By on September 18, 2019

While a considerable portion of Donald Trump’s Twitter announcements aren’t worth paying much attention to, he does occasionally slip some actual information in there. This week, the nugget was the confirmation that his administration intends to revoke California’s federal waiver on emissions — stripping the state of its ability to self-regulate and readying America for the gas war’s main event.

The Environmental Protection Agency was already known to be making preparations to do exactly this, but the president’s Wednesday posting made things crystal clear. “The Trump Administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER,” he wrote. 

For automakers, splitting the U.S. market is a nonstarter. Even those that voluntarily supported California’s revised standards did so under the assumption that it was a better alternative to endless litigation (too late) that could stymie product planning for years. The bulk of the automotive industry has suggested that dividing America would saddle the industry with a host of new issues, potentially raising the cost of production by adding unnecessary complexity to the process.

Trump’s claim that automakers not forced to adhere to extremely strict fueling regulations could produce vehicles more cheaply also holds some weight. But it’s not a certainty, what with so many brands operating globally, and the White House’s safety suggestions are rather nebulous.

The theory is that super-efficient automobiles will have to engage in a major weight loss program to achieve the kind of gas mileage California wants, leaving them vulnerable to older, larger vehicles in the event of an accident. While size does matter in a crash, there’s no reason to presume the safety of automobiles will diminish as they become more energy efficient. Safety tech will also continue to evolve, likely nullifying any safety issues relating to size disparities. Small cars will continue to be at a disadvantage against larger automobiles, but no more so than their present-day counterparts.

There are reasons to believe that backing California could be detrimental to the economy, however. China and Europe have both pursued aggressive emission mandates for automobiles and they’re believed to have negatively impacted car sales. While the issue would be hotly debated in the EU, China’s failures are undeniable. Overzealous regulations have spooked consumers and left dealers uncertain as to the legality of older vehicles. The nation also began weening the industry off EV subsidies this year. As a result, plug-in sales started to decline in July as prices began to go up. Negative growth has been the norm since then, contributing to China’s already crippled auto market — which has been in perpetual decline since the summer of 2018.

“This will lead to more production because of this pricing and safety advantage, and also due to the fact that older, highly polluting cars, will be replaced by new, extremely environmentally friendly cars,” Trump continued. “There will be very little difference in emissions between the California Standard and the new U.S. Standard, but the cars will be far safer and much less expensive. Many more cars will be produced under the new and uniform standard, meaning significantly more JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! Automakers should seize this opportunity because without this alternative to California, you will be out of business.”

According to Reuters, California Governor Gavin Newsom said the president’s decision was “a continuation of a political vendetta against California and our progress.” He said the state would prevail in court.

From Reuters:

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing General Motors Co, Toyota Motor Corp, Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE), Ford Motor Co and others, declined to take a position on Trump’s revocation of California’s waiver, saying automakers will review the decision “to get the full picture of how this impacts automakers, our workers and our customers.”

The EPA and U.S. Transportation Department plan to announce on Thursday that the government is revoking an EPA waiver California received in 2013 to set state emissions rules and will hold a news conference at 8 a.m. EDT to discuss the decision.

The Trump administration will argue that barring California from setting its own stricter rules will provide automakers with regulatory certainty and also argue that the lower emissions standards will reduce the future price of vehicles. Environmental groups contend Americans will spend more in fuel costs than they would save in upfront costs.

The Obama-era rules called for companies to ensure a fleet-wide fuel efficiency average of 46.7 miles per gallon by 2025, with average increases of about 5 percent annually. The rollback proposal suggested freezing standards at the 2020 model year, resulting in an average of 37 mpg by 2026. Rather than establish its own limits, California has adopted the current federal standards. Initially it vowed to keep the targets, regardless of what the Trump administration decided, but has since issued a revised standard that delays them by one year. It also wants over 15 percent of all new car sales to come from zero-emission vehicles by 2026 and has sought out support from sympathetic states.

The rollback was estimated by Reuters to increase domestic oil consumption by 500,000 barrels a day by 2030 while eliminating $300 billion in regulatory costs. The U.S. presently burns about 20 million barrels a day.

Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation are expected to issue a final draft of the rollback proposal later this month. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler recently suggested that the document might possess stricter targets than originally offered, but that’s unlikely to save the federal government from a date in court with California.

[Image: Siripatv/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

177 Comments on “Gas War: Trump Confirms U.S. Will Revoke California Fuel Waiver...”


  • avatar
    Vulpine

    All California has to do is keep it in litigation until after next year’s election. While not impossible, I somewhat doubt that our current Administration will serve more than one term and once he is officially out, I expect a good portion of what he’s done will be reversed–especially if the Democrats retake the office.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      It’ll probably take 10-12 months for this to get to the supreme court (and I definitely think it will go that far).

      So I agree, for the repeal to have any actual impact Trump would need to be re-elected.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I don’t think it will go as far as the SCOTUS. It is a waiver we’re talking about here, a waiver of an existing law on the books.

        And Vulpine is right as well. A win for the ‘crats in 2020 means everything that President Trump has done will be undone, like President Trump is undoing what his predecessor did.

        But the odds favor four more years right now although a recession or another war would undermine that.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          I don’t expect either side to accept defeat. SCOTUS might refuse to hear the case, but it is definitely at least going to end up on their desks.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            It’s hard telling at this point how it will turn out because anything and everything that President Trump does is going to be contested by the ‘crats.

            But like you wrote, “SCOTUS might refuse to hear the case” because this is not an important or existential issue, and does not impair the national interest.

            I think CA will lose, but then we could be surprised, like millions were when the winner was declared in Nov 2016.

            Who knew?

            And now the guy is implementing what he said he was going to do, if elected.

            Man, if he gets re-elected, the ca-ca is REALLY gonna hit the fan because then he will have a mandate by a second win.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        I’m pretty sure it will take longer than 10-12 months to get to that level; I think it will take that long just to get through the first round of courts–not even considering appeals and counter-appeals. It could take five years or longer to get to the Supreme Court.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        The president can appeal directly to the Supreme Court for an expedited ruling. Chances are overwhelming the waiver withdrawal will be upheld. SCOTUS just slapped down a lower appeals court judge for trying to re-impose a nationwide injunction after the ninth circuit lifted it, and has lost patience with the judges and lower appeals courts trying to tie up government moves they don’t like by using the court system.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Still has to get to them first. I expect no less than 18 months each at three layers of lower courts.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            Nope. The president doesn’t have to wait for it to wend its way through the court system and can request a SCOTUS ruling directly. When the issue involves a constitutional power involving Congress or any state, the president has head of the line privileges.

            The reason is simple: he can declare an emergency, citing economic disruption, and overrule the courts. Only Congress can challenge it, triggering a SCOTUS ruling anyway.

    • 0 avatar

      ” I somewhat doubt that our current Administration will serve more than one term”

      So for which one of clowns you are suggesting to vote to make it the reality? Biden?

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        You’re assuming he’ll keep the Republican nomination. While I see several states doing their damndest to block any in-party opposition to him, there are enough Republicans upset with him to at least give him a challenge without it. If it weren’t possible for another Republican to win the Primaries, those states wouldn’t be actively blocking the attempt. In their way, those states are each bucking the US Constitution as it stands.

        My point is not to say definitively that the Democrats will win; it’s to say that there’s enough upset within the Republican Party itself that many Republicans may vote Democrat just to get rid of him if he ends up the Party’s choice.

        • 0 avatar

          American politics already turned into circus some time ago, and so called “free” press gone cuckoo becoming one party mouthpiece. It will get worse until there is some cataclysm like civil war or financial collapse. Just look how many idiots are participating in presidential debates. The only candidate who is not crazy is Biden and he is too old and incapable. I cannot believe that Americans can vote for that bunch of clowns. But then I did not believe that Trump may ever be elected president either. It just go downhill every passing year.

      • 0 avatar

        Given Trump won with almost all the democrats and independents despising him plus a good part of those in power in his own party, I would say it’s open to anyone. A socialist would likely get all the anti trump votes by default no matter what polls say, if they can also pull in some more of the youth and other typical non voters they have a real chance. Also lets be honest the biggest reason Trump won was who he ran against.

        That said I think he has a decent shot of winning again, no chance he will win the popular vote but a decent chance he pulls of a electoral college win again.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Certainly possible, mopar.

        • 0 avatar
          Kenn

          ” no chance he will win the popular vote but a decent chance he pulls off an electoral college win again.”

          Republicans are now a minority of the population and will continue to decline, so they will need to use voter suppression and redistricting (after winning state elections) – and the electoral college – to win any further presidential elections. They will do anything they think they can get away with to retain their power. Ask “Moscow Mitch.”

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            Kenn, you could change “Republican” to “Democrat” and you would still be right – about the minority, at least. Democrats are 27% of the electorate, and Republicans are 28%.That’s a modest flip that happens periodically. Both parties have bled huge numbers of voters who now identify as independent.

            That’s now the largest voting bloc in the country, and they, the majority of them, decide who wins. They’re virtually impossible to define as a single group, because the majority within changes from election to election.

            It doesn’t matter whether you’re in the D-bubble or R-bubble, if you’re not in the I-bubble where an amorphous blob congeals into an ad-hoc majority to decide every election, you haven’t got a clue. I’m in the D-bubble, and I have a deep foreboding about where the I-bubble is going to take us all. My fellow bubbleinos are certain of an overwhelming victory over Orange Man, but I think it’s dangerous to try to predict the blob.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Lorenzo: Problem is, Independents in many states are not allowed to vote in a Presidential primary. Why? Because they don’t support either of the major parties and the minor parties are rarely represented. Which means that if an independent can’t find another way to get onto the ballot in November, the Independents are forced to choose from what the two dominant parties offer–or write in a name which is highly unlikely to get more votes than even the losing dominant party.

    • 0 avatar
      SaulTigh

      I don’t feel like any of your candidates have the juice to go toe-to-toe with Trump, and the “full commie” turn isn’t sitting well with independents. Will definitely be a lesser of two evils election, and we won’t know until it’s over. People are outright lying to pollsters now.

      Civil War II is still on the table though.

      • 0 avatar
        blppt

        “Will definitely be a lesser of two evils election, and we won’t know until it’s over.”

        Trump is definitely not doing himself any favors. He’s not a very likeable guy, and even the moderate GOP supporters have got to be getting a little tired of his act by now, or 2020. Lots of blowhard rhetoric and constant saturation of media.

        Also, look at his moronic blathering at the New Mexico rally where he ACTUALLY said that cars are LESS SAFE now and whined about crumple zones like somebody who hadn’t even taken Physics 101. Apparently he thinks cars built like solid granite in the 40s were safer. I mean, you cant make this stuff up.

        It would be really funny if this was just some random dim bulb, but it is some very dangerous thinking from the guy who is the leader of the free world. After he starts stripping these emission regs, wait till he takes his brain dead world view into car safety regs.

        He’s dumber than a bag of hammers. Or he thinks we all are.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

          -Carlin

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @28-Cars: Accurate sentiment but inaccurate math. To be ‘half of them stupider…’ you would need the mean, not the average. It only takes one ‘dim bulb’ to drag the average down significantly. What we’ve seen here is a few very wealthy people stacking the deck to make themselves richer when truly intelligent people play the hands they’re given. Eventually the cheating gets brought out into the open and the cheaters reap the results of what they’ve sown.

            In my opinion, the cheaters played their Trump card too soon and very well could see a major turnaround if their play gets trumped.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            @Vulpine:
            Average is the colloquial term for “mean”. They’re calculated the same way.

            Did you actually mean to say “median”?

            P.S. If you’re going to play math pedant, be prepared for the same…!

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Luke42: I accept the correction; I did mean median in the mathematical sense. I’m used to the word ‘mean’ as used in “mean time between overhauls,” which is a typical statement when referring to electric motors and was told (admittedly hearsay) that it meant the exact central point between most and least. Median, as commonly used, is the dividing area between divided highways which could be a physical barrier or the grassy strip.

            So, mathematically speaking, I did mean ‘median’ as ‘average’ was still the incorrect turn in 28-Cars’ statement.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @SaulTigh: They’re not MY candidates; I’m a registered Republican. I’m trying to maintain an objective viewpoint here because I’m seeing not only what Trump himself is doing but also the reactions to his antics by people on both sides of the aisle. Most notable to me is the simple fact that the Republican Party is starting to fracture as they realize that Trump isn’t toeing the Party line but rather doing whatever he wants to do, no matter who it hurts, so long as he and his ‘friends’ reap the benefits.

    • 0 avatar
      EliMorgan

      Trump will easily win re-election. I would not be surprised if he carries 40 states. Americans are seething over how the Democrats and Media have treated him. California is acting like it is a independent country. They are about to get their nose bloodied.

  • avatar
    Heino

    Ahhh I remember when Reagan was all for state’s rights.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      And granted immigration amnesty.

    • 0 avatar
      bullnuke

      This is state’s rights, Heino. My right to purchase a vehicle in my sovereign state that is not restricted by unnecessary regulation/restrictions for my state imposed by another sovereign state with a geographical problem that exacerbates air pollution. Their problem is not, repeat not, my problem. Choose your state, choose your fate.

      • 0 avatar

        But that’s the thing. This would strip the states right to regulate emissions in the state. CA doesn’t force other states to follow their rules (a number have signed on willingly).

        • 0 avatar
          bullnuke

          Mopar4wd – I disagree. If the vehicles offered in all states under federal regulation do not meet the more strict regulations of an individual state, that more restrictive state can require additional mandatory options/tuning/etc. for vehicles being sold by vendors in that state. The state can regulate its own emissions all day, agreed. The compliance falls upon the residents of that state to bear the costs/positives/negatives of requiring more onerous regulation. Currently the price of vehicles in my state engineered and built to meet the requirements of California CARB are subsidizing the costs of the more stringent CARB requirements through reduced vehicle size, displacement, tuning, etc. as well as the additional costs to engineer these vehicles toward the point of diminishing returns.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Automakers have figured out that it’d be cheaper to engineer everything they sell for one market. It’s really as simple as that.

          • 0 avatar

            But that’s just it that’s exactly what the waiver does. It does not force the feds to follow it. But since the majority of new cars sold in the US are in Carbs states (plus separate agreements between CARB and EPA) Manufacturers generally follow the CARB rules. The EPS could have split the rules again but auto manufacturers told them no come to an agreement we don’t want to build 2 different cars.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Exactly. And this will end up in the courts, so nothing changes.

            So, to boil it down, this was done for one of three reasons:

            1) To tell carmakers how to conduct their business (better known as “socialism”;
            2) To tell a state how to conduct its’ business (better known as “infringing on states’ rights”;
            3) Or to prove Trump’s “California sucks and everything they do is bad” bonafides to his base, which, not surprisingly, tends to believe that California sucks and everything they do is bad. Trump…Man of Action! (And endless court battles!)

            I’ll take what’s behind door #3.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            No, the state can NOT regulate its own emissions, or require cars made elsewhere to have extra equipment or meet more stringent standards.

            The federal Clean Air Act is controlling, giving the EPA national authority. That’s why Cali was granted a waiver – it argued special circumstances. The EPA giveth, and the EPA taketh away.

            By taking back the waiver, not only does Cali lose the argument over fuel economy, it loses the argument over air quality regulations within the state, AND it loses the power to specify a particular blend of gasoline sold in the state.

            That unique blend is what raises gas prices in the state, preventing oil companies from shifting supplies from other states with surpluses. The oil companies are going to love that aspect of the waiver withdrawal.

            In short, the California Air Resources Board played hardball with a guy holding the trump cards, and lost not just the bet on fuel economy, but the whole pot – all of its legal authority.

      • 0 avatar
        Jon

        @ Mr. Nuke

        I agree but one could say that it is the manufacturers problem for not offering different vehicles suited for different states. Its illogical and no business of the federal government to apply the same standard for regions that face different challenges. Its the responsibility of the individual states to figure out how to enforce their own regulations.

        • 0 avatar
          bullnuke

          Absolutely this is a manufacturer’s issue. 40-odd years ago vehicles were “49-State” with different “California” vehicles being offered but loaded with air pumps and whatever to meet the CARB requirements. I remember the low-horsepower Corvettes with automatics only that were the only models that could be sold in California. It’s been done in the past – this “Waiver” has encouraged the manufacturers to favor the more restrictive CARB regulations of current times for costs (perhaps) and political harmony (absolutely).

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “Their problem is not, repeat not, my problem. Choose your state, choose your fate.”

        I suppose that the next time a hurricane hits Florida or Texas while I’m high and dry here in Colorado, I should tell them to not expect any tax money from me. Hurricanes aren’t my problem. I mean, they chose to live there…right?

        Yeah, didn’t think so.

        (Want to buy a car that doesn’t meet California emissions? Simple. Just talk a car company into making something that can’t be sold in 1/3 of the country. Problem solved. And good luck with that, by the way. Car companies tend to want to make money, the silly dears.)

        • 0 avatar
          bullnuke

          I bristle when I think of subsidizing folks living areas below sea level (New Orleans) and in hurricane prone areas (several states) when folks come asking for a government hand out for being damaged over and over again by the same natural disasters that have occurred historically year by year. Choose to live wherever, fine. Pay your own costs for the risks associated with where you choose to reside whether it be increase state taxes into a “risk pool” or higher insurance rates.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            …and I suppose the place you live in is completely immune from any kind of natural or man-made disaster. Therefore, I’m sure that if, God forbid, some calamity befalls your area, you won’t need help from the rest of the country. Your local and state government have more than enough money to rebuild everything that goes wrong with no outside help whatsoever, and the difference can be made up with church bake sales and raffles.

            Correct?

            We’re all in this together, whether you like it or not. Otherwise, what’s the point of being a nation?

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            @bullnuke

            Oy. I mean, you’re entitled to your viewpoint, but that’s a really, really sorry way of thinking, my dude. Yikes…

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Oh come on, we aren’t talking about Earthquakes or disasters, we are talking about cars.

            I for one am in the don’t care, let the free market sort this out camp and California can do what they want here.

            However, it is interesting to me that the Democrat party so vehomently opposes Trump invoking the interstate commerce clause to do this all the while having a Presidential Candidate that wants to use that same clause to confiscate lawfully owned firearms which the court has ruled over and over again that you do in fact have a Constitutionally protected right to own.

            We so need a viable third party.

            But I digress. Let automakers choose to build to the stricter standard should they desire. If they can do it profitably then we probably all win. But on the flip side of that, if they make that choice and they go bankrupt trying, not another mother #&@+ing penny of my tax dollars and frankly if you can’t afford one, well same sentiments. Buy a bus pass

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            And lastly, yes, why shouldn’t you pay more for insurance should you live in an area where you are more likely to have to use it. That’s just economics. Nobody came running to help out when I added my 17 year old boy to my auto insurance and the rate skyrocketed because he was more likely to file a claim.

            We are a nation. We do step in and help others with immediate needs and even in some cases to get back on their feet. But that does not mean you are somehow shielded from consequences and life choices to include where you live.

          • 0 avatar
            picard234

            Florida Keys resident here. Just FYI, we pay out the ass for wind and flood insurance. It’s more than half the mortgage. Just wanted to clarify, it’s not like we sit here with our hand out after a storm.

            It’s about 10 feet above sea level where I am. Not so sure about New Orleans residents and how many actually pay their flood insurance. Here, you cannot have a mortgage if you don’t pay the insurance. The bank will call in the loan.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          And @freedmike why should it be your problem? I have lived in coastal hurricane probed areas, earthquake areas, an area that burned to the ground, a flood zone…pretty much have the Gambit covered.

          I always carried this product known as insurance to avoid financial collapse. In one case it did get really expensive. As such I moved.

          I am all for communities coming together and helping with cleanup and immediate needs in the aftermath, but why on God’s green Earth would I expect another individual to rebuild my home for me if something happened to it.

          And as to the roads and infrastructure, yes, I do expect it rebuilt. Don’t want to, fine, just void all those checks I dutifully wrote on April 15th and redeposit the funds and I’ll move elsewhere should that happen. But yes, as a taxpayer I wholly expect the Government to do the job for which I pay them. My stuff is on me though.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @ArtV: and how much are would your total claim cost be as opposed to your insurance premiums paid? I assume much, much greater. “why on God’s green Earth would I expect another individual to rebuild my home for me if something happened to it”? That is exactly what insurance is, people banding together to put enough into one ‘pot’ to pay to rebuild when one of them suffers misfortune. If you ‘saved’ enough to pay to rebuild your home, on your own, then you would not be purchasing insurance.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            No Arthur, that isn’t at all how insurance works. People pay money into a pot. The insurance company then invests that large pot of money makes a rather large chunk of money if they are doing it right. They then pay out any claims and whatever is left is profit. Those profits may be slim or even nonexistent if they have a bad year on either side of that equation, but it is not “people banding together”. It is a for profit business. Insurance is based on risk transfer. I transfer that risk to them, in doing so they get to hang on to my premiums and invest them. They are assuming the risk based on some very smart people doing math and telling them they will turn a profit.

            What you describe would be akin to the Church I tithe at rebuilding homes for members of their congregation.

            There are people that don’t carry insurance because they do have enough to cover a potential loss. I am not familiar with that situation for homes, but I was once hit by a coca cola truck and they didn’t carry insurance. They simply had a bond with the state or something showing they were good for it. Honestly that went much better than the accidents I have been involved in where the other party was at fault and had “The General” or one of those type companies. Fortunately my insurance company stepped in.

            So anyway, no…still dont expect the taxpayers to rebuild my home. I do expect the for profit entity that assumed the risk in exchange for my premiums (which they invested and did pretty well according to their annual reports) to rebuild my house. That would be their job.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “@freedmike why should it be your problem?”

            Same reason why it should be “their” problem if some kind of disaster befalls my area and we need outside help: that’s what people in a nation do. It’s really as simple as that.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Reagan never gave states the right to ignore the commerce clause.

    • 0 avatar
      Crosley

      I remember Democrats being for state’s rights so they could keep their segregation laws.

    • 0 avatar
      Superdessucke

      I don’t see how anybody who remembers the 1980 305 automatic California Corvette could be opposed to this.

  • avatar

    I think other commenters are correct. It’s a moot point unless DT wins again. But I’m curious how it plays out. The supreme court has allowed for controls on selling products/commodities into certain states forhealth, saftey and environmental reasons in the past. I would think most likley they would again but the current court makeup might throw that out of whack.

    I always understood it as a state couldn’t create a system that favors one company over another or creates issues for products crossing state lines during transport, but that didn’t prevent a state from say putting restrictions on drugs and alcohol that other states don’t. Or importing flora and fauna that may be considered invasive. Or forcing companies to put warning labels on products. Given that the argument for separate controls is environmental (and somewhat linked to health) it would seem the state has a decent argument.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      One of the things some people don’t understand is that each state has the ability to put in-state regulations on top of Federal ones–meaning that they can increase the tax, safety or, in this case, mileage requirements. But they cannot reduce a Federal requirement. The EPA laws may demand, for instance, a minimum of 27mpg fleet-wide but that clearly lets California demand 54mpg(e) if they choose. The exemption was a formality that simply clarified California’s ability to do so. Removing the exemption does not remove the ability–it only fogs the view.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Have you read the CAA? A state setting its own emission standards without a waiver present, even if those standards are stronger, is a violation of federal law. That is why the waiver system exists in the first place.

        • 0 avatar

          Right, but as I understand it that was put in the law to avoid a supreme court case. Both sides agreed to the waiver system to avoid a fight over states rights that could have gone either way. Without the waiver in place the question can go out to the courts if state rights trump the EPA. It also avoided states try to fight the EPA in the other direction.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            CA has had waiver requests denied before so this isn’t exactly unprecedented. The addition of Trump just turns the heat up to 100000.

            Either way, the SCOTUS case is coming this time around. I do not expect the courts will go so broad as to declare the waiver system of portions of the CAA unconstitutional. I think they are going to decide if the WH is acting within the CAA.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            All great arguments but a waiver of existing law is not the same as implementing NEW legislation.

          • 0 avatar

            Right they can cancel the waiver, that’s the first fight because the law basically says they get the waiver as long as it’s reasonable or some such thing.
            The next fight if they lose that one is weather the law as written in 68 or what ever is constitutional in limiting state rights.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            mopar4wd, correct on all counts.

            If I were a betting man, my money would be on the current administration in setting the nationwide standard by enforcing existing law.

            Just like they have on many different contested issues that they won, even in the 9th Circuit.

            This really is not an important issues to anyone except maybe Javier Bacera and Gavin Newsome.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “This really is not an important issues to anyone except maybe Javier Bacera and Gavin Newsome.”

            It’s also an important issue to everyone who lives in the LA basin and can only breathe because CA’s emissions standards are stronger than the federal ones.

            Even with the higher CA standards in place, LA still has chronic air quality problems; if the CA standards no longer apply, it will get worse.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            dal20402, if you are right then those two are representing their constituents.

            I cannot imagine anyone outside of CA even caring.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            highdesert,

            You effectively articulated why this is a state’s rights issue.

            Montana has no use for a waiver that is specific to the LA area. Unlike the 4 million or so in LA.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Other major metro areas that are in states that have adopted the California standards are New York, DC, Philadelphia, Boston, Seattle, Baltimore, and Portland.

            Add up just California and those metros, and you have about a quarter of the country’s population. All of those people have reason to care.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “everyone who lives in the LA basin and can only breathe because CA’s emissions standards are stronger than the federal ones.”

            I assume the EPA’s plan is to only revoke the more recently granted GHG waiver and leave the smog-forming waivers in place.

            Going after all the CA waivers would be a huge miscalculation by the admin.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            There is no “GHG waiver” or “smog waiver.” There is just one waiver, and Trump has announced he is going to revoke it. If the revocation is upheld it would have the effect of nullifying all CARB emissions standards.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Hey, I agree that this is a state’s right issue and may have merit for some.

            However, I also believe that the current administration has revoked the waiver because it negatively impacts the automakers and the US economy by forcing two standards.

            At one time in the past there were two standards, and I was fine with that. In fact I would advocate for two standards again. I’ve written that before.

            The current administration is not going to settle for two standards because it raises the cost to the consumers.

            I’ll never buy a car/truck in any of the places that would adhere to the CA standard but the current administration is seeking nationwide unity by revoking the exemption.

            And I believe the administration will win, like so many other actions they have been repealing and revoking.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Most of the automakers themselves said they were more comfortable with the California compromise than the national standard as modified by Trump, because the California compromise matches more closely the development they are doing for other world markets.

            So this isn’t an issue of helping the automakers (either domestic or foreign).

            It’s an issue of stirring up anti-California animus on Fox News.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “There is no “GHG waiver” or “smog waiver.” There is just one waiver”

            This is not correct. California has several different waivers granted under section 209 of the CAA, not just a single one that is all-encompassing. Those relating to GHG exist separate from the those related to smog.

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-08/pdf/E9-15943.pdf

            epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “It’s an issue of stirring up anti-California animus on Fox News.”

            Naw man. I first heard this announced by Vonnie Quinn on Bloomberg this morning.

            This isn’t a rightie or lefty issue. This is all about undoing what the last administration did for the greenweenies, treehuggers and the Earth Liberation Front.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            ajla, you’re right. I stand corrected.

            Not a single news article I can find about Trump’s action indicates whether he just revoked the GHG waivers or whether he revoked all of them. Most of them are phrased as though he revoked all of them, but I can’t find an official source.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @hdc: “However, I also believe that the current administration has revoked the waiver because it negatively impacts the automakers and the US economy by forcing two standards.”

            — Actually, it doesn’t. The automakers had simply chosen to adhere to the tighter standard across the board rather than spending the money to build two different versions of their vehicles. The restrictions now play more on aftermarket components like ultra-high-flow air filters and performance tuning.

            Oh, they used to build to separate standards but that seemed to end about 15-25 years ago as you stopped seeing disclaimers for CAL-only spec sheets.

            As for Trump’s arguments about “cheaper and safer”, both statements are wrong. The only ‘cheaper’ part of it is the OEMs can stop spending as much R&D money to meet the original high EPA specs for ’25 but that has literally no effect on the ‘safer’ portion other than to perhaps make more money available for safety designs.

            The most ridiculous part of the whole argument is that ALL of the OEMs are working their tails off to build BEVs (or at least some form of HEV.) Freezing the old EPA standard and revoking the waiver in the States will have no effect on the development of those vehicles in other countries as many cities and some countries have effectively banned ICEVs starting in the relatively near future (like 10 years down the road.) This means those BEV/PHEV types still need to be built and once they reach economy of scale, the ICEV will end up being the more expensive option to build and to buy. Trump’s gambit might be a battle won but the war is already lost… It’s only a matter of time.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Vulpine, you concisely outlined the points of contention. And that’s why this issue has to be elevated in the courts.

            I doubt it will reach the SCOTUS unless President Trump requests a SCOTUS review.

            If CA presents this as an environmental issue, it won’t get far. But as a states-rights issue it may have merit and set precedence.

            There’s no doubt that the climate has been changing over the past 4.5 BILLION years but this issue is not even a blip in geologic time, and is no argument.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Aija:

            — per the link you submitted:

            ” 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.12″

            — Another footnote:
            “30 36 FR 17458 (Aug. 31, 1971). (‘‘The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied unless the specific finding 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.’’). The ‘‘more stringent’’ standard expressed here in 1971 was superseded by the 1977 amendments to section 209, which established that California’s standards must be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. The stringency standard remains, though, in section 209(b)(2).”

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            @Vulpine:

            I don’t see any disagreement there. CA can set its own standards once a waiver is granted by the EPA. The EPA is supposed to grant a waiver if certain broad situations exist.

            The WH is going argue that those situations do not exist. **They certainly may lose that case**, but if they win CA will not be allowed under the CAA to have its own emission standards with no waiver present, even if those standards are stronger than the federal limits.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            ajla, that’s my understanding too. Hence all the legal wrangling.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @ajla: Look again at the wording of those footnotes. There is a law supporting those waivers and denying or revoking those waivers themselves go counter to that law.

            True, the word ‘arguably’ comes into play but that is also the basis of the current and certainly future lawsuits to battle said revocation. In essence, the President’s Executive Memos and other such shenanigans do NOT have the power of Law and the courts are the arbiters of the Law. Only Congress can revoke a Law, once it has been signed into law by a sitting President. The Supreme Court may revoke a Law, but ONLY if that Law runs counter to the Constitution. The Constitution, as if you didn’t know, makes it clear that the states have the right to their own governance and legislation with regard to laws, so long as those laws do not counter or reduce any Federal laws.

            I can guarantee that there will be a long and bitter court fight on this one and Trump may be surprised if he attempts to shortcut the Judicial system.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            If it is a cut & dry legal situation then California doesn’t have anything to worry about and will easily win the cases related to this action. I don’t think it will be that simple though.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          I have read the CAA, though I may need to read it again. The CAA only states the minimum permissible limits. Clearly tighter specs are permissible and tighter specs CAN be demanded by individual states. As such, limiting the states to no more than the Federal requirements is in itself illegal, per the US Constitution and its amendments.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            42 U.S.C. 7543

            Where in the CAA are you seeing that states are free to set stricter vehicle emission standards without a waiver?

  • avatar

    Correct but last time they denied it Obama ended the case before the courts decided so we don;t know how it would play out yet.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Anyone who thinks this is about helping automakers or lowering car prices is deluded. It’s just a “California sucks” political stunt that’s done to play to people who think California sucks. It’s raw meat for the base…nothing more, nothing less.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Maybe not lower prices, but maybe increase content and value.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        …by telling carmakers how to build their cars (better known as “socialism”), or telling states they have zero right to regulate themselves (better known as “violating states’ rights”). Well, run with that. But do ignore it when Trump tells us that he’s ‘anti-socialism,’ or ‘pro states-rights.’ That stuff’s not relevant as long as the deals on cars get a tiny bit better…right?

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          This is pro-constitution, which contains specific definitions on what rights belong to the US congress, leaving everything else to the domain of the individual states unless they violate the bill of rights. This issue is clearly covered by the commerce clause, which is why California needs a waiver to existing law in order to regulate vehicle emissions. Our schools have completely failed everyone who thinks this is a states rights issue.

          • 0 avatar
            Jerome10

            This is how I see it as well.

            In the simplest sense this definitely falls under the commerce clause. At least the way it is interpreted as of today (basically engaging or not engaging in something affects markets across state lines and therefore the commerce clause comes into effect). I personally feel that is BS but that’s the way it is read as of today.

            California enacting its own MPG standards affects the markets outside of California, BAM Commerce Clause applies, Feds can do whatever the heck they feel like doing and California must fall in line.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “California enacting its own MPG standards affects the markets outside of California, BAM Commerce Clause applies, Feds can do whatever the heck they feel like doing and California must fall in line.”

            Replace California with Florida, and replace mpg standards with homebuilding codes, which are FAR more stringent and costly in Florida due to hurricanes. Homebuilders have to spend more to build there, and that cost gets passed on to consumers outside Florida.

            Therefore:
            “Florida enacting its own hurricane building codes affects the markets outside of Florida, BAM Commerce Clause applies, Feds can do whatever the heck they feel like doing and Florida must fall in line.”

            Too bad that houses in Florida are more likely to get blown away in hurricanes, just like it’s too bad that folks in California have to breathe more smog…but you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, right?

            How about this instead: California has good reason to regulate emissions the way it does, just like Florida has good reason to regulate building codes the way it does, and they should be allowed to do so.

          • 0 avatar
            Snooder

            Uh, the fact that this is a question of whether the Commerce Clause abrogates the states rights to regulate commercial activity within their own state is literally the definition of a “States Rights” issue.

          • 0 avatar

            If you read some case law on the commerce clause it’s not so clear cut. The courts have generally used the commerce clause to overide state rules when there is a protectionist agenda. Say banning imports from out of state. CA isn’t banning companies from selling in their state they just say a product has to meet a minimum requirement which the courts have allowed in the past with some exceptions. In general states have been allowed to regulate their own liquor and insurance markets for instance. There is even environment case law Maine banned the import of bait from out of state and won a supreme court case based on the concept that out of state bait might hurt Maine environment. So no there really is no reason to think the commerce clause handles this.

    • 0 avatar
      Daniel J

      Then why did the Automakers first lobby Trump in the first place to reduce or rollback the standards?

      “Since 2016, much of the automotive industry lobbied to have the regulatory mandate lessened after 2022. Numerous executives discussed the matter with President Trump directly. Roughly a year ago, he agreed to have the EPA reassess the standards — with most observers expecting a rollback as the likely course of action.”

      https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/04/triumph-tragedy-epa-officially-sides-automakers-fueling-rollbacks/

      The automakers in many news articles are looking like the good guys when in FACT, they were the ones who asked for the rollbacks originally. Blame Trump all we want, but the automakers got this ball rolling years ago.

    • 0 avatar
      Daniel J

      Then why did the Automakers first lobby Trump in the first place to reduce or rollback the standards?

      “Since 2016, much of the automotive industry lobbied to have the regulatory mandate lessened after 2022. Numerous executives discussed the matter with President Trump directly. Roughly a year ago, he agreed to have the EPA reassess the standards — with most observers expecting a rollback as the likely course of action.”

      https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/04/triumph-tragedy-epa-officially-sides-automakers-fueling-rollbacks/

      The automakers in many news articles are looking like the good guys when in FACT, they were the ones who asked for the rollbacks originally. Blame Trump all we want, but the automakers got this ball rolling years ago.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Put the CARB people to work cleaning the California streets of human defecation, it will save a lot more lives and improve the quality of life for a lot more people than adding a few more MPG to federal fuel economy requirements. And if the CARB legal staff thinks they are too good to scoop poop they can work on sending the mentally ill poopers to some funny farms where their illness can be treated.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Has anyone seen the pics on social media about homelessness, feces and needles on the streets in CA cities?

      Check it out.

      If I were a tourist I wouldn’t want to go to those touristy destinations.

      Too many decent touristy places to see in America that do not suffer from this CA curse.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @highcat: I haven’t seen human waste on the streets in SF. So, maybe I should vacation in New Mexico? Where do their homeless people poop?

        https://www.sfreporter.com/news/2018/12/18/new-mexicos-homeless-rate-rose-the-last-two-years/

        Then there is your other favorite paradise, old Mexico. That’s quite the clean sanitary paradise isn’t it?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          mcs, I’m no longer in New Mexico. El Paso, TX is now my domicile, since Jan 1, 2019.

          New Mexico is a sanctuary state, in case you didn’t know. I got tired of paying taxes there, so I moved out of state.

          Old Mexico where we now spend a lot of time has exported its Barrios to LA and SF. I was born in Huntington Beach but the neighborhood where I grew up is now a Barrio. Unrecognizable.

          I did have a chance to stop by Balboa Park in San Diego before catching my ride to Ensenada, took many pictures of the homelessness and human waste; it’s pretty bad there too. They even had an outbreak of some disease there in San Diego. Was it Cholera? I forgot.

          I’m very happy for you that you are so pleased with your SF digs but go on social media, or watch PBS, CNN, MSNBC, each had segments on the homelessness in CA.

          It’s OK to be in denial when you’re not exposed to it. But a lot of CA people are.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Congrats on the move to El Paso, where none of the homeless folks do their business outdoors…

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            We’re on the West side, between North Mesa and Rudd Road and I-10; a late 1970’s-built area, a few miles from UTEP and Schuster.

            It’s the house that my wife’s dad bought for my daughter when she moved from LA to El Paso in Jan 2013.

            Lots of Ciudad Juarez day workers in this area. We’ve got a housekeeper/cook, and her husband and son do yard maintenance and property care for us.

            At night they go home across the Zaragosa Bridge to Juarez.

            No homeless here, but there are plenty of them elsewhere throughout El Paso, and illegal aliens, of course.

            And the CBP puts the illegals on buses and ships them to sanctuary cities all across the US, including CA.

            It’s great! Always a great send-off, people waving goodbye as the buses pull out. Saw two buses off myself that were headed to Las Cruces, NM and Deming, NM.

            To their credit, the city has put PortaPotties in many, many, many locations where illegals and homeless gather.

            Seems to work. El Paso is one of the safest and cleanest cities in America.

            In case you didn’t know, a lot of people also carry guns here, like they do in NM. Stand your ground is the big deal in the west. People here shoot first, ask questions later. Seriously.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            HDC, mazel tov on liking your new hometown so much. But what does any of that have to do with the fact that homeless people p*ss outdoors no matter where they are?

            The only difference between El Paso and L.A. is that L.A. has a LOT more homeless folks because 17 million people live there. Seems to me homeless folks like L.A. especially because of the climate – you can live outdoors year-round there. Add in the astronomical cost of housing, and it makes sense why they have such a problem with homelessness, doesn’t it?

            So…why pick on L.A.?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            FreedMike, point was that El Paso has put tons of PortaPotties out on the streets where the homeless and illegal aliens gather.

            But all this discussion has become a moot point since the EPA has officially notified CA to clean up its act because the homeless are polluting the environment and diseases like Cholera , et al, have come back because of the filth.

            One last thought, the voters always get what they deserve, because they vote for it. And no State is more deserving than CA.

            I won’t be able to chat today. Gonna go on a trip with the wife. Just catching up while on the throne.

            See yawl sometime.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      This just in: everyone who’s homeless outside of California craps indoors without fail. Tape at 10!

      And this just in…because of Trump’s action on CARB, California has now passed a law requiring homeless folks to crap indoors. Tape at 11!

      Like I said before…Trump supporters think California sucks, so anything he does that they perceive as “sticking it to California” is cheered on.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        Mike, note that not any of the comments in support of Trump’s actions link back to any scientific data showing the health risks for those living in large urban environments.

        This is where their side of this argument jumps the shark. Instead of arguing data, their arguing ideology.

        It’s like arguing with someone whose stuck their fingers in their ears and is loudly proclaiming “La, la, la I can’t hear you”.

        They should hit up the American Lung Association’s website…. https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    All good things must come to an end. In this case that good thing is Ronald Reagan’s run as the best world leader of my lifetime.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenn

      Ronald RayGun, who ran the U.S. into incredible debt paying for a military buildup to fight an enemy (the Soviet Union) the CIA had already determined was close to bankruptcy. But yeah, he gave good speeches.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        Are you old enough to remember the economy and military he inherited? The congress he had to work with? You’ve either been manipulated by lying Marxist professors or you’re simply out of your depth discussing issues bigger than what to have for lunch.

  • avatar
    ajla

    If being against CAFE makes me a socialism-loving Federalist then I guess that’s what I am. But, I had problems with that legislation before “The Apprentice” was even on the air.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Fair point, but the fact remains: California has good reason to want to limit emissions due to its’ geography. It’s not the only state that has unique geography determining its’ regulations – for example, Florida mandates far stricter wind-resistance standards for new homes, which impacts the costs of nationwide builders (like the one I used to work for). The cost of making a house in Jacksonville hurricane-resistant ends up built into the cost of a house in Kansas, just as the cost of making a car pollute less ends up built into the cost of a car sold in Montana, where air pollution isn’t much of an issue. It’s “the market” in action.

      The shame of it is that California and Trump are too extremist to make a deal here, but that doesn’t change facts: California has a unique pollution problem that they have every reason to tackle.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I am 100% fully against any WH action against CA’s air quality waivers as it relates to smog-forming emissions.

        I am 100% fully in favor of weakening or eliminating CAFE. I am not against all fuel economy or GHG regulations but CAFE needs to go.

        Trump is able to revoke one waiver while keeping others intact and I anticipate that is what their plan is.

      • 0 avatar
        Daniel J

        What are you talking about? Different builders in each state with different codes. A house built in Jacksonville(where I’m from and lived 20 years) has nothing to do with a house built here where I live in Huntsville Alabama.

        Pick a better example.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          ” A house built in Jacksonville(where I’m from and lived 20 years) has nothing to do with a house built here where I live in Huntsville Alabama.”

          Exactly, because Huntsville doesn’t get hurricanes, and Jacksonville does. That’s why Florida mandates that houses built in hurricane zones be built to be more wind resistant.

          And because hurricane-resistant houses cost more to build, a company building homes in Jacksonville will pass the higher costs of that house through the home it builds in Huntsville…just like GM passes the higher costs of building a California-compliant car on to people who aren’t in California. It’s the cost of doing business in those markets, and buyers bear them. That’s the way it works, and it’s completely reasonable…unless, of course, you think Florida is wrong to protect its’ citizens from hurricanes, or California is wrong to want to protect its’ citizens from air pollution.

          I think you just made my point for me.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            I don’t know @FreedMike. We get a fair amount of tornadoes in Huntsville so it may be closer than you think.

            Funny enough, I was also born and raised in Jacksonville spending the first 20+ years of my life there and now reside in Huntsville. We never got hurricanes growing up. Old George Winterling would be on the news with bags under his eyes tracking them 24-7, but they always got South Florida or the Carolinas. I got one day off school when Hugo missed us.

            I worry way more in Huntsville, but I am on the side of town that they typically miss.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      I saw some imbecile state that we’d elected a reality TV star as if nobody knew who Trump was for twenty years preceding the popularity of “Survivor.” I guess admitting he was a public figure for decades would mean remembering that he was celebrated for championing civil rights well before he improved economic opportunities for minorities through deregulation of the economy.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I was born in 1986. While I had heard of Trump before “The Apprentice” that was my first direct exposure to him. For those younger than me that’s likely even more the case.

      • 0 avatar
        Snooder

        Lulwut?

        Celebrated for Civil Rights? Deregulated the economy? What drugs are you smoking?

        He was nothing more than a tacky New York real estate goon known for going bankrupt, having too much fondness for ugly gold furniture, and cheating on his wives before he managed to wrangle his TV deal with The Apprentice.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          He received accolades from none other than “The Reverend” Jessie Jackson for how his organizations dealt with African Americans and Gay and Lesbian people. He came out in support of Gay Marriage long before even mainstream Democrat politicians.

          Yes, he cheated on his wives but if I learned anything from the politics of the 90s it that that stuff is OK. The President can be a scumbag so long as he is your party’s scumbag. Trump is basically Clinton minus all the tape accusations.

          • 0 avatar

            Well he’s a bit more obnoxious the Clinton but yeah on a personal level similar.
            That’s my favorite oddity of Trump and who he pulls support from. 20 Years ago he was pretty much the definition of NYC liberal he backed socialized medicine gay marriage abortion rights, gun control. He gets pissed at a few Democrats using him as an example of wealth gone wrong and suddenly he’s watching fox news and becomes a born again conservative.

      • 0 avatar

        Um as some one who has known he is for decades, I always thought he was most famous for building and then bankrupting Atlantic City. Also that he had questionable taste in interior design.

  • avatar
    conundrum

    You Americans love driving wedges between yourselves these days, don’t you?

    What the hell happened to the US I knew when I grew up? I wanted to visit so bad back in the fifties and sixties! Wouldn’t want to go these days, might run into cops who’d take my car or use my debit card to ruin me, like the stories I read on this site. No thanks.

    Now you Americans all snipe at each other for no reason other than to diss each other, so far as I can see. I’m right, you’re wrong. Are you a country, one nation, or just a bunch of finger-pointing people totally cheesed off at each other? Voting in a complete dumbo as prez hasn’t helped – he loves to make you hate each other and keep you in fear of things that go bump in the night, like hordes of Arabs in rowboats crossing the Atlantic to invade, or whining about the Chinese living high off the hog from work your corporate masters sent them to cut out real blue collar jobs back home. Or worst fear of all – socialism, man, that’s the end of the world, ain’t it? Remember the USSR?! Keeps your mind off the rich filching the bux out of your pockets with tax cuts for them, less government revenue to spend on the mass of people who pay tax regularly and get eff all back these days, putting a price on everything, but a value on nothing. Distorts the very basis of society when you stop pulling together as one and start squabbling about whether you support each other in times of natural disaster or not.

    I hope the US sorts out this internecine social warfare for its own good. It sure doesn’t look good from the outside at the present. You’ve got outright pathological sociopaths in power running around like demented rabid animals, blaming everyone else for their travails, making floridly stupid pronouncements like this one, and generally acting like rubes who wouldn’t know a social grace if they ran over it.

    Bring back the real America! Not this sham version of it.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “What the hell happened to the US I knew when I grew up? I wanted to visit so bad back in the fifties and sixties!”

      Lol. In 1970 the national guard shot 4 student protesters dead. Racial discrimination was vurtually legal until 1965. There was an armed rebellion here two years after the Constitution was ratified. The US is the same as it has always been.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Yeah, assuming the OP isn’t Black if he wanted to visit back then.

      • 0 avatar
        SaulTigh

        This. Totally this.

        My biggest frustration with modern American culture, and also our schools, is that no one pays any attention to history, and what is being taught today is social agenda driven to the max.

        Things have been much, much worse in America. Congressmen physically assaulting each other at the Capitol. School shootings? Not a new thing. A little thing called the Civil War. We have it really, really good today, but the collective, 24-hour maw of old and new media won’t let us see it.

        Even so called “cancel culture” isn’t new. Read the Wikipedia entry on Fatty Arbuckle if you want proof…and that happened in 1921.

    • 0 avatar
      ravenuer

      That’s nice and all, but what do you think about the subject of the article?

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      “You Americans love driving wedges between yourselves these days, don’t you?”

      The US of A does a lot of things very well. What we do best is hate ourselves.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Don’t sweat it. You can bet that if Europeans screw it up again and kick off another World War we will be plenty United to come.fix it again. This is what we do in periods of peace and prosperity. Yes, read newalspaper articles from the time of our founding to include accounts of folks getting “tarred and feathered”. We really have always been this way.

  • avatar
    285exp

    California could force it’s citizens to meet the required CAFE average through a combination of incentives for EVs, penalties for poor efficiency ICE vehicles, and increased fuel taxes. But they want to force the citizens of other states to help shoulder the costs to produce cars that those citizens don’t want. Nobody is saying California and the states that agree with them can’t set the standards for their own state.

    Screw ’em.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      Yeah, I can’t understand how anybody could think that fuel economy standards favoring trucks and SUVs would do more to reduce fossil fuel consumption than raising fuel prices.

  • avatar
    Crosley

    It should be obvious the problem with what CA is doing is that it will effect the entire car market in the United States. And that’s exactly why they are doing it. They are trying to rule the nation from Sacramento.

    Pass a state law instead that simply rations how much gas each Californian can use. The Feds won’t stop you.
    But that would put too much pain on actual Californians.

    I would love a two-tiered auto market where the car makers only sold the hybrid compliance cars to CA, but that’s not going to happen.

    CA is free to secede, not a shot will be fired to keep them in the union.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      Secession, shooting and more fantasies of CA attempting to rule the country. I’m usually up for a good conspiracy theory, but seriously, you gotta take a breath.

      This is sad in how similar this issue is to the gun debate. Extremist views are accepted as the norm, when the truth is that most of the country is pretty moderate.

      Same with this issue.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Well said.

        I doubt seriously that anyone outside of CA gives a rat’s @ss about what happens in CA. Some lady from CA said this was a fight CA has to win.

        The question boils down to, “Can CA determine the standards that will affect the entire nation?” Phil LeBeau covered this topic for NBR this evening.

        CA will lose.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          This isn’t about CA dictating to any other state but the AQ in large cities in CA.

          This issue is blowing up not because of a change of approach CA is using. This is blowing up because Trump is acting like a petulant child. I agree with some of the issues and stances he’s taken, but this is yet another nonsensical, unforced error.

          It points to the bigger problem with Trump that even if you support his policies, if you’re honest, you have to acknowledge – he’s doing tremendous damage to us and our desire to tear apart everyone who doesn’t agree with us.

          This is so bad for us.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            The issue is important to the people that voted for Candidate Trump. After being elected he is enacting everything he said he would do during the campaign.

            A lot of people like that.

            I’ll never buy another vehicle in CA, nor will I ever live in CA again.

            But if CA can win this contention on merit, that would set precedence for the US that any and all states rights will affect the rest of the nation.

            And that would affect abortion rights, freedom of travel rights, etc etc etc.

          • 0 avatar
            Crosley

            CA also passed a law that you have to make your private tax returns public to be on the ballot to run for President. Talk about unconstitutional.

            I think we know who the “child” is is a silly vendetta against anything Trump. Orange man bad!!

            The Executive Branch is on firm legal footing here, he will easily win if it comes to the Supreme Court.

            CA will have to find something else to virtue signal with, maybe jack up gas taxes even higher. No complaints from me.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          The other 49 states and California are better with each other. Talk of succession is a fantasy on both sides. And we have settled this issue…you don’t get to vote yourselves out of the union. Even in San Francisco there are Americans who would want to stay Americans and their rights as such would have to be protected.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Exerting it’s politics defacto on the nation is very real and your eyes must be shut to not see it.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @Crosley: So what do you do when the Chinese market starts effecting the entire US market if it isn’t already?

  • avatar
    jkross22

    This is going to become a legal fight for years, or at least until the election results are in. If sanity returns and we’re dealing with a D victory, CA and the EPA should hold a vegan bbq together and don’t leave until there’s agreement on how emissions will be addressed.

    If they can’t come to an agreement, congress needs to act to either create a carve out for emission rules when public health is at risk – as I would imagine it would be for densely populated cities and/or large cities that are in valleys that trap pollutants.

    We’re here because Congress hasn’t acted on an issue that needed congressional action to avoid this foolishness.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I think that fighting with California is futile. Let California have its own standards. Eventually Trump will be out of office whether it is 2 years from now or 6 years and the automakers will likely have to deal with much stricter standards. Most automakers would rather have fewer variations in standards to comply with and if the standards are stricter they can spread the cost over more units. The best thing for the industry would be if California and Trump came to an agreement which would take the uncertainty out of what the future standards will be which is what the auto industry really wants.

    If California and the Federal Government really want to do something about air quality the best approach would be to give those who have older more polluting vehicles an incentive to get a newer less polluting vehicle taking the older vehicles off the road. Might not take all older vehicles off the road but it would do a lot more than just raising the standards. There will always be those of us who want to keep our older vehicles but an older well maintained vehicle is not the problem–the hoopties are the problem. There are many more old hoopties on the road than well maintained older vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      The large cities in California have mismanaged their growth. The right answer for LA would be a viable mass transit system on the level of literally every other city near that level size wise.

      I like owning a car. I’d probably still own one in a large city. But in New York, London, Paris, heck even the eastern Bloc city’s I go to I’d rarely use it because mass transit is the more convenient option. In LA this isn’t the case. The city has been criminally mismanaged in this respect and I know we’re I a voter out there I would demand better.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        The governor of CA recently blamed TX for the homelessness in CA. And he was right, to a point.

        Not only does CA have to deal with the influx of illegal aliens being shipped to the sanctuary cities by the CBP, the homeless in TX see a good thing and head out there as well.

        Sometimes with a little help of a donated bus ticket.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Why I it up to the people of Texas to “outbid” California for homeless people. They said all were welcome, and they are generous with benefits and not prosecuting certain crimes. I mean if I had to be homeless id want to be their for the weather, but this is their issue. They have consistently voted for the sorts of politicians that embrace policies that exacerbated this. You get the Government you deserve. Maybe they will start electing people that prioritize fixing this over “owning Trump” and failed policies.

      • 0 avatar

        LA was built as the city of cars. The timing of it’s expansion came along with highway building on personal car ownership. That has made it harder to go back to public transit. That said yes CA needs to spending more money fixing their transit issues.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Why couldn’t we just let the CAFE 2025 or whatever it was law run its course. This whole thing is only in the spotlight because Obama sped up the review to ensure it was his people and not Trump’s that got to determine how the law was enacted. Guess only some elections have consequences.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Agree a good public transit system would eliminate the need for many cars in the largest cities. The problem is that in most cities the mass transit systems are not that good and you can spend the good part of the day to get somewhere that would take an hour or less by car. I take the park and ride to work but if I had to rely on mass transit where I live it would take a lot of time and planning. In smaller communities not having a car means not being able to go anywhere.

  • avatar
    SPPPP

    I don’t really have a problem with California regulating the emissions or fuel economy of cars sold in that state. But I think there are two forks where it runs into trouble. One has been discussed a lot, but I have not seen the other one discussed at all.

    The first component is the smog-forming emissions (NOX, HC, particulates) regulations. If CA has a stricter standard, that implies that the carmakers have to either certify two versions through the Federal government, or just certify the stricter CA one. I would guess that, in most cases, carmakers would standardize on the stricter CA rules. Perhaps they would put out a few special models that were “49-state legal” (yes, I know some other states are on board with CA).

    The second problem, which I think is a little trickier, is that California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) rules are set up like CAFE (I will call it CA-CAFE for now). California’s law is set up in the logical manner, which is to say that CA-CAFE calculations are only based on the number of vehicles of each type sold in CA. The manufacturers also have an option to report CA-CAFE based on vehicles sold in all the states that have signed up with CA. This setup doesn’t seem all that bad to me, because as far as I know, CA is not trying to penalize manufacturers for what vehicles they sell in non-CA emissions states.

    I don’t think that keeping two sets of statistics is an undue burden on manufacturers. At a basic level, it’s like something you could do with one extra column and row in an Excel spreadsheet.

    However, when it comes to how manufacturers actually ensure that their sales mix meets CAFE, that could get a little trickier. As of now, it seems that the mfr’s simply make fewer large cars and powerful-engine cars at the factory. People can’t buy what doesn’t get built. Or, in some cases, they price those cars high enough that demand withers, while still allowing the mfr’s to reap profits from the few people that pay the higher price. The price has to be set high enough to offset any potential CAFE fines as well as the production costs.

    If two sets of CAFE rules (Federal CAFE and CA-CAFE) were in effect, then the manufacturers couldn’t easily take a pricing approach to the CAFE mix. They might find themselves raising prices in CA only to choke off demand for larger and more powerful cars. If the difference got big enough, CA carbuyers might want to leave the state to buy cars in other states. CA would not want to allow this, so CA would probably choose between forbidding CA residents from buying cars out of state, or trying to penalize the manufacturers for this practice by applying those cars toward CA-CAFE numbers. The manufacturers would not want that, so they would probably forbid non-CA dealers from selling to CA residents. Now there’s a nest of legal issues starting to form, from CA and the manufacturers suing each other, to the dealers suing the manufacturer, and mfr’s suing the dealers who got them in trouble, and dealers suing CA, and so on.

    I think that last situation is where the problems would really arise, and questions of “interstate commerce” would have to be examined down the road.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Just the facts, ma’am.

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

    https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173-7046

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

    Ҥ7543. State standards
    (a) Prohibition
    No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.”

    BUT

    “(b) Waiver
    (1) The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—

    (A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,

    (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or

    (C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 7521(a) of this title.

    (2) If each State standard is at least as stringent as the comparable applicable Federal standard, such State standard shall be deemed to be at least as protective of health and welfare as such Federal standards for purposes of paragraph (1).

    (3) In the case of any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine to which State standards apply pursuant to a waiver granted under paragraph (1), compliance with such State standards shall be treated as compliance with applicable Federal standards for purposes of this subchapter.”

    So if such a request for waiver is NOT:

    “(A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,

    (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or

    (C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 7521(a) of this title.”

    Then a state may request waiver to section A, which pretty much defeats the purpose of section A, IF the state’s request is not capacious, the state demonstrates it needs standards due to compelling and extraordinary conditions, and such standards conform to section 7521(a) (and sections 2 and 3 which it would meet in the case at hand).

    Based on the source, the real problem here is the circa 1966 Federal law because 1. it was written for a situation in 1966 and 2. the language was deliberately left ambiguous which is being taken advantage of for purely political purposes.

    28’s ruling:

    1. California no longer meets compelling and extraordinary conditions because the conditions it faces are not compelling nor extraordinary for Year of Our Lord 2009 or for 2019, and the law while intended to be measured against 1966 standards does not state so. In fact, I argue compared to 1966 or 1979 or even 1990 the air quality situation has improved both in 2009 and in 2019. I reiterate, CARB has been effective in improving the air quality compared to decades past, and because of its own effectiveness has created a situation where the air quality is no longer extraordinary nor compelling, therefore no waiver may be granted nor should it have been granted in 2009.

    2. California needs to lobby Congress to pass a new Federal law which sets specific standards and does not include deliberate ambitious language. So, all will meet at a minimum meet X and Y. The benefit here is it will take more time to change X and Y allowing for a break in period where standards are met but technology stabilizes, but the law would have to update say every ten years. California is using it’s status as a state to further a political agenda, this cannot be allowed.

    3. California should be allowed to set stricter standards for the LA basin, the “California emissions” of years past, as this is reasonable. This allows the state to have influence on what goes on within it’s own borders, and allows for a situation where automakers can simply choose to not offer models and drivetrains in LA/Cali and not be compelled to fulfill a more expensive California mandate for the entire nation which did not ask for it. One state in the Union cannot be allowed to dictate to others either defacto or explicitly as such a situation endangers the Union.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “Congress to pass a new Federal law”

      youtube.com/watch?v=H47ow4_Cmk0

      My man, you know the modern US is governed by executive orders from the Presidential Emperor and rulings handed out by the Nine Oracles of Justice.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I do believe a Caesar is necessary as was used in Ancient Rome, but 1. this is likely unconstitutional 2. is dangerous for the Republic and 3. a pure dictatorship has never been attempted on this scale of economy and military power in human history, therefore it may simply fail with spectacular consequences.

        https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictator-Roman-official

        War’s over, the Soviets won.

        https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/09/gas-war-white-house-preparing-to-strip-california-of-regulatory-privileges-report-claims/#comment-9803094

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      Good post 28. CARB’s tougher regulations on fuel economy are all about saving the planet from global warming and have virtually nothing to do with air quality, which is no longer a serious issue in any major American city.

      As for global warming, California could mandate that everyone live in caves off the grid and emit zero greenhouse gases and it still wouldn’t offset all the new coal plants and 2 stroke scooters in China, India, and Africa, so this is a fight over principle and not actually anything that will improve air quality or stop global warming.

      And California’s principle is that they want everyone else in the US to help pay for their virtue signaling on global warming, because they know the Democrat party would be thrown out of office in a heartbeat even in crazy Leftist California if they enacted high fuel taxes, fuel rationing, punitive taxes on gas guzzlers that would take money out of California citizen pockets to “solve” global warming.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        “… so this is a fight over principle and not actually anything that will improve air quality or stop global warming.”

        No, no no no. Don’t fall for the PR campaign that this has the slightest thing to do with the climate. The political media machine isn’t run by stupid hippies who can’t do math. This isn’t a gesture on principle. It’s the .1% and their political media machine making a stand for the biggest expansion of crony capitalism since the Cold War. They didn’t get to be the .1% by being stupid. This isn’t just a gesture.

        It’s a robbery.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @Stingray: “Good post 28. CARB’s tougher regulations on fuel economy are all about saving the planet from global warming and have virtually nothing to do with air quality, which is no longer a serious issue in any major American city.”

        — Untrue. While I agree there has been significant improvement, many American cities still have serious issues, Las Angeles being the most notable but even cities in many parts of the country with similar temperature inversion conditions have their issues, such as Denver, CO, Chattanooga, TN and almost any other city that resides in a valley. Las Angeles is the most obvious simply because of its massive population which raises that concentration to visible levels even on a good day. While not as bad as the Chinese cities at the moment, the air of California’s four most major cities still exceeds permissible pollution levels and will only get worse if CARB’s rules end up being revoked.

        Your second paragraph shows a serious lack of knowledge as, while admittedly China is building roughly five new coal-fired power plants, they are each replacing 100-year-old plants that have no pollution controls on them while China is also installing solar capability at a rate faster than any other nation in the world. They already have enough solar capacity to exceed ALL of Canada’s daily needs, winter or summer, and are not slowing that expansion. China is dedicated to closing all of its coal-fired generation as quickly as it can but they cannot do so if sufficient capacity of renewable energy isn’t yet available. The new coal plants are literally replacing 2x to 4x of their oldest plants in order to give them time to develop and install newer technologies as they come available.

        India, too, is committing to solar and wind as it can, though the challenges there are different from China’s and has as much to do with their monsoon season as it does with population growth. India is today where China was about 50 years ago in many ways, simply because as a nation they could not afford to build ahead of their needs and until recently was barely able to keep up with demand.

        So you are right that California, by itself, would have small effect on global conditions but the lessons learned in California are being felt as more states and more NATIONS recognize those lessons and apply them in their own regions. Taking this all the way back to the President’s tweet, even if ultimately the waivers are ultimately revoked–meaning after all litigation is concluded–it will have no effect on the final outcome as the automotive OEMs have already been forced to spend money on reduced- and zero-emissions vehicle design and the global market will end up driving what even the American OEMs will produce–as it will end up costing them more money to build to different global markets when only the US is buying ICEVs any more.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      Extremely well stated 28.

  • avatar
    Sceptic

    Finally a president that stands for all Americans. Even despicable, deplorable, disposable ones! For far too long extremist elites had too much leverage given to them. All states have to follow the federal law. California is no exception.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      If only that were true.

      • He is bankrupting career farmers as they cannot sell their crops NOR will they have enough money to plant new crops. Many lifetime farmers have already committed suicide simply because they can no longer survive. Guess where there lands will end up and who benefits as a result.
      • He is actively working to take food out of the mouths of people who cannot afford to buy food through the pending bills and efforts to, among other things, shut down food stamps. Many of his strongest supporters during the last election need those food stamps to survive.
      * He is actively working to gut Social Security–the monies every tax-paying worker paid into the system to ensure a livable, if not “comfortable”, retirement. He’s basically saying that if you can’t work, you don’t deserve to live.

      Do these things really sound like someone who stands for ALL Americans? Or only the wealthy ones?

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        Vulpine, I don’t think they are open to acknowledge the truth. Most ideologically driven people place their beliefs in front of truth. They have blind spots that their thinking won’t allow them to account for.

        For example, rather than understanding the air quality and science behind CARB, those arguing in support of Trump’s actions against CA see it as an ideological decision. It appears that no amount of explaining the truth, facts, science or health impacts can be heard or understood or believed. They believe what they are told by Trump, then seek out only the info that supports that position. At the same time, they will discredit or ignore information from sources like the Amer. Lung Assoc. that prove their thinking is wrong.

        If Trump signed an executive order that lowered the drinking age to 14, it’s hard to imagine many of his supporters having a problem with it.

  • avatar
    hpycamper

    Not allowing CARB to set standards to deal with emissions, which are a very real problem, may force them to do something more extreme, like ban the sale of new ICE vehicles at some point. That would have a more profound effect on the costs of vehicles nationaly than ICE emission standards.
    Does anyone have credible numbers for the actual costs of national vs CARB standards compliance? This seems to be the main issue here, but I haven’t seen any numbers.

  • avatar
    cprescott

    It says a lot when Obama invoked Executive action and the left was all for it; when Trump does the same thing under the same power granted to him because these are EXECUTIVE BRANCH DEPARTMENTS, the left is whining he is doing something illegal.

    Let me remind you that Obama did not advance anything here based on science – he was doing so for an agenda devoid of it with carefully cherry-picked data points to support any claim of “manmade climate change” which oddly only punishes the US while ignoring the real polluters from Asia and India.

    Trump is legally correct to do what he’s doing and just because it crosses the left does not make it illegal. And it is no less insidious in its direction than the former King Pimple of a Man who used standards to punish those who dare want to drive big vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenn

      “…carefully cherry-picked data points to support any claim of “manmade climate change”

      Congratulations! You are a member of a highly select group of climate change skeptics: American Republicans (who are opposed to virtually all current climate scientists and the entire educated population of this planet).

  • avatar
    lon888

    Petty political morons do petty things. What else would one expect from a draft dodging, tax evading villain. This twit has to go.

  • avatar
    lon888

    Petty political morons do petty things. What else would one expect from a draft dodging, tax evading villain. This twit has to go.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Kenn–The Republican Party has changed. Under President Nixon the EPA and OSHA were created–not saying this as a fan of Nixon but the Republican Party has changed. Republicans of the past were more interested in fiscal responsibility, free trade, states rights, and less interested in interfering with people’s private lives. Even Reagan would not be welcomed in today’s Republican Party–too liberal.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    In 2019:
    – Politics has jumped the shark.
    – California is mid-jump.
    – Automotive industry is lining up on the ramp.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • bullnuke: My former OEM coating company (one of the “big three” PPG, DuPont, and us) attempted to offer...
  • johnds: I am in the same boat, however I see some good compromises. The newer models will perform a lot better in a...
  • Menar Fromarz: Damn! I thought the same thing!
  • R Henry: “But we must save the planet NOW…..!!!! We are all gonna DIE!!!!!” –Greta Thunburg,...
  • Superdessucke: And the little turd Ecosport sold 54k units in 2018. Yet there’s (unfortunately) no talk of...

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