By on September 26, 2019

California has gained additional support from two Democratic governors in the gas war. On Tuesday, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced her state would adopt new tailpipe greenhouse gas and zero-emission vehicle requirements starting in the 2022 model year. The following day, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz directed his state to do the same.

Both of the plans embrace Californian standards already adopted by 13 other states hoping to aggressively curb vehicle emissions and promote the sale of electric cars. It also expresses support for the state after the Trump administration announced it would take for steps to eliminate California’s ability to self-regulate fleetwide greenhouse gas emissions.

“It’s pretty obvious today amongst all chaos in the national news that we can’t count on Washington to lead, so Minnesota needs to,” said Walz. 

According to Bloomberg, Minnesota and New Mexico earned praise from environmental advocates who disapprove of the federal government’s attempt to rein in California’s authority to set standards that are more stringent than those proposed by Washington.

“While the Trump administration is working to stall clean car standards, a growing number of states are stepping up and showing they want to protect their air and curtail the largest source of carbon pollution,” Luke Tonachel, director for clean cars and fuels at the Natural Resources Defense Council, stated.

Automakers, which have attempted to keep as many friends in the gas war as possible, continue hoping for a national standard. Unfortunately, the situation now looks to be decided by a prolonged legal battle that could end with a Supreme Court decision.

From Bloomberg:

Automakers warn that new rules are only part of the puzzle when it comes to electric cars. States must also offer incentives such as tax credits for purchasing the vehicles, carpool-lane privileges and vehicle charger infrastructure, Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a statement.

If states are going to adopt the California zero emission vehicle mandate, they “would need to make a massive investment to create the necessary infrastructure and complementary policies to make the program work,” he said.

[Image: Siripatv/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

24 Comments on “Gas War: More Backup Arrives for California...”


  • avatar
    Jon

    Cue the Trumpers and antiTrumpers that ruined the comment section on an article a few days ago. I avoided that article the rest of the day because the comments were so annoying.

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    This same article over and over again?

    Maybe less politics here, it seems like I’m reading the DailyKos.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      And Red State, all at the same time.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Crossovers with turbo 4s, UAW/auto fighting, and musical chairs of designers in the auto industry don’t attract readers. Unfortunately the auto industry is in a malaise period as bad or worse than the late 70s/80s, we have FCA, full size trucks, and very little in between to get interested in today.

      So that leaves the question, what does bring the clicks (money)? Politics.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        Boy is that ever right. We are in MEGA MALAISE era II as far as I’m concerned. And isn’t it funny how a certain political party keeps claiming the world is in turmoil and soon coming to an end the past 45 plus years yet we are still here with cars that have the lowest pollution standards they ever had and the climate continues to change like it has the past billions of years warming, cooling, warming, cooling etc etc. Now air quality is for sure a thing along with water pollution. Yet here they are constantly attacking cars but totally ignoring planes, cargo vessels and factories. And lets not forget China and India who are contributing way more to air pollution. Its all an agenda and always has been!

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Yeaaaah….200 HP subcompacts, 2 second 0-60 electrics, 700+ horsepower pony cars, ant trucks with thousand+ ft lb or torque and 7+ liter v8s OR twin turbos on tap. But yeah, just like the days of 120 HP small blocks and bodies that started rusting out when they left the factory. GTFOH.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “700+ horsepower pony cars, ant trucks with thousand+ ft lb or torque and 7+ liter v8s OR twin turbos on tap”

            We have the Charger and Challenger, great cars, showing some age but still wear it well. Camaro is about unusable to a Human of my height. Can’t get excited about the Mustang, the manual trans is crap and I’m not big on its small engine, though it sounds fantastic and I can’t deny that. Love the C7, and there’s deals to be had. Elsewhere?? maybe Jeep for still selling a BOF SUV with solid axles in a showroom beside a V8 crossover?

            We have exactly one (1) vehicle in 2019 in a non-lux passenger vehicle with a 7l+ engine, so GTFO with that mess.

            Why would I want a turbo? I don’t live in communist China I don’t need a compliance engine, leave them in the tractors where they belong. We had a rear drive V8 compact in the 70s and your excited about a turbo 4 in a compact? It’s 2019 we shouldn’t be going backwards.

            The market availability of <$40 or even <$50k vehicles that aren’t crossovers or lame economy cars is withering away. We can talk about the 15-18 vehicles of 150 or so available under <$50k that go against the grain of where automakers are taking us, but the 15-18 vehicles still available that actually get people excited aren’t enough to have a pattern. There were still *some* interesting cars available in the 70s-80s, but just as today, the majority of availability is a heaping of trash.

  • avatar
    Fliggin_De_Fluge

    I guess she could get a white(OMG RACIST!) board, go in front of a camera and blatantly lie like one of her CA comrades did today, because that totally worked out for him. LMFAO what a farce.

  • avatar

    People let’s stop the Gas war! Don’t be fool say “NO” to war machine. Be smart don’t click that subject no more!

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I *double dog dare* you to run a piece on the TRUTH of what is happening. This site used to be a place where deep analysis was posted no matter the slant.

    TLDR: the Bush administration EPA denied the waiver and exactly one day after his inauguration on Jan 21 President Obama was sent a letter by Gov Schwarzenegger to ask for his help in reconsidering the waiver application. On Jan 26, 2009, the President signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the EPA to determine if the denial of the waiver based on California’s application was appropriate in light of the Clean Air Act (hint: it was).

    Literally one day in office the new president, a DEMOCRAT, was asked to intervene on behalf of the State of California over a Federal issue and did so five days later. HOW IS THIS FACT NOT DOCUMENTED?

    “On July 8, 2009, EPA granted a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year.

    The California Air Resources Board originally requested this waiver in December 2005. That request was denied by EPA on March 6, 2008. Early this year, the California Air Resources Board requested that EPA reconsider its waiver denial. Then, on January 26, 2009, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum, directing EPA to assess whether denial of the waiver based on California’s application was appropriate in light of the Clean Air Act.”

    https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/california-greenhouse-gas-waiver-request

    “In this case, California first requested that EPA waive preemption for its new motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards on December 21, 2005 … On March 6, 2008, after an administrative process that included two public hearings and a written comment period, EPA published its final decision denying California’s request. EPA’s waiver denial was based on the second waiver criterion, with ***EPA determining that California did not need its greenhouse gas standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions***. EPA did not address the other two waiver criteria.”

    BOOM exactly what I argued here:

    thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/09/gas-war-trump-confirms-u-s-will-revoke-california-fuel-waiver/#comment-9805794

    “After a thorough evaluation of the record, I am withdrawing EPA’s March 6, 2008 Denial and have determined that the most appropriate action in response to California’s greenhouse gas waiver request is to grant that request. I have determined that the ***waiver opponents have not met their burden of proof in order for me to deny the waiver*** under any of the three criteria in section 209(b)(1). The findings I have made concerning each of the criteria are summarized below.”

    https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173-16137

    In other words, waiver opponents did not show: “California does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or” which was the basis of DENIAL by the Bush Administration. If in the first place the Bush Administration had arguments to show it was right in denial, why and how these arguments were not presented the second time around is indeed fascinating. Suddenly they did not meet the burden of proof?

    “EPA’s March 6, 2008 Denial was based on a finding that California did not need its GHG standards for new motor vehicles to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. Because this finding was sufficient to deny California’s waiver request, the Administrator found it unnecessary to determine whether the criteria for denial of a waiver under sections 209(b)(1)(A) and (C) had been met.”

    So based on a “finding” the REPUBLICAN Bush Administration EPA found it unnecessary to determine if the waiver criteria is met for (A) and (C) since (B) was not met. But then comes along the DEMOCRAT Obama Administration EPA and wow suddenly waiver opponents did not meet the burden of proof. I guess the previous “finding” somehow stopped mattering? AMAZING HOW THAT WORKS.

    “previous waiver decisions, EPA has stated that Congress intended EPA’s review of California’s decision-making be narrow. This has led EPA to reject arguments that are not specified in the statute as grounds for denying a waiver:”

    Silly Congress, you bein’ too narrow! Don’t you know Kalifornia can argue things which ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE. Think about that for a moment.

    “The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly be made. ***The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in air quality*** not commensurate with its cost or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power ***is not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209***, so long as ***the California requirement is consistent with section 202(a)*** and is more stringent than applicable Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further reduction in air pollution in California. ”

    So if any improvement, or NO improvement, occurs it doesn’t matter because its not pertinent don’tcha know. Let’s just shhhh about section B which was the basis of denial due to the “finding”, remember? Oops, that doesn’t matter anymore I guess? Hmmmm.

    In summary, this whole fiasco boils down to one thing and I just proved it: POLITICS, or more specifically the POLITICS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

    The State of California already had its own emissions program and it was already CODIFIED IN FEDERAL LAW – no one tried to interfere with it. This is California PUSHING ITS POLITICS on the rest of the Union which was initially rejected by a REPUBLICAN administration.

    Y U NO MENTION THIS?

    Here is the Federal law in question:

    “(2) Other nonroad engines or vehicles
    (A) In the case of any nonroad vehicles or engines other than those referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), the Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, authorize California to adopt and enforce standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from such vehicles or engines if California determines that California standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such authorization shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—

    (i) the determination of California is arbitrary and capricious,

    (ii) California does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or

    (iii) California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with this section.”

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap85-subchapII-partA-sec7543.htm

  • avatar
    RHD

    If the people will lead, the leaders will follow.
    This planet is on its way to being royally effed up for our children and grandchildren. It doesn’t matter what Joe Republican says, or types online, that’s a blatantly obvious fact.
    Our current leadership is doing everything bass ackwards, and doesn’t give a fly’s turd about the little guy or his family.

    • 0 avatar
      2manycars

      The only thing “blatantly obvious” fact in your screed is that you have been brainwashed by the Climate Cult and made into one of their useful idiots.

      The planet is not on its way to being “effed up”, at least not by anything that we are doing. Climate change is a natural and ongoing phenomenon that has been made into the boogeyman by greedy, power-hungry sociopaths running corrupt, criminal governments.

      There is nothing we can do about climate change other than adapting to it. (You’re sure as hell not going to control the earth’s climate by driving electric cars.)

      President Trump is a breath of fresh air. It is more imperative than ever to see that he wins in 2020 and that the increasingly insane Democrat party is kept out of power.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “Don’t think what they think, that’s brainwashing! Think what WE think instead!!”

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @2many: yes the governments are greed, not the corporations.
        And yes we should not believe what over 90% of those with specialized education and training in the applicable sciences say. We should instead believe what we read in alternative internet sites.

        Maybe we humans deserve to become extinct.

    • 0 avatar
      Sceptic

      Oh God, the end of the world is coming! Dig your hole to hide. Think of the children!
      Seriously? This passes as discussion here?

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Forget the planet, I’m sure there are some Californians who’d like to be able to walk down their neighborhood sidewalks without stepping on human feces or used needles. Meanwhile, California wants to provide free health care for illegals, but not citizens. Skewed priorities. Address the local issues first, then worry about the planet.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      The world may in fact end tomorrow, but I wasn’t born yesterday.

  • avatar
    Dilrod

    Thank you for reporting on my state of Minnesota, I hadn’t seen this in the local news.

    The Twin Cities metro has pretty good public transportation and is crisscrossed with bike lanes, despite the fact they are covered in ice for a good chunk of the year, used only by a few intrepid souls with fat tire bikes. On the other hand, outstate Minnesota will not be happy about this.

    Can’t wait to see what happens next.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    “World to end tomorrow. Women and minorities hardest hit.”

  • avatar

    I love hypocrisy on this board – everybody are horrified about climate change and predict end of the world in 11 years and then in the next thread turn around and bash Tesla and wish it to die excruciating death.

  • avatar

    I love hypocrisy on this board – everybody are horrified about climate change and predict end of the world in 11 years and then in the next thread turn around and bash Tesla and wish it to die excruciating death.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    In the news…Governer of Minnesota who was elected to lead his state is making a big deal out of the fact he has to lead his state. Details at 11.

    Seriously, politicians are the laziest among us. We talk about welfare and what not but these clowns are the true societal leeches. Yes you were elected to make decisions. If this is the decision your voters want, why are you shirking your responsibility to the federal government?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dal20402: I’ve had plenty of Pentastar cars before that didn’t have this particular issue, but it is...
  • dal20402: Kind of the opposite. She doesn’t like to draw attention and a big loud red shouty car with scoops...
  • akear: From what I have been reading the strike may save those cars. The truth is GM cars are much better than their...
  • danio3834: I’ve had ’13, ’15 and ’17 R/Ts. Good, practical, fun cars for the money. No issues...
  • SaulTigh: I was in middle school when these came out, and several teachers immediately signed on the dotted line. I...

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