By on December 1, 2020

The Ford Motor Company is asking automakers to join it in supporting Californian vehicle emissions targets aimed at supplanting the rollback that was supposed to become the national standard. General Motors has already abandoned its support of the Trump rollbacks, which offered concessions to appease environmental groups but ultimately targeted more lax fueling regulation while seeking to eliminate California’s ability to self regulate as a way to curb its influence. But industry leaders are under the impression that a President Biden would attempt to swiftly transmission back to Obama-era regulatory targets or simply adopt the California model that’s been at odds with the national standards established by the Trump administration.

Considering how aggressive the Biden-Harris energy/environmentalism platform is, it certainly seems a plausible scenario and certain automotive executives feel that it would be best to go into 2021 aligned and supportive. The matter is even scheduled to be brought forward during Tuesday’s virtual auto trade association meeting.

This presumes that the election won’t be overturned and everything goes as predicted by the mainstream media. That means a President-elect Biden with electors going largely unswayed by the evidence presented by concerned citizens, poll watchers, statistical analysts, and Trump’s legal team over the next two weeks. But, according to Reuters, Ford has already prognosticated a Biden administration and has seen the writing on the wall based on the people he’s selecting for his team, vocal commitment to rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, praise of Cash for Clunkers, and previous statements made about the need to end fracking — and likely the United States’ short-lived energy independence.

From Reuters:

In a previously unreported letter, Ford Americas President Kumar Galhotra on Wednesday said with Biden’s win, the fight over Trump’s effort to preempt California on vehicle emissions “is now, at least for the next set of years, essentially moot. The more relevant issue is thus the question of the standards.”

Galhotra urged automakers “to actively consider embracing the California framework.”

He added: “The Biden Administration will not let the Trump standards stand, and either by way of litigation and/or a regulatory reboot, the new team will move in a different, more stringent direction.”

Plenty of Biden’s platforms mimic California’s regulatory norms — especially in regard to issues like the economy, gun control, energy, and transportation. So it’s not unreasonable to assume his administration might pursue fueling targets that closely match those desired by the Golden State. But we’ve discussed this ad nauseam and won’t bore you with anything more than a few links back to the relevant articles.

The important thing to remember is that Democrat leadership in the executive branch will undoubtedly pursue much stricter emission standards and Ford is asking everyone to get on board ahead of time. It joined with BMW, Honda, and Volkswagen Group in July of 2019 in a voluntary agreement to adhere to Californian emission limits rather than whatever the (then undecided) national standard would be through 2026. Other automakers stayed silent or backed the Trump administration in embracing less stringent standards that provided them greater flexibility in the types of automobiles they could manufacture and sell.

Last month, California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols had also said the state’s emissions agreement with automakers could serve as a “good template” for federal standards. Reuters noted that Ford recently suggested the same, adding that Tom Carper of Delaware — the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee — said “the rest of the automakers should end their challenges to state authority and embrace the California framework as the first step in setting standards that get us to where we need to be.”

As of now, we’ve not been informed which part of Los Angeles they’ll be relocating the United States Capitol. But we’ll keep you posted as it continues becoming the nexus of decision making in America.

[Image: Siripatv/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

46 Comments on “Gas War: Ford Urges Other Automakers to Join the Californian Coalition...”

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Biden won; it’s not worth suggesting other fantastic outcomes.

    Winners do what winners do: They set policy as broadly as possible. Opponents will enjoy only a few wins here and there. Don’t like it? – Do better in the next election.

    As for California, it *does* contain 12% of the US population and 5.5% of its cars – almost twice as many as #2 Texas. They should have a say, but I’d prefer a uniform standard that isn’t so restrictive.

    • 0 avatar


    • 0 avatar

      Biden-Harris ‘should have been’ an easy win over Trump-Pence, but as things stand they barely eked it out.

      Here is a potentially-interesting piece of fiction. I don’t pretend to understand all the statistics, so mostly I just look at the pretty graphs (made-up graphs, keep in mind):

    • 0 avatar

      “Biden won”…BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA…You mean the Dems cheat their asses off and the compliant media and swamp are selling the steal. I am non-partisan, non religious and pro choice, and wouldn’t give you a plugged nickle for any politician, be they Repub or Dem, but you are simply not paying attention if you think this was a fair election. I recommend staying away from ALL MSM and getting a prescription for Red pills.

      • 0 avatar

        No one won elections. America lost its authority as a leader of the free world because US election system is in chaos which is easily manipulated. I do not trust it anymore and it is not only me. And add to it that no one in USA cares to investigate what actually happened.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Politicians above all else want to get reelected. The supposed blue wave that turned into losses in the house and a bunch of nothing thus far in the Senate (Remember, the Democratic candidates in the senate races in Georgia got less votes than the Republicans in an environment where Biden won at the top of the ticket and in the Osoff Perdue Race it was a nearly 90,000 vote gap) ensures that the progressive fantasies with respect to this stuff is off the table. In short, very little is likely to change without the massive shift in the elecorate that we were told over and over was coming last month yet failed to materialize. People didn’t like Trump’s nonsense, but that doesnt mean they want “The Squad” running the show either. Or did I miss something in the results?

      Bottom line, we went from “Blue Wave” to the House being in play for Republicans in 2024 in one night. Don’t think that won’t factor in to Biden’s agenda. Honestly, it’s a pretty decent outcome if you arent a fan of idiotic extremes on either side.

      And @Imagefront, people spent 4 years saying a Presidential election was stolen and seem shocked when people think the next one was. Don’t want no faith in elections? Quit undermining them and that goes for both lousy sides.

    • 0 avatar

      Biden is winning about as much as Ford is.

  • avatar

    From the 60s into the 80s, manufacturers all had “California specials” – specific models to meet the state’s more restrictive emissions laws.

    Those don’t seem to exist any more. I can only guess that means all current models meet California standards… so isn’t the point somewhat moot?

  • avatar

    So sad to see them cower in terror.

  • avatar

    “electors going largely unswayed by the evidence presented by concerned citizens, poll watchers, statistical analysts, and Trump’s legal team…”

    What evidence? SMH. 30+ thrown-out, dismissed or withdrawn lawsuits indicates scant little of that “evidence.”

    • 0 avatar

      I believe Matt’s keyboard has an “invisible quotations” key. At least, that’s how I read the article.

    • 0 avatar

      …or simply the “fix is in”.

      Though perhaps all of these people could be lying and all of the odd events are just coincidence. Its simply unpossible mass mail “voting” -in and of itself- could in any way lead to fraud after all.

      • 0 avatar
        Matt Posky

        Anyone who has bothered to watch the hearings by taking the time to pull themselves away from network “news” (the quotations key actually works) should be well versed in the claims and concerns regarding the 2020 election. You don’t have to like or dislike that votes are in dispute and I don’t care who anyone backed in the race. But everyone who is acting as if we’re doing some public disservice by mentioning the current realities of the nation (in an aside no less) should be embarrassed for actively demanding less information.

        • 0 avatar

          The minute mail was introduced as a vector it 100% guaranteed some level of fraud. Now this could be a level of 0.0001% or perhaps 50%, I don’t really know. But allowing it delegitimized the 2020 election and we will never know the truth for sure. I will also add, running Bernie in 2016 and 2020 would have probably resulted in a legitimate win both times without the need for mail fraud. Very telling this was not allowed to happen, twice.

          The current reality is conveniently right after the election they are ready to inject people with a “vaccine” which the researchers threw out all safety protocols on and manufacturer have a liability shield protecting them against, because there will be unforeseen consequences. Then I read it went from one vaccine to multiple administrations, next it will be several and probably then seasonal. Cui bono? This after all of the other convenient events of this year leading to this point. I like many cannot wait for the year to end, but I don’t see ’21 being much better. We are in the middle of 9/11 x 10 and its extremely clear whether all of this was intended or not that they will leverage it to impose insane edicts while the sheeple bend over and say “please sir may I have another”.

          Through the looking glass now…

  • avatar

    “The Ford Motor Company is asking automakers to join it in supporting Californian vehicle emissions targets…”

    Back in my day, this was referred to as “collusion” – but hey, rules are for suckers, right? :-)

    • 0 avatar

      “Colluding” to make the earth a safer place for your children and grandchildren? I don’t think that’s something to complain about.

    • 0 avatar

      ToolGuy, it has long been and continues to illegal for competitors to engage together in the commission of anti-competitive practices intended to benefit themselves and disadvantage consumers – price-fixing, market-sharing, advertising limitations, etc.

      It is not illegal for competitors to collaborate to promote public policy initiatives, especially those that relate to public health and safety.

      Ford’s outreach is the latter, not the former

      • 0 avatar

        OK. I’m still a little fuzzy:

      • 0 avatar

        All that these manufacturers need say when “in the commission of anti-competitive practices intended to benefit themselves and disadvantage consumers – price-fixing, market-sharing, advertising limitations, etc.” is alleged is that “We’re helping Mother Earth”. All sins will then be forgiven.

        • 0 avatar

          I appreciate everyone helping me out here. Crystal-clear at this point, absolutely cut-and-dried, no shades of gray anywhere.

          It is ok for automakers to separately discuss emissions standards (away from ‘regulators’ and out of the public eye) because they only ever discuss changes which would *improve* the environment and benefit consumers. Never any discussions or agreements (wink wink) which might trend the other direction. Never. Got it.

          Teddy Roosevelt, with his trust-busting attack dogs, would scoff at today’s regulatory lap-dogs.

  • avatar

    “the evidence presented by concerned citizens, poll watchers, statistical analysts, and Trump’s legal team over the next two weeks”?

    The Trump lawyers have not presented any evidence of voter fraud so far, Matt, what makes you think that will change during the next 2 weeks?

    To date, they’ve been summarily tossed out of court in at least 38 cases. That’s an impressive record – of losing.

    • 0 avatar

      So much losing! We’re gonna lose so much you’ll get tired of losing!
      The words “Trump”, “Rudy”, “liar” and “loser” will all become synonymous.

    • 0 avatar

      You are kidding right? Welcome to the brave new world. Russian collusion did not have any evidence but judicial system pursued it for four years!

      • 0 avatar

        “The long-awaited report from the Senate Intelligence Committee contains dozens of new findings that appear to show more direct links between Trump associates and Russian intelligence, and pierces the president’s long-standing attempts to dismiss the Kremlin’s intervention on his behalf as a hoax.” These include a determination “that a longtime partner of Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was, in fact, a Russian intelligence officer.”

        • 0 avatar

          Nice link there Lou.

          • 0 avatar

            @285exp – a 2nd quick search lists the members:

            Washington post was the source of the excerpt.

            Richard Burr, North Carolina, Chairman
            (until May 15, 2020)
            Marco Rubio, Florida, Acting Chairman
            (from May 18, 2020)[1]
            Jim Risch, Idaho
            Susan Collins, Maine
            Roy Blunt, Missouri
            Tom Cotton, Arkansas
            John Cornyn, Texas
            Ben Sasse, Nebraska

            Mark Warner, Virginia, Vice Chairman
            Dianne Feinstein, California
            Ron Wyden, Oregon
            Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
            Angus King, Maine[20]
            Kamala Harris, California
            Michael Bennet, Colorado

            This report is far from being a partisan hack job.

          • 0 avatar

            So Lou, what evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians did Mueller and his merry band of Democratic hit men find in their multi year investigation? The Senate report found no evidence of it either.


            And the Wapo is not a particularly unbiased source here.

          • 0 avatar

            @285exp – The Washington Post when assessed by neutral media watchdogs rates them as “leaning left”. When the same group rates their accuracy, they are rated “High”.
            This is from “AllSides” site.

            It is valuable to know how a news outlet sits on the political spectrum. News outlets that are centrist or slightly left or right of centre tend to be much more accurate in their reporting than outlets that are far right or far left.
            Accuracy is also importand and again more “centrist” news outlets tend to be more accurate.
            One also needs to filter out the opinion side from the news side. A good case in point is Fox News versus Fox opinion. Reports from Neil Cavuto or Chris Wallace are factual whereas Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity tend to be fantastical.

  • avatar

    Many hated Trump so much so they voted for Biden (and essentially Harris) and will take into account an increase of energy prices? Sounds like Europeans – always voting for the political parties which screw them over and over again.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Art Vandelay: scroll by if you dont like it cheese d!ck
  • Arthur Dailey: McDonalds first opened in Russia in January of 1990. It was the Canadian McDonalds’ operations...
  • FreedMike: Yeah, there is a difference – no matter how much of Ukraine the Russians succeed in taking, the war...
  • jkross22: Lou, No evidence I post will change your mind. No observable truths will change your mind. I doubt even...
  • Arthur Dailey: @Jk. Critical thinking is crucial. Which is why conspiracy theories largely fall apart. They are based...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber