California Preps Formal Response in Gas War, Calls MPG Rollback 'Unlawful'

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky
california preps formal response in gas war calls mpg rollback 8216 unlawful

California and 18 other states plan to formally vent their grievances over the Trump administration’s proposal to freeze fuel economy standards at 2020 levels on Friday. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have called for public comments on the matter, with the deadline taking place at the end of this week. Apparently, California wants its voice to be the last one heard.

“They are grossly derelict in not trying to move the dial forward in cleaning the air and the environment,” California’s attorney general Xavier Becerra said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday. “The situation continues to get worse and requires action now, and not for us to stand pat.”

According to Bloomberg, Becerra called the administration’s proposal “unlawful” since it sets out to revoke California’s ability to self regulate economy standards and set quotas for electric car sales within the state. He also said the plan violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires extensive documentation before any existing regulations can be overturned, as well as the EPA’s statutory obligation to reduce harmful pollution.

The subplot of this narrative includes a

Join the conversation
8 of 74 comments
  • St.George St.George on Oct 26, 2018

    I understand that the 47 mpg CAFE standard was one of those delayed 'bombs' left at the end of the outgoing administrations reign to trip up the new guy. Anyway, what will happen if everyone magically starts driving 47 mpg hatchbacks will be a decline in revenue for both the oil companies & government. You can bet your bottom dollar that both will jack up the price & taxes to make up for the lost revenue. The honorable MS Madigans argument that by not implementing this onerous standard will hurt the poor is complete BS. I can also foresee the price of the car increasing, and the routine maintenance costs increasing also. By the way, Europe does of course have emissions standards but not a target mpg. They tax vehicles that emit more at a higher rate, this naturally encourages folks to buy smaller, more economical vehicles. To me, setting an arbitrary mpg target isn't the best way of going about things. And before anyone gets their panties wadded, I like economical vehicles (have a strange hankering for a CT200h), renewable energy, the environment and trucks/steaks/boats/planes & The Constitution as written & intended, go figure!

    • See 5 previous
    • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Oct 26, 2018

      Pch101, Its true about TTAC. In my opinion ever since The Truth About The NRA joined the company I think the Baruths were being paid to market Trump Inc. And a migration of ultra right wing morons followed. Its great to see your name here again, even though we disagreed often. Hang around.

  • Brn Brn on Oct 26, 2018

    Can we not call it an "MPG rollback"? The proposal is to freeze the requirements at the 2020 levels. In other words, still make it more stringent than it is now.

  • Keith Maybe my market's different. but 4.5k whack. Plus mods like his are just donations for the next owner. I'd consider driving it as a fun but practical yet disposable work/airport car if it was priced right. Some VAG's (yep, even Audis) are capable, long lasting reliable cars despite what the haters preach. I can't lie I've done the same as this guy: I had a decently clean 4 Runner V8 with about the same miles- I put it up for sale around the same price as the lower mile examples. I heard crickets chirp until I dropped the price. Folks just don't want NYC cab miles.
  • Max So GM will be making TESLAS in the future. YEA They really shouldn’t be taking cues from Elon musk. Tesla is just about to be over.
  • Malcolm It's not that commenters attack Tesla, musk has brought it on the company. The delivery of the first semi was half loaded in 70 degree weather hauling potato chips for frito lay. No company underutilizes their loads like this. Musk shouted at the world "look at us". Freightliners e-cascads has been delivering loads for 6-8 months before Tesla delivered one semi. What commenters are asking "What's the actual usable range when in say Leadville when its blowing snow and -20F outside with a full trailer?
  • Funky D I despise Google for a whole host of reasons. So why on earth would I willing spend a large amount of $ on a car that will force Google spyware on me.The only connectivity to the world I will put up with is through my phone, which at least gives me the option of turning it off or disconnecting it from the car should I choose to.No CarPlay, no sale.
  • William I think it's important to understand the factors that made GM as big as it once was and would like to be today. Let's roll back to 1965, or even before that. GM was the biggest of the Big Three. It's main competition was Ford and Chrysler, as well as it's own 5 brands competing with themselves. The import competition was all but non existent. Volkswagen was the most popular imported cars at the time. So GM had its successful 5 brands, and very little competition compared to today's market. GM was big, huge in fact. It was diversified into many other lines of business, from trains to information data processing (EDS). Again GM was huge. But being huge didn't make it better. There are many examples of GM not building the best cars they could, it's no surprise that they were building cars to maximize their profits, not to be the best built cars on the road, the closest brand to achieve that status was Cadillac. Anyone who owned a Cadillac knew it could have been a much higher level of quality than it was. It had a higher level of engineering and design features compared to it's competition. But as my Godfather used to say "how good is good?" Being as good as your competitors, isn't being as good as you could be. So, today GM does not hold 50% of the automotive market as it once did, and because of a multitude of reasons it never will again. No matter how much it improves it's quality, market value and dealer network, based on competition alone it can't have a 50% market share again. It has only 3 of its original 5 brands, and there are too many strong competitors taking pieces of the market share. So that says it's playing in a different game, therfore there's a whole new normal to use as a baseline than before. GM has to continue downsizing to fit into today's market. It can still be big, but in a different game and scale. The new normal will never be the same scale it once was as compared to the now "worlds" automotive industry. Just like how the US railroad industry had to reinvent its self to meet the changing transportation industry, and IBM has had to reinvent its self to play in the ever changing Information Technology industry it finds it's self in. IBM was once the industry leader, now it has to scale it's self down to remain in the industry it created. GM is in the same place that the railroads, IBM and other big companies like AT&T and Standard Oil have found themselves in. It seems like being the industry leader is always followed by having to reinvent it's self to just remain viable. It's part of the business cycle. GM, it's time you accept your fate, not dead, but not huge either.