By on July 25, 2018

fuel gauge vintage

Andrew Wheeler, the acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said the United States needs a single standard for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks on Tuesday. It’s a sentiment shared by Mary Nichols, head of California Air Resources Board, but it’s likely to put the two at odds. Wheeler said the pair shared that singular goal based off a meeting held last week, but California isn’t seeking the same benchmarks as the current administration.

The state objects to the EPA’s plan to weaken Obama-era efficiency targets, and is currently in the midst of a political and legal battle with the agency. However, Wheeler confirmed that, under his watch, the group would continue seeking a “50-state solution.” 

While plenty of automotive regulations will likely vary between states, corporate average fuel economy rules aren’t likely to be among them. Fine by us. It’s one thing to force automakers to step up their game but it’s another to put the burden on consumers and taxpayers. Vehicle inspection laws and mandatory emission testing are great way to waste an afternoon while someone ineffectually checks to make sure your ride is “safe.” But cheating is rampant and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration claims only a tiny fraction of traffic accidents are attributable to mechanical failure, anyway.

If you’re from a state that doesn’t mandate annual inspections, then you’re probably happy to keep it that way. It’s a separate issue, for the most part, but does call into question the notion of states’ rights. California has a strict environmental policy and a waiver under the Clean Air Act to set its own standards. Revoking it is a gentle affront to conservative principles — ironic, considering there’s a Republican in the White House.

The EPA has stated in the past that ambitious fueling regulations aren’t realistic. Consumers aren’t buying more fuel efficient vehicles and automakers are spending a bundle preparing to adhere to benchmarks the average person doesn’t care about (until you start talking about cleaner air and the environment). Then, everyone says regulations are good and goes out to purchases a new SUV anyway.

To some extent, automakers will still have to adhere to global standards. And it’s more important to them that everyone agrees, since accounting for disparities can be costly. But they’ve also been lobbying for softer fuel economy targets for the past two years. President Trump seems to think that cutting them a break might result in more investment, which could mean more jobs. However, the industry isn’t famous for always doing the right thing. As businesses, their primary goal is to make money. It just so happens that sometimes coincides with opening up a new factory in the United States.

Regardless of the nuisances of doing business, Trump seems dead set on revoking California’s fuel waiver to impose softer limits. We knew that was likely to be the case, but Bloomberg released details confirming the administration’s plan on Tuesday. The proposal, kept under wraps for quite some time, should be released any day now. It would cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which results in a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average under federal law, rather than the 50-ish mpg average (by 2025) envisioned during the Obama administration.

This will be followed by a formal proposal from the EPA officially seeking the revocation of the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California. Without it, the state can’t regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell a minimum number of electric vehicles in the state. The NHTSA will similarly assert that California is barred from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from autos under the 1975 law that established the first federal fuel-efficiency requirements. The state’s waiver saw EPA approval in 2009.

California was joined by 16 other states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s effort to roll back the standards. Dan Sperling, a member of the state’s Air Resources Board, claims more states will join once they see the Trump administration attack the idea of states’ rights — even though the group would love if the rest of the nation adhered to its rules.

“We have the law on our side, as well as the people of the country and the people of the world,” Sperling said.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

84 Comments on “States’ Rights: EPA Seeks ’50-State Solution’ for Fuel Rules, California Happy to Settle for 16...”


  • avatar
    I_like_stuff

    By doing their own thing, CA is essentially dictating federal policy since all manufacturers will build to CA standards, being the largest market in the country. States shouldn’t have the power to do that.

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      That’s indirect power because of their financial leverage.

      So why can’t they do that? I guess states right only matter when it suites them?

      Either way, CARB is going to win this. They will tie this up in courts for years, may last longer than this administration.

      Manufacturers will built to whatever CARB dictates, because they aren’t going to let 40% of the new auto market (and 50% of revenue) go away.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    California is such a clown show at this point that it’s frightening. Nichols is a hack who was first appointed by Gov. Moonbeam back in 1975. She keeps coming back like a bad penny, just like Moonbeam. Unfortunately there’s no way to divorce the U.S. and the CA warmist whackos due to it’s huge population. The founders couldn’t have foreseen this. Of course illegal aliens can vote in school board elections in San Francisco now too, the founders couldn’t have seen that coming either.

    • 0 avatar
      R Henry

      I abandoned jalopnik because politics soaked through to all the auto content there. Please don’t ruin this place.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        That ship has sailed. We have a whole section of the “Best and Brightest” that never bother to post about actual automobiles. $#!TBIRDS like BeanCounter only stir up crap. Ban the $#!Theads and this place will get alot better.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        “I abandoned jalopnik because politics soaked through to all the auto content there. Please don’t ruin this place.”

        ^This^ Thank you

    • 0 avatar
      Dubbed

      When the founders were around there was no such thing as an “illegal”. All you had to do was get here and poof you can become a citizen. There was no law whatsoever until the 1850s limiting who could become citizens. And that law was against the Chinese.

      • 0 avatar
        Hydromatic

        The various native tribes that occupied the continent prior the founders’ arrival would have had something to say about that.

        • 0 avatar
          crush157

          The founding fathers were very much citizens of the colonies….They owned land, that was required of the crown and then also to be able to be a citizen voter after the revolution… Remember we revolted due to taxes from the crown as the “citizens” were making too much money… otherwise we rather liked the crown….

  • avatar
    Urlik

    I suspect keeping “the 16” at this point is job security for a LOT of government employees and subcontractors. Good luck with that one.

  • avatar
    TW5

    A 50-state solution isn’t an affront to states’ rights. The affront to states’ rights occurred when the EPA was created, and it has been furthered undermined over time as environmental groups have sued numerous industries into federal jurisdiction because they didn’t like how their state was handling a particular issue.

    The EPA are not behaving like hypocrites. The hypocrisy is from those who gave the feds control of everything, and who then fight the feds because they can’t win national elections. This sort of rancor was avoidable, but people of a certain political persuasion are not motivated by common sense or strategic thinking, only by blind devotion to an increasingly nonsensical ideology.

    Suffice it to say, an ideology that supposes a 23mpg Wrangler ought to be illegal, but a 23mpg hybrid F-150 will save humanity, is nonsensical in the extreme, and can only exist if humanity is given continuous invitations from the media to embrace unreason and wanton emotion.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “only by blind devotion to an increasingly nonsensical ideology”

      Someone who supports Agent Orange needs to be a bit more careful when it comes to labeling someone’s ideology as nonsensical!

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        Anyone who thinks for five minutes, rather than overreacting the political schema and dogma used to control the masses, will inevitable support Donald Trump.

        Also, I’d like to hear a defense of the US footprint rules. They are not used anywhere else on the planet, and they suppose a 32mpg Honda Civic SI is a danger to mother nature, while a 23mpg pickup makes Gaia happy.

        Politicians like footprint specific CAFE because they can command the market without spending a dime. I’m not sure any sentient being can offer a defense, however.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “Anyone who thinks for five minutes, rather than overreacting the political schema and dogma used to control the masses, will inevitable support Donald Trump.”

          The sad thing is I doubt you’re bright enough to see the irony in your own statement.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ JimZ

            Non sequiturs and intellectual tropes are not the tools of people who have a point.

            Whenever you’re good and ready, you can explain the scenario I’ve presented above. Many fuel efficient vehicles will be declared non-compliant under CAFE 2025. Why?

            How could you possibly support something that drastically raises costs on people who’ve been doing most of the fleet fuel saving? Why would CARB support this for California’s consumers?

            Eventually, you will realize this isn’t about the environment. It’s about money promised to robber barons by the political class, and you’re falling for it because you are incapable of operating outside of various intellectual and behavioral schema that have been created for you. Sad.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            the irony in your statement is your assertion that people who disagree with you “can’t think for themselves.” Meaning, only people who think like you are thinking for themselves.

            whatever. You can crank up your arrogant know-it-all attitude all you want, I’m not really moved by lectures from someone who buys into every crackpot conspiracy theory which comes along (so long as it makes a Democrat look bad.)

  • avatar
    Onus

    It seems most people are ignorant on how California got to set it’s own standards. The answer is they started regulating emissions years before the federal government got in the game. At any rate California emissions states count for a large chunk if not majority of the us population.

    • 0 avatar
      HahnZahn

      This is the correct take. I’m not a CA native, but someone who was stationed here and chose to live here after returning to civilian life. CA has some unique topography – in combination with its large population centers – that caused smog to accumulate over its big cities. And CA led the way in solving its particular smog problems, and other states adopted its standards voluntarily.

      We don’t want smog again. And we don’t want the associated high rates of cancer and respiratory distress that accompany lower emissions standards. This isn’t a “leftist conspiracy.” The autopsies they performed on kids who died by various circumstances back in the 70s and 80s demonstrated lung damage from emissions. CARB’s good for everyone.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “We don’t want smog again. And we don’t want the associated high rates of cancer and respiratory distress that accompany lower emissions standards.”

        I agree, but smog is formed by nitrogen oxides. CAFE’s fuel economy rules are independent of our NOx emission regulations so a downgraded CAFE standrad should not cause any of those NOx-related maladies you listed.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          You forget hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide also are smog components.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            True, but those still aren’t what CAFE regulates and it was never intended as a law to reduce smog emissions or other particulates. A vehicle can be CAFE compliant and still cause comparatively more damage to air quality versus a lower MPG vehicle.

            Just as an example the 328d gets 36 MPG but has a ‘smog rating’ of 3/10. A 330i gets 27 MPG and has a ‘smog rating’ 7/10.

  • avatar
    Fred

    As you pick on California, remember that there are 13 other states which follow our rules; Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

  • avatar
    vehic1

    Sub-600: Obviously, NO amount of warming or evidence whatsoever would convince one who chooses to believe the discredited, Neanderthal view, of 1% of the scientific community.
    But cheer up! – this administration will be around forever, right? 40-odd% in the polls makes it a sure thing!

    • 0 avatar
      Sub-600

      @vehic1 Your warmism standard bearer is known as the “The Science Guy”’ and you’re calling people Neanderthals? You have big ones, my friend. You’ve been duped by those who want to fence you in and control you. Your virtue has been noted though.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        So denigrating the “standard bearer” somehow invalidates the scientific theory?

        Oh, and “fence you in and control you”????
        Have you ever heard of the social contract?

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “You have big ones, my friend. You’ve been duped by those who want to fence you in and control you. ”

        interesting, isn’t it? The people who hate “liberals” because “liberals want to control you” are the very same people who gladly queue up every Sunday to cede control over themselves to a befrocked guy holding a book.

    • 0 avatar
      IBx1

      Heh, didn’t take long for someone to quote the survey of 77 anonymous, unpublished, unconfirmed “scientists.”

  • avatar
    hpycamper

    Whatever your political persuasion, the real issue here is health and quality of life.
    Not all states need regs on auto pollution like California, so they were seperate. This has not been a problem in past, so why now. Seems like a contrived issue.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      unfortunately, there are many people (some of them here) who believe health isn’t an inherent right. If you’re in poor health because you can’t afford insurance or to live in a place away from pollution sources, that’s just too bad, you can rot in he||.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      It is pure (childish, selfish, absolutist) ideology, and a symptom of our ever more divisive politics. I am beginning to wonder if we here in the US can even agree that s##t stinks.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    The states’ rights issue is a red herring. This is an interstate commerce issue, which the Constitution reserves for the federal government. The feds can provide exemptions, or remove them, as they see fit.

    The Commerce Clause: if it’s good enough to pass the Civil Rights Act, it’s good enough to pass 50-state emissions requirements. The standard being, whether certain activities have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Like the ability to sell the same car in California as you would in Texas.

    • 0 avatar
      I_like_stuff

      All regulations enacted by a governmental body, can also be rescinded by the same body. So whether it’s good or bad policy, it’s idiotic of the states to sue on the basis that a regulation, once enacted, can never be rescinded or amended.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        A waiver is just that. A waiver.

        What is given can be taken away. My state operated for many years under a waiver to intact their own plan regarding education, the waiver exempted them from the provisions of NCLB.

        After the passage of ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) the waiver was rescinded.

        That’s the way things work.

  • avatar
    Carroll Prescott

    This article is flawed.

    California is free to do what it wants – but what it has instead done is to extort the Feds and to take them to court when the standards are relaxed – the federal standards – so it is California and its minion states who are causing the problems which is forcing the Feds to counter by revoking the freedom those states had to piddle with their own emission standards.

    Get this story right!

    And this is not a state’s rights issue – it is a state meddling in clear federal jurisdiction and doing it only when standards are relaxed – California never meddled when Obama unilaterally and without Congressional approval toughened environmental standards. So California is a hypocrite – it only acts up when leftists are out of power. No one was standing in their way banning fossil fueled vehicles until they started demanding the rest of the country live under their pathetic ideals.

    • 0 avatar
      moridin2002

      Carroll, the article is not flawed. Your perception of what the law states and allows California to do is. The U.S. Congress created a legal pathway for the state of California to set its own emissions standards as long as those standards meet or exceed the equivalent Federal standards. So, yes, you are correct, it is federal jurisdiction, but Congress and the president at the time (Nixon, a Republican, a Rightist?… is that the correct term?) created and signed into law, the Clean Air Act of 1970. The law has been updated a few times since (1977 under President Carter and 1990 under President Bush [a RIGHTIST]) and the preemption waiver remained. There is no ‘meddling’ by California. In fact, there is no legal pathway to revoke a waiver, so it seems the current administration would be the ones doing the ‘meddling’.

      Additionally, Congress delegated oversight of environmental standards to the Executive branch through the creation and passage of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the authorization of an executive order by President Nixon to reorganize several environmental oversight arms of the government into one agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That agency is subject to the same laws that govern all agencies in the creation of regulations, and can only operate under the laws created by Congress. So, no, Obama did not just stand there, waive a wand, and dictate how things were to happen. It is viewpoints like your’s that are damaging to the mission of the agency and result in elected and appointed officials that opposed that mission (Scott Pruitt ring a bell?). I suggest spending some more time understanding how things work.

      Here’s a link. Read. Learn. Be Better.
      https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations

      Your political tribalism is neither helpful, nor productive.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Correct. A small minority of states are attempting to force their laws upon the entire nation by arguing the federal government does not actually have the right to review and adjust CAFE regulations, though these provisions are explicitly stated under the law.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      California is taking measures to ensure the health of its people with their efforts to control air pollution. And you are labelling this “state meddling”. Irony is dead in the age of pres P####grabber.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @ttacgreg

        Every person in California exhales CO2, and no one in California can explain the benefits paradoxical nature of CAFE, nor can they explain why Congress should not have a midterm review and make adjustments, though the law specifically calls for this process.

        This has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with a intellectual underclass of mind slaves who can’t think for themselves, and who don’t know the difference between friend and foe.

  • avatar
    fIEtser

    It’s important to note that there already IS a “50-state solution” for vehicle emissions: the status quo. It’s not California that’s trying to renege on that commitment agreed to by CARB, the automakers, and the EPA, but the current administration. THEY are the ones who are trying to exit the existing 50-state solution and create a new one, knowing full well that the Clean Air Act guarantees CARB’s waiver as long as their standards are more stringent than the EPA’s.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      The law has not been finalized. Congress is required to do a midterm review of the augural standards (2022-2025) to determine if adjustments are required prior to ratification. The augural standards are incredibly strict, and were designed to protect the US from $100 oil US production tapered or imports rose sharply.

      Congress has reached the obvious conclusion that $60 oil is not going to cause another Great Recession, nor do we have a worsening imbalance of imports and exports. Therefore, the strictest and most onerous subset of CAFE standards are neither warranted nor practical, and Americans should not be forced to pay for them.

      California and 15 other states are basically obstructing the federal legislature by suing to stop Congress from doing what the law compels, and promising to withdraw suit and cooperate if Congress makes the finding they prefer. Keep in mind these states can do whatever they want, if the augural standards are dropped. In true fashion, totalitarian leftists are only interested in minding your business.

      Nobody wins except the people to whom California has promised billions of dollars in green energy purchases, and the politicians who make their living by exploiting the hive mind of American bolsheviks.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        “American bolsheviks”??
        Hyperbole much?

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @ ttacgreg

          Anyone who thinks American fleet fuel economy must increase 60% in 6.5 years is a person of revolutionary persuasions that rival Bolshevism. I mean, after all, Bolsheviks were trying (in vain) to keep more of their production. American CAFE agitators are trying to spend more money to help green energy robber barons.

          Perhaps this was warranted in 2008, when consumptive oil imports were approaching $300B. Today, consumptive imports are at a 30-year-low, and our overall energy trade is balanced, meaning we are effectively energy independent.

          It’s not 2008. Time to stop pretending like it is.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            oh man, I can’t wait for the Boomers to shuffle off.

            We get it, TW5. You Boomers didn’t get your WWIII so you could be the next “Greatest Generation.” Too bad. Your day is over, quit being such a load of petulant grabby possessive brats, and get the hell out of the way.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Jim, I don’t know if you are a Millennial or not, but if you are, I don’t get the fued between you guys and the boomers. You are the same. They got dirty and smelly at Woodstock and expected to change the world. You guys show the world how much you care on Facebook. Meanwhile that generation between you two quietly works, amasses wealth, and provides a stable workforce for those looking to hire that is motivated by a paycheck versus stupid things like being able to bring their dog to work and does it in the relative anonymity that, outside of the Grunge era, we always have. So quit B!+ching about your grandparents and get to work. And oh yeah, your grandparent’s music is overrated and yours sucks.

            Signed
            Gen-X

            PS, if you are not of that generation, I apologize. If the shoe fits however…

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Big3 Beancounter

            Over the last 10 years, fleet fuel economy has improved 25%. That was an achievement built by the realistic Bush CAFE regulations. The Obama regulations that demand 60% fuel economy improvement in 7 years were clearly written by an ego maniacal group of fools, who aren’t the least bit interested in consumer protection or free industry.

            Furthermore, thank you for pointing out that the automakers pledge to Obama’s madness was made under duress, and for reminding everyone that the auto manufacturers owe us affordable cars, good earnings, and good jobs. CAFE will deliver none of those things.

          • 0 avatar
            Sub-600

            @ Art Vandelay Eddie Vedder (b.1964), Jeff Ament (b.1963). Chris Cornell (b.1964), Kim Thayil (b.1960), and Mark Arm (b.1962) are/were Baby Boomers (1946-1964), not Gen-X. And those are just a few Baby Boomer Grunge Era artists off the top of my head, I’m sure there are more.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @sub600, those dates are in the era that are attributed to both generations depending on where you look. Are you really going to tell me that a bunch of Baby Boomers were scooping up Pearl Jam and Soundgarden Records? The stuff of that generation was already in heavy rotation on oldies stations at that point. Even if they themselves are credited to the generation (sources split those dates roughly evenly between the generations), the sound belongs to us as did the flannel and the Doc Martens. You guys get the Beatles and Elvis.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @Sub, and of course every band for a decade tried to sound like that other Seattle guy born in 1967. Anyway, the same site that lists the Boomers as ending in 1964 lists X as starting in 1961. Go figure.

          • 0 avatar
            Sub-600

            @ Art Vandelay I’m not saying that Boomers drove the Grunge movement, merely pointing out that many of these artists were in fact Baby Boomers. I’m 55 and I was listening to Mudhoney before Nirvana and Pearl Jam even broke. The twenty-somethings at work used to ask me why I listened to “their” music and I’d tell them because the bands were my age, lol. The grunge bands were musically competent and rocked hardcore, they were way better than the classic rock I grew up with. Now they are classic rock.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ JimZ

            I’m not a Boomer. It’s sad you’d troll Boomers with WWIII since it’s you and your chosen political apparatus who’ve been escalating tensions with Russia during the Obama admin, while using hyperpartisan Ukrainians (CrowdStrike) to accuse them of hacking the DNC server, even though our own (real) intelligence agents concluded early on that the data from the DNC server could not be transferred over the WWW as quickly as was reported.

            Hopefully you’ll become more informed as you age. I’d hate for you to end up as cannon fodder in some foreign war, only to find out the people you are fighting are funded by Obama’s Iran deal, and you’re being nuked with weapons built from the uranium Hillary sold to Rosatom. That would really suck.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Jim, I don’t know if you are a Millennial or not,”

            No, Gen-X. Try again.

            @TW5

            if by “more informed” you mean believing every crazy anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, and OMG SOROS! pile of crap shoveled in my face by Hannity and Alex Jones, no thanks. I don’t consider “assume one side is always right about everything” to be equivalent to “informed.” But it certainly seems to relieve you from the effort of actually thinking about things.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ JimZ

            You have the option to learn the easy way or the hard way. The election was hard enough on you guys. You believed so much fake news and fake polling. Perhaps its time to do things the easy way.

      • 0 avatar
        moridin2002

        “Totalitarian Leftists”? “American bolsheviks”?
        You should cover up, your political tribalism is showing. You sound awful lot like a Rusky bot.

        Augural standards and their review belong to NHTSA, not Congress. What about EPA? You seem to be forgetting the Endangerment Finding from the SCOTUS. DOT/NHTSA may regulate fuel economy, but the Supreme Court requires EPA to regulate GHG emissions on autos, and by extension, through the waiver process, so does California’s Air Resources Board. Congress decided that through the CAA of 1970 and the addition of the Section 177 amendments.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @ Moridin2002

          Congress is conducting a midterm review, and they have oversight of federal agencies.

          I don’t have a problem. Am I imagining global climate apocalypse as a means of transferring wealth from one tribe of oil supermajors to another tribe of green energy robber barons? No. That sort of tribal insanity is reserved for other people. I’m asking for people to justify the horrendous rules known as CAFE 2025, and the NHTSA’s decision to use attribute specific footprints to regulate fuel economy. I couldn’t care less about someone’s notional support of fuel economy regulations. People always retreat to an ambiguous “good” whenever they don’t know what’s going on. CAFE is a prime example.

          Furthermore, the EPA is not abandoning GHG regulations, nor is the federal government forcing California to abandon GHG regulations. Both are ridiculous non sequiturs.

          California is trying to force its preferred regulations onto the federal government because it doesn’t want to be different. Besides the terrible regulations, California is also attempting to command federal policy.

    • 0 avatar
      Carroll Prescott

      Wrong. There is federal legislation at a particular standard; without any congressional approval, the Obama Administration arbitrarily raised the standards making it very punitive to companies; it in essence fiated technology that does not exist that would be needed to meet these standards and the increase in sticker prices was well over $1500 per car sold to meet them.

      What Obama did was nothing different than what President Trump is doing – arbitrarily meddling with standards, but in the true leftist view, you cannot meddle with a leftist President’s rules because those are always superior to anything someone who is not a neo-Communist could impose.

      And yes, California is meddling – they are taking the Feds to court to block lowering the standards which violates the 50 state solution you quickly grasp; California is advocating that it is okay to impose punitive federal standards outside of the legislative process but it is bad when the same process is used to bring standards to a more reasonable level.

      I’m sorry – but California is meddling and the 50 state solution is only supported by them when it matches their repugnant standards that they impose on their residents. California is always free to have higher standards but they should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of us their standards when the ones we have by Obama were punishment, not real science based (even though they always flaunted it so); the CAFE standards imposed are complete joke – do you realize if Obama’s standards were put into effect the lack of choice you’d have in the marketplace? Once again, bypassing Congress, a President imposed punitive rules; and then when they are sought to be brought back to reality, leftists whine!

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    One reason for a 50-state solution is the used car market.

    It’s hypocritical to enforce a high standard for new cars sold in your state, and then to accept used cars ‘imported’ from other states with lower standards.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      I know at least some states strictly limit the importation of non CA compliant cars. Used car dealers and wholesallers can’t bring in non-compliant cars to sell in the state. The only way they typically let you import a non-compliant vehicle is if you are moving to the state and you owned the vehicle for a minimum period of time before moving to the CA emission’s state.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I don’t know if all this is worth arguing over. The WH is going to revoke the waiver, states will open court cases, and the SCOTUS shall issue an eventual ruling like Oracles from the Gods.

  • avatar
    Robbie

    We live in polarized times.

    If you overlook LA from a high point on a day without wind, it is pretty clear that because of geography, California’s needs may be different from Alabama’s. LA needs electric cars and expensive gas to limit driving a bit; but Birmingham, AL not so much.

  • avatar
    pdog_phatpat

    Goody gumdrops. Another clickbait article to bring the tards a runnin. And run the did. “Some people shouldnt be allowed to post because it goes against what I believe! Someone get me a tissue and a safe space” :(

  • avatar
    Boxerman

    It’s interesting how people forget facts.

    The higher standards were set in two tiers. The second set of standards was due to be reviewed by the EPA and brought into effect after the presidential election. Instead following the non desired election result the Omaa admin and EPA suddenly acclerated the “review” date and brought the higher standards into law between the election and inauguration. That’s what others might call and illegitimate result.

    Then we have the footprint rules. Even under the Cali/epa mandates Trucks SUvs and other large vehicles would get a more or less free pass, but as others have pointed out fuel efficient cars, which few are buying would be required to meet much stricter standards. To me this would make pollution worse, even less people would buy expensive small fuel efficient cars and more heavy trucks and suvs would be sold through the Obama created loophole.

    Seems to me if states want to have more fuel efficient vehicles on the road they should incentivise those. There are two ways to do this. One is to raise the gas tax thereby affecting consumer buying habbits. The other is to invcentivise electric cars(not into real enviromental costs of electric cars)

    In fact a gas tax could be used for the electric incentive. That way states would acheive the result and be directly taxing their voters for the result voters want.

    Theres a reason states dont do this, and thats because its easy to promise Things your voters think they want if they dont have to pay for. Or sometimes the cost is delayed untill after the desired election, like for example the cadillac tax on meidcal insurance which would have effected union votes so was delayed under Ocare untill after Hilalry was to be elected.

    If youre talking states rights the states have ample tools to effect the change they desire as pointed out above, but that requires political honesty.

    Also had the prior admin not suddenly decided to accelerate the new EPA studies to deny the new administration the rigth to decide this would all be moot. Its politcs just like the refusal of repubs to consdder Obamas superme court nominee. A pox on both their houses.

    What should emerge is a compromise. Higher standards than currently, but realistic ones. Still the best would be a state gas tax and incentives paid for by the gas tax to get consumers to buy the desired vehicles and money from the tax to accelerate electric and hybrid cars consumption.

    Probably some electric incentive will be proposed to california, and both sides will decalre a victory.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • legacygt: So for the same money you get a Mini Countryman All4. For about $3K more you get the Minis Cooper...
  • Corey Lewis: Thanks! Just had to find the right one for me. The black interior restriction was a serious issue.
  • 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...

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