By on June 21, 2019

us-capitol, public domain

Capitol Hill was the scene of some high-school drama this week after representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) reportedly refused to sit at the same table while discussing fueling regulations with the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee.

As petty as this seems, it illustrates the overall situation rather well. White House officials terminated talks with California in February, citing an inability to progress the debate. Meanwhile, CARB has been claiming the Trump administration doesn’t want to hear its case and has instead sought to strip the state of its ability to self regulate in order to pass reforms that would freeze national emissions standards at 2020 levels though 2026.

Thursday’s congressional bickering helped paint a clearer picture of what the communications breakdown looked like. 

According to Bloomberg, administration officials from the NHTSA and EPA went into Thursday’s hearings refusing to sit with California representatives. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former energy lobbyist, had also apparently emailed Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee prior to testimony from CARB Chairman Mary Nichols to say that the state had been negotiating in bad faith since day one.

Nichols, a lifelong anti-pollution campaigner, shifted blame back to Washington, telling the committee “the Trump administration has been unwilling to find a way that works” and “unilaterally decided to cut off conversations.”

From Bloomberg:

Wheeler rejected Nichols’ characterization. “Ms. Nichols was unable or unwilling to be a good-faith negotiator,” Wheeler said, insisting that California’s first counterproposal came more than 10 weeks after the Trump administration proposed changing the vehicle standards — and was just a reiteration of the existing Obama-era requirements, with only a modest change to give automakers an extra year of compliance time.

Even then, Wheeler said, it didn’t have the approval of California’s governor, the state’s attorney general or Nichols’ fellow air resources board members.

“I would state categorically that we proposed areas in which we would be willing to come to a compromise with the administration and we never were told precisely what was wrong with any of those proposals,” Nichols told lawmakers Thursday. “We were simply told that they were inadequate and we had failed to do our job by not bringing a proposal that the administration found to be acceptable.”

Automakers, parts suppliers, and the UAW have united to urge both sides to seek compromise in order to avoid litigation that might gum up the industry. However, the worst case scenario for them is to get stuck with a divided U.S. market.

It’s hard to know who to blame when everyone is crossing their arms and pointing fingers. Taking past events into account, California seems totally disinterested in compromising with the White House and has committed itself to maintaining Obama-era targets at any cost. By contrast, the Trump Administration appeared unwilling to take a wait-and-see approach and presumed CARB would never compromise — so it simply abandoned negotiations.

While Nichols has continued claiming CARB’s opposition to the EPA/NHTSA proposals have been an effort to protect public health, administration officials have hung their hat on consumer trends being at odds with increasing economy mandates and suggesting that California’s aims are largely political. As both camps are utterly opposed to each other, we don’t foresee the extending an olive branch any time soon and would not be surprised if this issue enters litigation later this year. In fact, California is already suing the EPA over the data underlying its justifications for the fuel economy rollback.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

92 Comments on “Gas War Watch: EPA and CARB Leadership Won’t Even Share the Same Table...”


  • avatar
    R Henry

    I like political logjams…they prevent the bureaucracy from making more rules.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Yes, but the CARB has its own agenda (which they are entitled to under the separate powers of the State and the Feds.)

      It bugs me that the rest of the US may be forced to comply with CA mandates, so President Trump is right not to even give the CARB the time to listen to their case.

      The CARB’s is an extreme Leftwing Treehugging Greenweenie case that advocates for the return of the non-polluting Fred Flintstone foot-powered buggy of the ‘toons.

      I hope President Trump will roll back the mandates to those of 1999. Then we can party, like it’s 1999. At least in our cars and trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        SD 328I

        Exactly whats going to happen, everyone will simply follow CARB requirements going forward, like they have been.

        This is a benefit to manufacturers actually, since the majority of the World is increasing their emissions requirements, not lowering them. Keeps everyone on the same field.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          “Exactly whats going to happen, everyone will simply follow CARB requirements going forward, like they have been. ”

          Yup, I think so too but I am hoping that President Trump will stave off implementation for as long as possible until, at some future time, another ‘crat resides in the White House.

      • 0 avatar
        James Charles

        CARB standards need to be adopted across the US to reduce costs. You can’t have a 3rd World emissiom standard for Hicksville, Highdesert County, NM. Because something might not suit you is not a reason to reject.

        How about doing something to MAGA?

        • 0 avatar
          Carrera

          Really James Charles/Big Al? You think the rest of the states have 3rd world pollution standards? I gather you haven’t been visiting too many 3rd world places.

          • 0 avatar
            CaddyDaddy

            James Charles: The sun is up, come on out of the basement. FYI: HighDesertCat does not live in New Mexico. He lives in a very well to do city in the nation’s 5th largest metro area. But you are a “low information type” bomb thrower. Next thing you know JC will be telling us how China is so far advanced of the USA.

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            No. Carrera,
            The US is ONE country and should live by a COMMON set of standards. This reduces costs to the consumer (and the same can be said for the rest of the world).

            Just because someone lives in Hicksville with a sparse population doesn’t mean they can’t conform for the good of a nation.

            HDC spruiks on and loves this Trump guy and the slogan is MAGA. America became great because of the rule of law and high standards.

            The US is the 8th least polluting country in the world, so their are 7 better.

            Why not improve instead of going backwards.

            If one looks at the direction the EU, Japan, Korea, Australia and even China are heading in with emissions the US will lag. What does this mean, less influence, less technology to export.

            Why can’t you guys see the value.

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            CaddyDaddy,
            Then he has moved.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO/JC/Big Al – How would requiring EVs “across the board” be cost effective for consumers? Never mind the added costs to automakers, including Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc, but when required to provide EVs at a loss, or $120,000 for basic EVs, remember automakers are as likely to opt out all together.

            That’s a win for who? It sounds like giant a disaster if anything.

            There would be unintended consequences all around. Consumers would simply drive older “classic” cars and trucks, including gross polluters, gas guzzlers, death traps, deleted/broken/missing emissions and safety equipment until the wheels fall off.

            Yep. Makes a whole lot of sense.

            Except killing The CARB is just a flip switch away. They won’t be missed.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            CaddyDaddy is right. I did move. Out of NM, for tax reasons, and after divesting myself of all our real estate by transferring all of it to our kids.

            The West Side of El Paso, TX, just north of UTEP, off North Mesa, is now our official domicile and permanent residence address.

            In actuality, the home of our daughter, and now also our mailing address.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Between all the work I do at Bliss and WSMR that area is like a second home to me lately @HDC. Some good restaurants in that area for sure.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Art, when we’re at Ft Bliss we enjoy eating at the Texas Roadhouse at the Main PX complex, and also the Food court in the PX complex.

            Anyone can eat there, you don’t have to be military. Federico, my former construction foreman, eats there every day with his cleaning ladies because they work at Bliss, cleaning On-Post Housing.

            Further East, along I-10, there’s Furr’s (excellent place to eat!), near Geo Dieter and Zaragosa. Always fresh, and if you want something, just tell them and they will get it from the back for you. Even desserts. Great place.

            Our daughter lives in the N. Mesa/Ressler Drive vicinity (zip 79912) and there are tons of great places there as well.

            At WSMR, I can recommend NOTHING, not even the O’Club, although the Bowling Alley has been known to custom-make pizza for us, a veggie pizza for my wife, and a pepperoni and Italian Sausage pizza for me.

            Along Mesa Drive, South to North, there are tons of small eateries catering to the UTEP crowd with decent food at decent prices. Taco Cabana comes to mind if you want to blister your mouth with their Pico de Gallo and Red Salsa. It’s an acquired taste, so be careful. Their Jalapenos comes from Old Mexico, and they are NOT the tame Hatch Chili variety.

          • 0 avatar
            tedward

            JC
            Not that I’m against environmental controls but I understand the objections to carb. When you ask if they can see the value I think you have to ask yourself what their costs are before dismissing that skepticism. Look, CA’s cost benefit analysis depends entirely on their own environmental issues (highly unique) as well as the buying power of their voting population (relatively high). Color me not shocked that their solutions see opposition in different areas of the country. Let’s be honest that a bit of this is political tribalism and ideology driven as well.

            Also, fwiw I think the carb fight perfectly illustrates why the commerce clause is as important and widely applied as it is. Again, I’m not even opposed to climate change regulation, but this is a (totally predictable) hot political mess and the manner in which carb has spread is less than ideally democratic. I’d be a-ok with the Fed standard prevailing and also being tighter for instance (knowing that would never happen).

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    They’re both wrong, and they’re both right.

    But this isn’t really about cars; it’s a proxy war over states’ rights.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Kalifornia is in de facto control of these standards, this is more an issue of the Feds challenging a very powerful state which has overstepped its bounds.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      No, the federal govermnent is supreme over national standards and interstate commerce. California was given an exemption to cover specific San Francisco bay area and Los Angeles basin atmospheric conditions, and the state’s air resources board became a statewide environmental regulator that enlisted other states to adopt its standards.

      It’s about time the federal government reasserted its authority and created a single set of motor vehicle standards for manufacturers. CARB will lose in court, but will fight for its political power all the way to SCOTUS. I’m one Californian who wants to see CARB’s authority cut down drastically – it has far exceeded its original mandate.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        When the federal government refuses to solve problems, the states step up.

        When the federal government decides to paralyze itself, as it has, California going its own way is inevitable.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Commiefornia is such a cancer.

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      And the other 14 or so states that follow CARB?

      They are going to win this one, the Feds will need to move on.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Not a legal scholar but as I understand it the states are to follow Federal laws. They clearly don’t with the concept of sanctuary states, and this generally speaking is a big problem.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          But with the sanctuary states, the solution is simple: send all the illegals to the sanctuary states.

          Which is what they’ve been doing with NM, dumping busloads of illegals downtown Las Cruces and Deming.

          Next California. Then other Blue states.

          Nothing focuses State legislators like unanticipated and unforeseen expenditures.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            @HDC,
            “But with the sanctuary states, the solution is simple: send all the illegals to the sanctuary states.”

            Please do!

            My city thrives on immigration. It’s how we get economic growth — both high skilled immigration (college professors) and low skilled immigration (people who work for a living) both benefit us.

            Our immigrants are the backbone of our economy in my city — both in knowledge work and in manufacturing. Most of the Rural Americans that I grew up with just don’t have the chops to make it here, and so they stayed home in their hollars. The rest of us scattered as fast as we could, and I ended up here. We appreciate both globally elite immigrants and unskilled immigrants here.

            Please send us some of the immigrants you don’t want! My town will be the better for it, at least once everyone settles in.

            P.S. Because this is a nerdy town, a lot of people are already bilingual. You can get by with Spanish here. Or French, or Russian, or Chinese. And, if you can’t get by with those languages, I have a retired neighbor who speaks 12 languages (mostly European/Slavic) who would love to earn a little extra money as an interpreter. We’ve got it covered.

        • 0 avatar
          SD 328I

          Then what’s all this talking about if the Feds can simply say no? Why are their States to begin with if the Feds overrule them?

          Doesn’t sound so simply.

          If CARB states decide to only sell cars that meet CARB standards, who is going to stop them? How are they going to stop them? National Guard at dealerships? Oh wait, they also work for the state and Feds. That last part was a joke, but you get my meaning.

          Either way, sounds like lawsuits forever here.

    • 0 avatar
      stuart

      California is still subject to the Federal Clean Air Act. As I understand it, CA is required to make its air clean, even in Los Angeles. The Federal act specifies only desired end (clean air), not the means to get there.

      CA’s response was CARB and its regulations. Like them or not, CARB apparently has science to back up every one of their mandates. You can quibble with their priorities (e.g. should we focus first on diesel trucks first? recreational vehicles? lawnmowers? reformulated gasoline?), but it’s hard to argue with their science, and their results. I remember smog in the Silicon Valley in the late 1970s, and it’s obvious the air has improved.

      Southern California still doesn’t meet the Federal requirements for clean air, ergo CA+CARB must force more changes. Nobody likes this, but the alternative (bad air) is worse.

      Here’s a map of the smoggy areas around the US:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Counties_Designated_%22Nonattainment%22_for_the_National_Ambient_Air_Quality_Standards_(NAAQS).svg

      What’s sad about this is the incidental harm to other states. For example, South Dakota already has clean air; they don’t need more expensive pollution controls, higher MPGs, electric vehicles, whatever, to clean up their already-clean air.

      But it’s a mistake to blame CA+CARB for this mess. I guess the blame should go to Southern California for having too many cars.

    • 0 avatar
      James Charles

      EB,
      Do you know what Communism is? I fear for the US when there are so many illiterates.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Commiefornia used to be … their governor once said

      The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

      • 0 avatar
        James Charles

        slavuta,
        Your comment has nothing to do with Communism.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          James Charles
          Yes it is. Communism means all government and nothing private

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            Slavuta,
            You display an elementary comprehension of Communism.

            Private ownership and democratic elections as the US has is nowhere’s near Communism or Socialism.

            Laws and regulation is apart of free nations and non free nations.

            Even the family unit operates within “laws” and “regulations”.

            I really think you have it all assup.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          you really consider US elections a democratic process? I feel more like shopping

  • avatar
    SD 328I

    So State Rights only matter if it’s a red state?

    Look, California can do what it wants here, and looks like they are going to.

    Since CARB and the other 14 or so states that follow it make up 40% of new cars sales and 50% of the profit margin, this pretty much means all manufacturers will simply continue to make all cars follow CARB standards.

    State rights is going to win this due to economic power of these large CARB states.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      States rights matter when they’re not explicitly excluded by the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. CARB’s independently established emissions standards are a clear violation of the ban on restrictions on interstate commerce. They have an exception. It can be repealed, which would right an egregious past wrong.

      • 0 avatar
        SD 328I

        Egregious past wrong?

        A lot of the efficiencies we have today, more power with less fuel is because of CARB.

        You really want to go back to the days of 14 mpg trucks? I’m happy my truck gets over 21 mpg while being much more powerful than my old V8 was.

        I don’t see these lawsuits regarding their exceptions ending soon or the pure economic leverage that CARB states have losing to the Fed.

        Almost all manufacturers are now supporting CARB and keeping current standards.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          When did the sheep officially get into bed with global corporations?

          CARB has done nothing for fuel efficiency. Most ‘California emission’ vehicle have worse fuel economy than ones built to federal regulations because of their tighter emissions standards. CAFE was always federal policy, and it still didn’t actually help energy efficiency. Mostly, it was the same microprocessor revolution that changed every consumer product. Emissions standards were completely at odds with reducing fuel consumption until advancements were made in engine management that would have occurred anyway because of microprocessors.

          • 0 avatar
            SD 328I

            Since when was this? Isn’t all cars built in the last decade or so been 50 state legal.

            So you are talking about much older cars before the recent push of power and efficiency right?

          • 0 avatar
            mtunofun1

            This statement is wrong. If you ever have the opportunity, call your local parts store for a catalytic converter. They will ask you if you need a 49 state or a CARB compliant part. Also, cars sold in CA are ULEV or PZEV vehicles. It’s why cars in CA are 3-4 HP less then cars sold elsewhere.

            Lung related maladies are much larger in CA than elsewhere. As much as I support your right to buy a 9mpg brodozer, I also have a right to have healthy lungs.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            We aren’t talking about 9MPG “brodozers” though. CAFE also doesn’t do much about massive HD brodozers in general because of its weight exemptions. It does put the highest compliance burden on passenger cars though. From 2012 to 2025 full-size trucks need a 35% efficiency increase while compact cars needed a 70% increase. In CAFEland a truck getting 25MPG is somehow better for the environment versus a 32mpg sedan. It is bad legislation from top to bottom.

            Carbon emissions also don’t cause smog in the first place. Your lungs will see much more harm from an uncorked 40mpg diesel car versus a modern 20MPG port-injected vehicle.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          The initial regulations forced American automakers to adopt technology that imports were already using. That achieved the desired result, reducing pollution to a level that could be cleaned up by natural forces.

          Environmentalists just want ever more stringent standards regardless of cost. The aim is more political than environmental, to eliminate cars and force people to use mass transit. That’s not environmentalism, that’s social engineering.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        What “restrictions on interstate commerce” are imposed by CARB? California isn’t telling Ford not to sell a 14MPG fleet in Michigan or Georgia, it’s just telling Californians what they’re allowed to buy in their state. If manufacturers decide to sell a single model nationwide based on the higher standard, that’s not California’s fault.

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          A state preventing its residents from buying goods from other states is definitely restricting interstate commerce.

          That’s 1st year Con-law stuff.

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            TMA1,
            You would be correct if you couldn’t buy the same products in other States. But this isn’t occurring.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            California isn’t preventing its residents from buying goods from other states; it’s preventing a certain goods from being sold or registered in California.

            So, for example, unpasteurized milk is banned in New Jersey but legal in New York. Is this unconstitutional?

          • 0 avatar
            SoCalMikester

            there are a lot of things that are sold in some states or even areas/counties but banned in others. 2 stroke engines, certain parts cleaning chemicals, fireworks, alcoholic beverages (everything from everclear to certain ABV beers), chinchillas, replacement catalytic converters, certain pesticides…

            might want to take that “1st year con-law stuff” class again.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            SCM,

            You might want to consider the difference between outright bans of products and states enacting regulations that say you can’t sell your 2-stroke outboards here, but you can sell ones that have our state’s sticker and approval. That’s a direct violation of the constitution, whether it goes on or it doesn’t. You either like and deserve the constitution or a two-state solution is the best anyone can hope for who doesn’t want millions of deaths on their hands.

      • 0 avatar
        jrhmobile

        No Todd, they are not.

        California is establishing standards for cars sold within the state of California. The other 13 states have established standards for cars sold in their own states, mirroring the standards for cars within California. Which is why CARB is telling Trump Administration they can take the high, hard one.

        There is no restriction on interstate commerce here. Anybody can sell new cars in the state of California if they conform to state emissions regulation. Same applies for the 13 states who have each, independently, adopted CARB standards for new cars sold within their own state borders.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Can a California resident buy a car new from outside of California (a non CARB state), return to CA, and register it. If no, then there could be an issue.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Back when there were two standards, you could not avoid CA emissions by buying a non CA compliant car “out of state” and simply registering it in CA.

            If California get its way, why would they let you slide today?

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          You guys are very comfortable dissembling. Your fellow travelers have invoked the interstate commerce clause to regulate goods that are both grown and consumed on the same property. Yet here you are pretending that the interstate commerce clause doesn’t do exactly what it was intended to do, which is to prevent states from making rules restricting the free trade of goods between states. You’ve been brainwashed into being your own worst enemies.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            You misunderstand the issue. It’s not whether Congress _could_ regulate auto sales; it obviously can and does. The question is whether a state can _also_ regulate them without running afoul of the Constitution, and again, states can and do. Unless Congress preempts state action on an area it’s allowed to regulate, states are free to pass their own laws as well, and in the Clean Air Act Congress explicitly allowed California to obtain a waiver allowing it to impose its own, higher standards. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            The US Constitution exists to determine what actions of congress and states are legal. The congress cannot grant an exemption to the constitution except via an amendment to the constitution. You’re advocating abandoning the principle of a government of laws in favor of a government of corrupt people. There’s nothing left to say.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            What “exemption to the Constitution” are you referring to? What part of the Constitution says that a state can’t regulate the sale or registration of a product in said state?

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Stop playing selectively mindless. A product made in Michigan and sold in California is subject to the commerce clause; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. It was created to stop the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Progressives have expanded it to allow power abuses by the federal government over time, but that doesn’t mean it has forfeited its legitimate purpose. What California is doing is the letter and the spirit of violating the constitution. Progressives in congress can’t make that legal until they have the numbers to eliminate the constitution’s protections of American people. Hopefully, the 2nd Amendment will realize its potential by then.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            So Michigan is violating the Commerce Clause by banning the sale of raw milk that’s legal in California?

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Is the milk from California? Then it would certainly be a violation of the commerce clause. Is it Michigan milk? Then it shouldn’t be, but progressive activist judges have basically said that the feds can regulate anything for any reason. That’s what happens when you pretend you don’t understand the constitution.

  • avatar
    James Charles

    It seems to me a lot of what appears simple to solve problems in the US are near on impossible. Disfunction.

    I’m no way supporting lower emission standards of the vehicle manufacturers and the Trump flat earthers. Trump and his flat earth supporters will reduce emission standards that are uncompatable with the rest of the modern world. Global emission stands are very close to being harmonised, which helps US vehicle manufacturers produce exportable product.

    I believe CARB standards should be the standard accepted by the EPA and the Trump. If the US doesn’t accept CARB standards the manufacturers will need to catch up to other more advanced countries. Also, emission standards need to be set across the whole US to suit and reduce emissions in highly congested urban areas. Those whole live in areas where the impact of pollution less due to less activity must realise this. Also most of these people who live in less congested areas are reliant on the big urban centres for their standard of living.

    It seems to me many in the US are so selfish they don’t see what side their bread is buttered on.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAF0 – What specific “…rest of the modern world…”, and “…other more advanced…” countries have emissions standards “compatible” with CARB demands? Name at least one.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      BAFO was a diesel apostle up until recently. He can’t name 1 I bet.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        It’s a hard time to be a globalist puppet. The ground shifts beneath them so quickly that they’re utterly dependent on their strings.

        • 0 avatar
          James Charles

          There is much shift in the US and disruption emanating from the US around the globe.

          Please, don’t view disruption as “shifting” because you are pulling your pud.

          The rest of the world still operates as normal with very little to no shift. Its the US shifting and pretty much most adjust and give less back to the US. This is bad for the US.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            The rest of the world is stagnant.

            America is the most dynamic nation on this planet and that’s just ONE reason why so many people want to come to America, any which way they can.

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            Syria is very dynamic and has been for a while.

            Thr US is not the most dynamic country in the world. WTF HDC!

            There are multiple countries that are more dynamic.

            Don’t confuse turmoil and disruption for dynanamic.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      You are fooling no one, BAFO

      • 0 avatar
        The_Guru

        BAFO, whats the point? The only thing you do is continuously bag on the USA. Maybe for every story that comes out from now on I’ll take it as a reason to crap all over Australia. Sound fun? We cant start with the hategroups…

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          It sounds like He was one of the illegal aliens rounded up by ICE and deported. That’s why he’s upset with the US.

          Reminds me of this one deported guy the news people interviewed in Tijuana who said he hated the US, but he’s going to try to illegally enter the US again because his illegal alien girlfriend is pregnant in Los Angeles and he needs a job to support her.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    The last time we had this much disagreement on states’ rights vs. federalism, was probably around April 1861. But seriously, the California exemption need to end. The conditions that called for it are long gone. The dirty, polluting vehicles of the 60’s and 70’s have been off the road for decades now, and every time I am in LA the skies are sunny and blue.

    Maybe the CARB folks could look for work in Beijing or Shanghai. There are times when the smog is so thick there I can’t see across to the other side of the street. And they may find it more politically appealing as well.

    • 0 avatar
      mtunofun1

      Not true. I live in northern CA. You used to be able to see the Sierras clearly from Solano County (midpoint between Sac and SF). Now you can barely see a sillhouette of the mountains from Sacramento. There are millions of cars in CA.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “There are millions of cars in CA.”

        Yes there are, and people who can afford to, buy the non-polluting EVs and newer ICE vehicles that meet the current standards.

        The polluters tend to be the cars driven/owned by the less fortunate, or the illegal aliens, or the homeless.

        During my last trip to CA I saw a huge number of old, old cars still being driven, many of them belching blue and black smoke from their tailpipe.

        And as someone who was born in Huntington Beach, and remember the smog days quite vividly, the answer is to take the old and polluting cars off the road.

        If CA can afford to give free health care to illegal aliens, they are able to give everyone who needs a car a non-polluting EV, a free cellphone, and a free education as well.

  • avatar
    Carrera

    The tail has been wagging the dog for way too long. It needs to stop.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The CARB is no different than organized crime at this point. The Feds have no choice but to squash The CARB tyrants. .

  • avatar

    Why anyone cares about what CARB wants? We Californians do not want ICE cars thats it, like you it or not. I would personally petition our state Government to outlaw gas powered cars in general ASAP. You will not believe how quickly all problems related to EV infrastructure will be solved and how fast the whole population will adopt electric cars.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “We Californians do not want ICE cars”

      That’s not true. There are more ICE vehicles in CA than there are EVs, BEVs, and Hybrids, combined.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @hdc: What they want and what they have are two different things. So you can’t say that what ILO said isn’t true. I’m sure there are a lot of people that want EVs, but just can’t get one yet for various reasons. I don’t have an Embraer Phenom 300 sitting in the hangar now, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want one.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          More Californians want their daily heroin fixes than want EVs. It’s hard to tell which group is more self destructive.

        • 0 avatar

          If one day state Government makes ICE car registration illegal Californians will embrace EVs very fast wholeheartedly no matter how much they cost.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            There are resilient groups of Californians that the misanthropes in Sacramento are ignoring at their own peril. There are people in agriculture and the desert who can make a smooth transition to living through a disruptive event that will starve every EV supporter on the coast, assuming medieval diseases sponsored by globalists don’t kill off the blue cities first.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        mcs, you’re right. I should have chosen my words more carefully.

        Right now I WANT to have a vehicle to call my own, since I blew up the 440 HEMI in our motorhome. Instead, I’m driving my old 2011 Tundra I sold to my son in 2016, and which has served as the go-fer truck driven by his hired hands for all this time.

        And yeah, I’ve had to get used to the smell of fermented horse dung and petrified pieces of cow patties in the cab, but all that is relative. I NEED transportation and if I need to go, I need to go right now!

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      So what. I want a freaking Space Shuttle.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Mary Nichols is the same ballbuster terrorizing the California trucking industry and those trucking companies and operators conducting business in CA with pre-emissions diesel trucks.

    The CARB/Mary employ gangster tactics, totally unconstitutional, and they lose in court every time.

    Clearly they cannot ban trucks from California that don’t have the latest emissions, setting a schedule to ban older trucks first.

    Of course the CARB/Mary extend each of the deadlines at the very last minute to avoid lawsuits, meaning the whole charade is just a scare tactic.

    Still companies and owner-operators comply at terrific expense, under duress, fear, etc, or simply go out of business, thinking the threats of impounding trucks are “real”.

    It’s bullying by the CARB/Mary Nichols, plain and simple, and crossing into organized crime territory.

    The CARB needs to be extinguished for a multitude of reasons, if not crimes and corruption.

    This crap with CAFE/Obama rules isn’t about cleaner air. Follow the money.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      “Follow the money.”

      The irony, it burns (combusts).

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html

      BTW, so far Trump’s deregulatory agenda is 3-for-42 in the courts. Please tell us more about gangster tactics, totally unconstitutional, that lose in court every time.

      https://policyintegrity.org/deregulation-roundup

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Say just bought a new 2019 F-150 at $58K. OK. Then a year later, California informs you it’s not 2020 CAFE compliant, you must make it 40+ MPG by a given deadline, or take it off the road or you will be fined and your truck impounded!

        Well that’s exactly how California is tackling existing commercial trucks built *before* full diesel emissions, including “out of state” trucks doing business in CA.

        Never mind that CA targeted trucks now have diminished value. Yet the “non compliant” trucks are completely and legally “grandfathered in”.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Eventually ICE vehicles could disappear but that will take many many more years. It is not only the infrastructure but the cost, range, and size of the batteries. Lower cost along with better battery technology will increase the number of electric vehicles. Agree with some of the comments that increasing the number of newer vehicles and getting the older polluting vehicles off the road is a better way of addressing pollution. Having more affordable used and newer vehicles will help toward getting cleaner air. Higher new car and used car prices give owners more reason to hold onto their vehicles and higher prices make newer cleaner cars less affordable to the poor. The first thing that should be done is to extend the deadline for the Obama Era standards. Any standards should be uniform among the developed countries and auto companies should be a part of those standards with actual input from engineers that work for auto companies. Uniform standards make it more affordable for automobile companies to spread the costs over all their products. As a stop gap measure more vehicles should have some form of hybrid system whether it be a full or mild system. Part of the carbon credit system should allow car manufacturers to earn credits by buying older polluting vehicles and scrapping them along with using alternate sources of energy and reducing waste. Many manufacturers already are using zero waste and include some form of alternate energy sources. Give the auto manufacturers credit toward existing zero waste and alternate sources and allow them to earn extra credit for future improvements.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, at our current rate of usage, we have over 200 years of known oil reserves left. And we don’t know what we don’t know about undiscovered oil reserves at this juncture.

      I wouldn’t write off the ICE just yet.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        …and when (if) the oil runs out, we have unlimited nuclear to provide unlimited electricity, so there is no reason to worry or to subsidize “alternative” anything.

  • avatar
    Robbie

    Can’t we agree that different states may need different pollution laws?

    If you have ever climbed a mountain near LA on a day without wind and watched the pollution fog, it starts to become quite sensible that in that area, cars ideally should be less polluting.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesertcat–Did I say anything about oil reserves? The concern about ICE vehicles is less about the amount of oil reserves the US has and more about smog and greenhouse gases. Also I didn’t say that ICE was disappearing anytime soon. I don’t see ICE lasting forever but in the next 20 or more years there could be a lot less of them. Nothing last forever. We as a country have from 200 to 1,000 years of coal but we are using less coal because of greenhouse gases and the price of natural gas is much less and it is cleaner. Before we had electricity people used whale oil and then kerosene. Before computers became everyday most accounting and record keeping was done manually in ledgers and journals. How many of us want to go back to that or even back to using whale oil or kerosene for everyday lighting (maybe in a Coleman lantern when we go camping). I am not opposed to electric vehicles but I am not going to buy one anytime soon because of the expense, battery technology, and lack of infrastructure but those things could eventually change. I am not anti-technology but neither am I one that has to be the first one to try it. I also believe that the only way to do something about the environment is not to fight about it but have business, government, and people work together.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, my point was that as long as there is plenty of dino juice, we’ll continue to have ICE. If ever I buy another pickup truck, it WILL have the biggest engine in it I can get, or I will step up to the next higher class, like 3/4-ton or 1-ton.

      The difficulty for the environmental movement in North America is that North America IS NOT the worst polluter on the planet.

      That would be Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, Russia and SOME of the former USSR states. Have you seen pics of WHAT they’re burning off in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, et al?

      And as far as climate change is concerned, it has been going on for more than 4.5BILLION years, since the day this planet was formed. So it is hard to be passionate about it.

      I do believe however that America should utilize ALL forms of energy generation. The problem for many Americans is that the utility companies started jacking up what they charge the consumers loooooooooooooong before any solar and wind farms began producing. In many cases these farms are shut-off because there’s no need for their output.

      This turned a lot of Americans, me included, against this whole rip-off venture that fleeces the consumers BEFORE they receive product.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @thelaine–Why do we have to use just nuclear, why not use nuclear, natural gas, methane gas, wind, and solar wherever it is the most cost effective and practical. With all those sources we as a country would have no shortages and over we long run we would have more stable energy prices. Think of how much methane gas that is generated from landfills and sewage plants and if we managed to use a fraction of it to generate electricity. Just methane gas alone would satisfy much of our energy needs. Don’t just narrow our sources of energy to just a few.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesertcat–I am not against ICE vehicles but with technology everything eventually becomes outdated. I don’t have to have a big V8 to make me happy but I do want a comfort and reliable vehicle that gets me where I want to go. I have had several V8 vehicles and I enjoyed them the last one was 17 1/2 years ago. Maybe some of the reason a car or truck is not the most important thing in my life is that I work at home 4 days a week and the 1 day a week that I commute the bus takes me within a block of my office and my employer pays for it–I don’t have to pay $10 a day to park and put up with the hassle of rush hour driving which I did for years. I also don’t put 15k to 20k like I use to on my vehicles every year which now is more like 3k to 4k a year which has allowed me to keep a vehicle for much longer like my 99 S-10 for over 20 years with 118k miles. I do like some of the extra comforts that my other 2 vehicles have like cruise control and heated leather seats with very comfortable rides. I only have myself and my wife so I am not that interested in impressing anyone especially at the age of 67 I don’t really care. I could live with an electric vehicle if I didn’t have to worry about where and how often I needed to charge batteries. For now the ICE vehicles work for me and I keep my vehicles so long that I just as soon save my money for retirement. I believe the best way to work on anything is not to be so hung up on a position and to work toward finding a solution that benefits everyone. I realize that we live in a time where seeking middle ground is unpopular in that you are either extremely Right or extremely Left and to sit down and come to a middle ground is seen as a weakness. I have been to Los Angeles many times and I see where smog is a real issue and yes you are correct that many of the poor drive the older polluting vehicles. Los Angeles, New York City, Houston, and Chicago are more affected by smog than much smaller metropolitan areas and rural areas.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, I understand. I grew up in Southern California, mostly from Huntington Beach south all the way to Imperial Beach in San Diego, at one time or another. So I have seen the changes that have taken place in the automotive world as well as the smog of the real world.

      And you are right, the automotive relics of the past have been supplanted by the current modern conveyances we choose to drive.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • MrIcky: .2 seconds unloaded is pretty meaningless to me. Getting up to speed to enter a freeway with a trailer...
  • Corey Lewis: ToddAtlas is right on the X1/9 timeline. Hmm.
  • Luke42: @HDC, “But with the sanctuary states, the solution is simple: send all the illegals to the sanctuary...
  • ponchoman49: Timing chains haven’t been an issue now since around 2011-2012 or 5-6 years ago. I have owned...
  • DenverMike: For ease of climbing grades, you can always go more aggressive on gearing, but you’ll pay more at...

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