mika with tattoos and a wife-beater. Kamala, Pelosi et all won’t even denounce MS-13, they’re actually afraid of losing the gang vote. Incredible. Please secede, please.

    • 0 avatar
      fIEtser

      The automakers wanted this chaos, they got it. Of course, they could just stop dragging their feet on electrification and get models out, which would mean that they will be able to surpass the required levels quite well.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • 28-Cars-Later: “effectively means electrification kills jobs” This is an interesting point. “were...
  • Blackcloud_9: Good one, Dave. Corey, Congrats on your purchase. I’m sure you’ll be very happy with it. I...
  • JMII: I bought my 2014 C7 Z51 3LT Corvette in NJ and drove it home to FL last summer. Total was 1,207 miles in 2...
  • JimZ: “He has two master degrees in engineering” no he does not. he has undergrad degrees in Economics...
  • 28-Cars-Later: This particular model clocks in at $21K currently/12K miles avg. 4/5/19 $22,900 3,109 4.9 4GT/A...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States